Sitting of 24 April 1902

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

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

PRIVATE DILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
Imperial Institute Bill [Lords].
Ordered, that the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time tomorrow.

PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISIN) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz:—
London and North-Western Railway Bill.
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

WREXHAM WATER BILL [LORDS].
As amended, considered; to he read the third time.
SCARBOROUGH TRAMWAYS BILL.
  NORWICH CORPORATION (ELECTRICITY, ETC.) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.*

  YORK CORPORATION BILL.
  The CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN of WAYS AND MRANS in pursuance of Standing Order No. 83, relating to Private Bills, informed the House that, in his opinion, the York Corporation Bill, though unopposed, ought to be treated as an opposed Private Bill.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).
  Mr. CAWLEY Mr. CAWLEY reported from the Committee on Croup B of Private Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
  The CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN of WAYS AND MRANS informed the House that the Committee on Group I of Private Bills not being appointed to meet until Tuesday next, the parties promoting the Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) [Mallow] Bill, which was set down for consideration on the first day of the meeting of the Committee, had appeared before him and proved that the evidence of Dr. Thomas Browne, Inspector of the Local Government Board for Ireland, was

  1167
  essential to their case, and that his attendance could not be procured with-, out the intervention of the House.
  Ordered, That the said Dr. Thomas Browne do attend the Committee on Group I of Private Bills on Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Wadhurst Gas Bill, with an Amendment.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; From Milton and Bedlingtonshire; to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Lanark, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Pickering and Tyldesley; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Bussage, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Guisborough, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOURS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Middlesbrough (three), Grangetown, Sheffield, Worcester, Bradford (Yorkshire), and Wadsley Bridge; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION PROSECUTIONS BILL.
  Petition from King's Lynn, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  DUTIES ON BRITISH GOODS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Return ordered, "of the rates of import duties levied in European countries, the United States, and Japan upon the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  MAINTENANCE OF ROADS IN RURAL DISTRICTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE COUNTIES IN IRELAND.
  Return ordered, "for the year ended 31st day of March, 1901, setting out

  (a) The name of each administrative county in Ireland;

  (b) The mileage of roads (including main roads maintained in each rural district);

  (c) The average cost of maintenance per mile of such roads (including main roads);

  (d) The mileage of main roads in each rural district;

  (e) The average cost of maintenance per mile of such main roads;

  (f) Total mileage of roads under (b) in each county;

  (g) Total mileage of main roads under (d) in each county;

  (h) The total expenditure on roads under (b) in each county;

  (k) The total expenditure on main roads under (d) in each county;

  (l) Average cost of maintenance per mile of roads under (b) in each county;

  (m) Average cost of maintenance per mile of main roads under (d) in each county;

  all particulars to be in respect of the said period."—(Mr. Kennedy.)

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GENERAL REPORT.)
  Copy presented of General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Northern Division of Scotland for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACT 1879 AND 1884.
  Return presented relative thereto [Address 23rd April; Mr. Jess Collings]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 154.]
  WARS IN SOUTH AFRICA AND CHINA (COST AND EXPENDITURE).
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 17th April; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 155.]
  NATIONAL DEBT ANNUITIES.
  Account presented of the gross amount of all bank annuities and any annuities for terms of years transferred, and of all sums of money paid to the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt, and the gross amount of annuities for lives and for terms of years, etc., granted within the year ended 5th January, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 156.]
  CAPE OF GOOD HOPE OBSERVATORY.
  Copy presented of Report of the Astronomer to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Copy presented of Return of Farm Buildings, etc., in Cape Colony and Natal destroyed by the Boers [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  Name or description of article.

  Quantity imported during year ended 31st March, 1902.

  Rate of duty.

  Amounts which would have been contributed by each article.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  —(Mr. John Ellis.)

(3.35.) QUESTIONS.
  South African War—Military Prisoners in South Africa.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended, upon the termination of the war in South Africa, to detain in custody either British civilian subjects or aliens who may be imprisoned undergoing sentences imposed by military tribunals or courts martial; and, if so, by what authority can this course of policy be adopted.
  SOUTH AFRICA (DESPATCHES.)
  Copy presented of Despatch by General Lord Kitchener, dated 8th March, 1902, relative to military operations in South Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing, for the year ended 31st day of March, 1902, (1) the amount contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, to the Revenue collected by Imperial officers; (2) the expenditure on English, Scottish, and Irish services met out of such Revenue; and (3) the balances of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively which are available for Imperial expenditure (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 90, of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Lough.)

  CUSTOMS IMPORT DUTIES.
  Return ordered, "giving the name of each article on which the proposed Customs Import Duties of 3d. and 5d. respectively will be charged with the quantities of each imported during the financial year ended the 31st day of March, 1902, and the respective amounts which each article would have contributed to the revenue had the proposed Duty then been in operation.
  THE FIRST LORD OF the TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Question is. I think, the hon. Member will see, premature at the present moment.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But was not the war ended last September twelvemonth?

  The "Johannesburg Star."
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office gave orders that two articles from the "Johannesburg Star," enclosed in

  1171
  Lord Milner's despatch to him of 26th April. 1899, should not be printed in [C. 9345]; and whether, seeing that there is no instance in all the papers and articles printed in this volume where Lord Milner having called his attention to any article the same was not printed or had previously been printed, will he explain why an exception was made in the case of these two articles.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR the COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN.): I have already informed the hon. Member in reply to his Question of the. 18th that these articles were not considered of sufficient public interest to print. No exceptional course has been adopted, and I have nothing to add to that answer.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether two articles from the "Johannesburg Star," enclosed in Lord Milner's despatch to him of 26th April, 1899, contained a passage that the people of the Rand are united and fixed in their determination not to accept their present political status as final, and not to remain for ever as helots under the domination of their Boer masters.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the affirmative.

  Deaths in Concentration Camps.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what is the explanation of the discrepancies between the original and revised figures in the Return of Deaths in the Concentration Camps in January and February last.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The original figures which were received by telegraph appear to he incorrect, but I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the revised figures.

  Martial Law-Case of Mr. Cartwright.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mr. Albert Cartwright has now completed the term of imprisonment imposed upon him a year ago by a court of law in Cape Colony; whether
  1172
  he is now free to return to England; and, if not, on what grounds, in the absence of any legal charge, he is compulsorily detained in Cape Town.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): He has completed his term of imprisonment. I am in communication with Lord Kitchener respecting his further detention.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last clause of my Question—on what grounds is Mr. Cartwright detained?
  MR. BRODRICK: I answered that the other day in reply to the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I shall take the opportunity to call the attention of the House to this subject after Questions.

  Lord Wolseley's Visit to South Africa.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what facilities, if any, were offered to Lord Wolseley on the occasion of his recent visit to South Africa, having regard to the fact that he was Commander-in-Chief of the British Army in the early period of the South African War and his position as a military historian, to visit the scenes of the operations in South Africa, during the period of his supreme command of the British Army.
  MR. BRODRICK: May I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a Question put by the hon. Member for South Leitrim on March 18th, to which I have nothing to add.†
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: My Question now is whether any facilities were offered to Lord Wolseley to visit the battlefields. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer "Yes" or "No"?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then I will put this Question—Was Lord Wolseley refused facilities to visit the battlefields?
  † See preceding volume, p. 317.
  MR. BRODRICK: The answer is covered by what I said before.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then I beg to give notice that—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order; The hon. Gentleman must take the answer of the Minister for better or worse.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes, Sir, I shall take the answer for worse; and I wish now to say that I will put the Question again tomorrow.

  Recent Boer Raid on Kimberley.
  MR. DILLON, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information as to the attack made by the Boers on the suburbs of Kimberley on the 28th March last, in the course of which it is alleged that they looted all the stores and houses for a distance of fifteen miles; and whether he can explain how the Boers came to be in force in the neighbourhood of Kimberley at this stage of the war.
  MR. BRODRICK: It appears that under cover of an inquiry as to terms of surrender, a party of Boers under De Villiers were allowed to approach Kimberley and took advantage of this to drive oft' some cattle, getting away rapidly before they could be intercepted. De Villiers' conduct is described by Lord Kitchener as a hoax.

  Olivier's Farm Fight.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any details of the fight which took place at Olivier's Farm, near Ficksburg, on Sunday last.
  MR. BRODRICK: No details have yet been forwarded from South Africa.

  Peace Communications.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the loss of life still going on on both sides in South Africa, he will reconsider the refusal to grant an armistice pending the decision of the commandoes on the terms of peace.
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir.

  Spion Kop Despatches.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Sir Redvers Buller, or any one authorised by him, has ever asked for the publication of the Spion Kop despatches containing criticism of Sir C. Warren; and whether Sir Redvers Buller was ever consulted, or given an opportunity of expressing an opinion, on the expediency of the publication just made.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The right hon. Gentleman wishes me to state that Sir Redvers Buller's statement on this subject and his request that—
  "If any further publication is intended, my words may be published I as written, and without manipulation, and that the opportunity will he taken to correct; in this respect previous publication "
  will be in the recollection of the House. He was not consulted as to the publication made in consequence.
  MR. LAMBERT: May I ask the noble Lord whether the statement he quotes from Sir Redvers Buller was not made in regard to a totally different matter—namely, the Ladysmith telegram, and not to the Spion Kop despatches?
  LORD STANLEY: I have given the answer which my right hon. friend, who is unavoidably prevented from being in the House, has asked me to give in this respect.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Yes Sir, but will the noble Lord undertake to publish the Ladysmith despatches without manipulation?
  LORD STANLEY: If they are pub lished at all, it is not for me to say when or how they are to be published, except this, that I am certain they will be published, as the others were, without manipulation.
  MR. LAMBERT: If the noble Lord will refer to Sir Redvers Buller's letter of April 5th to the First Lord of the Treasury, he will find that the statement I have made is absolutely accurate.

  South African League.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that members on the executive of the South African League have for many months past openly advocated that all Boors taken prisoners should be immediately hung; that they have described the Boers as human vermin who should be placed on a lower level than Kaffirs; and whether, in view of these facts, he will forthwith give instructions to prevent this organisation holding meetings in South Africa during the war.
  LORD STANLEY: I am not aware of the circumstances alluded to, and I do not propose to give any instructions on the matter.

  Colonel Long.
  MR. WILLIAM M'KILLOP: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the appointment of a Colonel Long to the position of Inspectory of Veterinary Hospitals in South Africa; will he state if this is the officer who lost his guns at Colenso, and what other qualifications he possesses for this particular appointment.
  LORD STANLEY: Colonel Long, who is now Inspector of Veterinary Hospitals in South Africa, is the Artillery officer mentioned. He has a great practical knowledge of horses, and has long been known as one of the best horse masters in the Royal Artillery. He has done excellent service in the Remount Department for several months.

  Martial Law in South Africa.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Return respecting Martial Law in South Africa ordered by the House on the 8th April will be presented.
  LORD STANLEY: As I have already informed the House, the preparation of this Return involves considerable labour, but I hope to be able to present the Return at no distant date.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I hope the Secretary for War will not forget that a Return identical with this was ordered in March last in another place.

  Shot Drill at Lichfield Gaol.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will now state the action taken and the result of the full investigation which was called for and instituted with reference to the practice of inflicting; the penalty of shot drill, which has been abolished in the Army since April, 1899, on prisoners in the military cells at Lichfield up till 17th February last.
  LORD STANLEY: The officers concerned have been censured.

  Tweefontein Incident.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now say how many cartridges fell into the hands of General de Wet when four months ago he captured the whole of the depôt camp at Tweefontein; and, if information on this point has not been communicated to the War Office, what explanation, if any, can be given for Lord Kitchener's reticence; if information has reached the War Office, will he explain why it has not been communicated to the public.
  LORD STANLEY: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on the 21st January.†
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What is the reason for Lord Kitchener's reticence? Has the noble Lord anything to say as to that?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir.

  Military Commandants in South Africa.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any qualifications as to rank, length of service, or other conditions have been required in respect of those appointed to be commandants of military districts established under the operation of martial law in South Africa; and whether such commandants have in all cases been officers of the British Army, or in some cases officers of the forces raised in the Cape or other Colonies.
  LORD STANLEY: Officers in charge of districts are selected from the experienced senior officers available, Since
  † See (4) Debates, ci., 455.

  1177
  December, 1901, officers specially selected have been appointed administrators of martial law in each area in addition to the officers commanding the districts; of these three have been Colonial officers selected by Lord Kitchener with special qualifications.

  Courts Martial.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Courts Martial on Commandants Scheepers and Krit-zinger took place with closed doors; and, if so, in view of it being laid down in paragraph 71, Manual of Military Law, that such a Court must be open to the public, military or otherwise, if he can state by what authority the public were excluded.
  LORD STANLEY: I have no information to show that the trials referred to were held with closed doors. The procedure laid down in the Manual of Military Law does not necessarily apply to Military Courts held under martial law.

  Army Medical Service.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a medical officer attains the ranks of captain and major at three and twelve years of service, and a veterinary officer attains the same ranks at seven and a half and fifteen years respectively; if so, will he explain the reason for this difference.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why there are such differences in rank, pay, and promotion between the medical and veterinary services in the Army; and whether he is now prepared to place them on the same footing.
  LORD STANLEY: The facts are practically as stated. A new Warrant for the Army Veterinary Department has just been issued giving considerable and additional advantages, and I am not prepared to make any further additions thereto.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: Will the noble Lord state what the advantages are?
  LORD STANLEY: They are set out in the Warrant.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: Where is the Warrant to be obtained?
  LORD STANLEY: I do not know whether it has been published in the Press, but it certainly is in the hands of those most interested.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I shall apply for a copy.
  LORD STANLEY: The hon. Member can have one.

  Volunteer Camp Allowance.
  MR. PURVIS: On behalf of the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what the camp allowance for the Volunteer force will be in the present year.
  LORD STANLEY: They will receive the same allowance as last year, viz., officers 8s. a day, and men, 2s. 6d. a day; except the battalions told oil for the Field Army, who will get—officers 11s. 6d. a day, men 5s. a day.

  Volunteer Service Medal.
  MR. PIRIE: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the closer relations which now obtain between the different branches of the service, and with the view of having trained soldiers in the ranks of the Volunteer Force, the War Office will consider the advisability, of allowing six years service with the Colours, six years with the Reserve, and fourteen years with the Volunteers, to; count for the long service medal.
  LORD STANLEY: This medal is in tended for Volunteer service only. It would be most unfair to the Volunteers, generally to allow men who had served in other forces to reckon such service as if it had been voluntary service.

  Cavalry Commissions to Imperial Yeomanry Officers.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the number of officers of Imperial

  1179
  Yeomanry who have been given commissions as captains on probation in cavalry regiments since the commencement of the war, and to what regiments such officers have been appointed; and whether he will state the number of subalterns of cavalry with at present four and five years regular Army service respectively.
  LORD STANLEY: Seven officers, late of the imperial Yeomanry, South Africa, and one from Roberts' Horse, have been granted commissions as captains on probation in the following cavalry regiments:—3rd and 6th Dragoon Guards; 3rd, 4th, 8th, and 14th Hussars; 6th Dragoons; and 21st Lancers. There are 34 subalterns of cavalry with four years service, 23 with five years service, and 36 with six years service.

  Royal Field Artillery Uniforms.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that the distinguishing numbers of batteries in the Royal Field Artillery have lately been removed from the shoulder straps of the men's uniforms; and whether, with a view to maintaining the esprit de corps, and the old spirit of emulation between batteries, he will permit the wearing of these numerals to be resumed.
  LORD STANLEY: The Royal Artillery full dress, which will be the walking out dress when the service dress clothing is issued, has cords on the shoulders, and does not therefore admit of the wearing of numerals.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: Were the officers of the batteries consulted before the change was made?
  LORD STANLEY: I cannot say.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Can the Regulation be altered so as to have the numerals on other than walking out uniforms, which the men are not always wearing?
  LORD STANLEY: I will inquire if it can be done in the case of the service dress.

  Hong Kong Defences.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that, although the new territory on the Kowloon side of Hong Kong was acquired mainly for the purpose of protecting the Colony, no steps whatever have been taken to fortify the hills; and will he say whether this inaction has the sanction of the Defence Committee and His Majesty's Government.
  MR. BRODRICK: May I refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given to a Question he put on this subject on March 24th, to which I have nothing to add.†
  MR. WEIR: But this Question has never been asked before. Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that this Kowloon territory was acquired for the better protection of the colony?
  MR. BRODIUCK: I admit nothing.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Why should Hong Kong be better protected than Gibraltar?

  Naval Engineer Officers.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the engineer officers in the Navy are at their full strength; and, if not, will he state what is the number of present vacancies.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,: The numbers of engineer officers voted for the year 1902–1903 are not at present fully borne, and as the entry of officers from Keyham and from outside technical colleges docs not take place until July, the hon. Member will understand that it is never possible for the numbers voted to be reached by this period of the financial year. The number of vacancies remaining to be filled is eighty-five.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state how many vacancies were
  * See preceding volume, p. 823.

  1181
  offered, how many candidates sat, and how many were successful at the last two examinations in January and March for the rank of assistant engineers for temporary service in the Navy.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There was no specific number of appointments as assistant engineers for temporary service offered for competition either in January or March. The examination in January was not held, as no candidates were forthcoming; in March two candidates presented themselves, of whom one was successful.
  MR. BARTLEY: Am I to understand that these two examinations failed to attract any candidates?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: For temporary engineers, yes.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: May I ask whether there are at present engineers sufficient to man the A Division of the Fleet Reserve at Chatham?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the answer.

  Subvention of Merchant Steamers for War Service.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether subventions for the right of pre-emption or hire of ships as armed cruisers or transports are paid by the Admiralty to companies whose ships fly the British flag but are owned abroad; whether, in the event of war, there is anything to prevent these companies from substituting a foreign flag for the British flag at short notice; and whether the Admiralty has any practical means of enforcing its right of pre-emption or hire in such a case, or whether, by abandoning the subvention, the companies could claim that the right of pre-emption had ceased.
  Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No subventions have been at any time or are now paid for the right of pre-emption or hire of ships as armoured cruisers or transport to companies whose ships fly the British flag but are owned abroad. The second and third paragraphs of the
  1182
  hon. Member's Question involve important legal points which I am afraid I cannot deal with in answer to a Question. But the whole matter is being carefully considered with a view to defining the rights of the Admiralty in the event of the situation suggested by the hon. Member arising.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether information has reached the Admiralty that the owners of certain vessels forming part of the Royal Reserve of Merchant Cruisers have entered, or are about to enter, into a trade combination under foreign control; whether the conditions of the subsidy are compatible with such an arrangement; and whether the Admiralty are taking any action in the matter.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. The situation referred to was certainly not contemplated when the present form of agreement was settled, and the Admiralty have appointed a Committee to consider and report on the purport and form of future subsidy agreements. Meanwhile, they have made an arrangement with the White Star Line which will preclude the possibility of any of their subsidised or retained merchant cruisers being transferred to a foreign flag without the consent of the Admiralty during the unexpired portion of the current subsidy agreement, terminating some three years hence.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: The hon. Gentleman only mentioned the White Star Line, but what about the other lines?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The White Star Line is the only one which has subsidised cruisers.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked the hon. Gentleman whether he would see that on the Committee there should be some person conversant with the law of nations.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am not responsible for the nomination of the Committee, but I will take care that the reasonable wish of my hon. friend is represented to those who are.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any information, to the effect that the vessels belonging to several line of steamboats trading between this country and the United States of America have been sold to a company with a capital of £34,000,000 and having its principal place of business in the United States, while the vessels will retain and will sail under the British flag; whether British vessels when sold to a foreign company having its principal place of business abroad retain their British registry, or whether, under such circumstances, the vessels cease to be British and become foreign vessels, disentitled to a British register and to sail under the British flag.
  THE PRESIDENT OF the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I have not before me information which will enable me to say that a sale of the vessels referred to has taken place. But if such a sale has taken place the vessels would lose their British registry.

  H.M.S. "Cobra," "Condor" and "Mars."
  MR. KEAELEY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the widows and orphans of those seaman and marines who lost their lives in the recent disasters to H.M.S. "Cobra," "Condor," and "Mars," are only entitled to pensions of 5s. 6d. for the widows and Is. per child per week, and are not eligible for pensions on the scale awarded by the Government to the widows and orphans of soldiers who fall in war, which range from 5s. to 10s, for widows and 1s. to 2s. per child per week, the Government will remove the disability; whether, failing the ability of the Government to afford any augmentation from State funds, they will consider the advisability of soliciting the Lord Mayor to make an appeal to the benevolence of the nation to supply such additional funds as may ensure these sufferers sufficient to save them from destitution.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: I beg also to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the disasters connected with H.M.S. "Condor," and H.M.S. "Mars," following upon the loss of H.M.S. "Cobra." His
  1184
  Majesty's Government will consider the possibility of charging the pensions of widows of seamen so killed upon public funds instead of upon the funds of Greenwich Hospital, which are now inadequate to meet the existing claims of old seamen who are qualified to receive the Greenwich Old Age Pensions.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The matter is still under consideration, and I am unable at present to give any answer.
  MR. KEARLEY: Is the matter under the consideration of the Admiralty or of the Treasury?
  MR. ARNOLD-FOSTER: Of all the Departments concerned.

  Shipbuilding Delays.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can say when the Report of the Departmental Committee, presided over by him, which has considered the causes of the delays in shipbuilding, will be in the hands of Members.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is hoped that the Report will be in the hands of hon. Members early next week.

  Tientsin Operations.
  THE MASTER OF ELIBANK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the British forces operating at and around Tientsin from the 10th June to the 14th July, 1900, from the arrival of Admiral Sir Edward Seymour to the capture of the native city, sustained such casualties that those of the Naval Brigade alone amounted to 50 killed and 247 wounded; and whereas at Taku the total casualties of British forces ashore and afloat amounted to one killed and 13 wounded, for which a clasp has been granted, whether he will consider the advisability of recommending the issue of a clasp, inscribed "Tientsin," to the forces, Naval and Military, engaged in the operations between the dates specified, which included the defence of Tientsin and the capture of the Peiyang Arsenal.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The services of the British forces operating at and around Tientsin have not been overlooked. The operations were part of those which had for their object the relief of Peking, and the forces engaged receive for their gallant conduct a clasp, with the words "Relief of Peking" inscribed on it.

  Treatment of Political Prisoners Abroad.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will assent to the preparation and issue of a Consular Return, showing the prison treatment extended to political prisoners in European countries and in the United States, and also in the British Colonies.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFKAIRS (Lord CRAN-BORNE,): His Majesty's Government have no official information as to the treatment of political prisoners in other countries, and I cannot therefore assent to the suggestion in the hon. Gentleman's Question.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Seeing that information was obtained from our Consuls abroad as to the Rules which obtain in Foreign Parliaments, cannot the same course be taken on this Question?
  LORD CRANBORNE: No, Sir.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Has the noble Lord consulted the Irish Office on this matter?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: You must respect Lord Salisbury's son!

  Persia.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, with a view to promote a stable peace in the East, His Majesty's Government are prepared to co-operate with other Powers in order to secure the independence of Persia and the development of her commercial and industrial resources by guaranteeing the neutrality of her territory; and whether His Majesty's Government will invite the Government of Persia and the European Governments represented at the Congress of Berlin to hold a Conference to consider the best means of attaining the objects set forth.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to my hon. friend I have to say that I do not think any public advantage would be gained by the adoption of the step he suggests. My hon. friend probably has present to his mind the fact that there is in existence an agreement with Russia in connection with the integrity of Persia.

  Military Operations in Uganda.
  MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received any dispatches with reference to the recent Military operations in the Nile provinces of Uganda; and, if so whether they will lay them upon the Table.
  LORD CRANBORNE: Despatches have been received and are under consideration. They will be published in the Gazette in due course.

  The New Corn Duties.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg, to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will explain why the list of articles subject to the new corn duty which has been laid upon the Table of the House does not include all those which were originally posted at the Custom House; and whether he will also publish a list of commodities which are liable to duty because of their ingredients, and the rate of duty to be levied on each.
  The CHANCELLOR OF the EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The list of articles subject to the new corn duty laid on the Table of the House covers all those named in the list posted at the Custom House. Only unnecessary verbiage has been omitted. It is not practicable to prepare a complete list of specific commodities which will be liable to the new duty on importation because of their ingredients; but lists of this kind will be issued from time to time as experience is obtained.
  MR. KEARLEY: Did the original list in the customs indicate "dextrine" and "Mandioca flour?"
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It indicated "Mandioca flour."
  MR. LOUGH: Would it not be better, even if the list were slightly unaccurate, to issue as complete a one as possible as quickly as possible?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It will be done.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Has not the right hon. Gentleman promised to lay on the Table of the House a copy of the list issued to the Customs House?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes and this is the list exclusive of unnecessary verbiage.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: May we have the unnecessary verbiage. It would place us in a better position for estimating the number of new duties.

  Great Eastern Railway—Continental Goods Rates.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can take steps to oblige the Great Eastern Railway Company to publish a list of its charges for the carriage of goods by sea between Rotterdam and Harwich.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My hon. and gallant friend will find the law on the subject contained in Section 33 (5) of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1886. I have communicated with the Great Eastern Company and they inform me that the particulars relating to the charges for the carriage of goods by sea between Rotterdam and Harwich are duly published in compliance with the law.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates.
  Mr. SOAMES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the action of the Beccles bench of magistrates in refusing certificates of exemption from vaccination for their children to C. E. Parnell and D. G. Reeve on the 21st March, although both applicants stated that they had a conscientious objection to vaccination; whether he is aware that the same magistrates require applicants for such exemption to attend
  1188
  at the magistrates' clerk's office before hand to give notice of their intention to apply to the magistrates for exemption, and also require them to provide themselves with legal certificates of the births of their children; and will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Edward Pratt, of Gayton, who applied on two occasions, viz., on 3rd and 17th March, to the bench of magistrates at Grimstone, Norfolk, for a vaccination exemption certificate for his child, and was on both occasions refused, although he declared his conscientious conviction that his child would be injured by the operation; and, seeing that the same bench refused another applicant on 7th April, whether he will give instructions for the bench to grant the exemptions provided by the Vaccination Act, so that these parents may be saved from the trouble and expense of having to meet a prosecution.
  The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,: Even assuming that the facts of the eases are precisely as stated in the Questions, I have no power to take any stops in the matter.

  Post Office Volunteers Annual Training Leave.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state what facilities are to be offered to sorting clerks, postmen, and other Post Office officials during 1902 who desire to attend the Volunteer camps for annual training; and whether special leave, with full pay, will be granted as in former years.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): So far as the exigencies of the service will admit, Volunteers employed in the Post Office will be allowed the same facilities this year that they were allowed last year for the purpose of attending camps. Under the Treasury Regulations, those Volunteers whose regiments attend special camps, being attached to army corps, will be

  1189
  allowed special leave, so far as the requirements of the service will admit, for a period not exceeding a fortnight, without civil salary, to attend camp. Those who devote their annual leave to this purpose will, of course, receive full civil pay.

  Glasgow Postmen's Social Gathering.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I Leg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether be will explain why the practice of allowing notices intimating the date and particulars of concerts and other entertainments to he exhibited in the Postmen's Office at Glasgow has been departed from in the case of two notices submitted to the postmaster having reference to social meetings of the local branches of the Postmen's Federation to welcome the executive council of the federation; and can he state why the postmaster or his representatives refused to initial these particular notices for exhibition.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The practice which formerly obtained at Glasgow of allowing unofficial notices to he exhibited in the Postmen's Office was irregular, and when it came under the notice of the postmaster it was stopped.

  Promotion in the South-Eastern District Office.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if it is intended to pass over the senior sorters, Messrs. R. H. Burn and H. Johnson, in making promotions to the overseers class at the South-Eastern District Office; if so, will he state the reasons for passing over these officers, and will they be given an opportunity of stating why they should not be passed over before the appointments are made, seeing that they have been performing overseers' duties for about eight years and three years respectively, and been certified annually for many years past as competent to perform the highest duties of their class.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The claims and qualifications of the two sorters referred to will be considered with those of others before any promotions are made, but the Postmaster General cannot undertake that the confidential reports
  1190
  which will in due course be made to him respecting these sorters shall be communicated to them in order that they may discuss the question of their fitness for promotion. Such a course would be contrary to the practice of the Department and to the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee.
  MR. NANNETTI: Will the same procedure be adopted in the Irish offices?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The procedure I have described is the usual one.

  Postmen's Records.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, when a soldier goes on active service, records for past misconduct are cancelled; if so, is the same course adopted in the case of postal employees who have volunteered and been accepted for service in South Africa; and if not, will he explain on what ground is the distinction made.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General cannot say whether the practice in the Army is as stated, but he sees no reason for adopting such a rule in the Post Office Service.

  Mallaig Mail Service.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that Mr. David MacBrayne, the contractor for the Stornoway, Kyle and Mallaig Mail Steamer Service, continues to employ a forty-one year old boat which has been shown to be frequently late on both the outward and return passage, will he consider the expediency of terminating the contract with Mr. MacBrayne, and inviting tenders from other steamship owners who are prepared to provide a steamer of greater speed, and in other respects adapted to the wants of the 30,000 inhabitants of the island of Lewis.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There have no doubt been many delays on the voyage, but during the last few months there has been a great deal of rough weather in the Minch. As regards

  1191
  the question of terminating the present contract and of calling for tenders, the Postmaster General can only repeat the answer given to the hon. Member on the 13th of June of last year, which was to the effect that he was not prepared to take such a course, as he saw no reason to suppose that it would result in a more economical arrangement than the present.
  MR. WEIR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the boat is forty-one years old, and in consequence another steamer must take its place?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I confess I do not think the service is very satisfactory; but the subsidy is adequate, and I unfortunately see no possibility of getting a better service on reasonable terms.

  Sorters in the London Postal Service.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will give the number of sorters attached to the London postal service serving with the colours in South Africa, the number of acting, temporary, casual, and supernumerary sorters and auxiliaries, and part time auxiliaries employed in the London postal service; and whether, in view of the condemnation of auxiliary labour by the Tweedmouth Committee and the representatives of organised labour, the Postmaster General will take steps to abolish this form of labour.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The number of sorters attached to the London postal service now serving with the colours in South Africa is 162; and the number of acting, temporary, casual, and supernumerary sorters employed in London is 406. The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension as to the findings of the Tweedmonth Committee upon the subject of auxiliary labour. While desiring as far as possible to discourage the employment of this class of labour, the Committee recognised the impossibility of altogether dispensing with it; and under present circumstances the Postmaster General sees no immediate prospect of being able to make any material reduction in the number so employed.

  Sorters' Extra Duty at the East Central District Office.
  MR. HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will grant a Return of the number of hours extra duty performed by sorters in the East Central District Office between eight o'clock p.m. and midnight, for three months from the 15th January, 1902.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has ascertained that the number of hours of extra duty work as described was 6,348. There are about 600 sorters in the East Central District Office.

  Allowances at the East Central District Office.
  MR. HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a counter clerk and telegraphist of the East Central District, named God be hear, received a risk allowance of 3s. per week when performing the duties of overseer and senior telegraphist from 1893 to 1896, which allowance was stopped in 1897; and whether, in view of the Tweedmouth Committee's recommendation that the rights of existing holders in risk allowances should be maintained, he will restore the allowance to this officer, and, if not, will he explain why this cannot be done.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General will have inquiry made into this matter, and inform the hon. Member of the result.

  Poor Law School Teachers.
  MR. HAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the service of a teacher in a poor law school is held recorded service as defined by the Elementary School Teachers Superannuation Act, 1898, and therefore under the existing Code entitles such a teacher to the issue of a parchment certificate under Article 63D; whether it is intended to remove professional distinction, if any, between teachers in poor law schools and those employed in other elementary schools, in order to-secure that local Boards of Guardians

  1193
  shall be able to obtain the services in poor law schools of qualified and efficient teachers.
  THE PRESIDENT OF the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The answer to the first point is in the negative. It appears, however, from the reply given recently to a similar Question addressed to my right hon. friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, that service in a poor law school is now accepted by the Board of Education for the purposes of Article 63 of the existing Code, and that in the Code of 1902 the Article will be included in a clearer form.

  West Ham Board of Guardians.
  MAJOR BANES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that a person was nominated and elected for a ward on the West Ham Board of Guardians when she was already a member, and has twelve months to serve in another ward, without first resigning her seat; and whether, according to the Regulations of the Department, she can vote for or represent either ward.
  MR. WALTER LONG: My attention has been called to this case. The real question appears to be whether the person referred to was disqualified for being elected as guardian for one ward whilst in office for another. I have no authority to decide this point, and there are no Regulations of the Local Government Board which affect the matter. The question can only be determined by an election court on a petition. I am, however, advised that it is open to considerable doubt whether she was not disqualified. She has applied to me to consent to her resigning her seat for the ward for which was she first elected, but in the circumstances I have not at present thought it expedient to accept the resignation.

  Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state whether the Commissioners recently
  1194
  appointed under the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act to inquire into the Aberdeen Tramways Bill held any meeting to decide upon the place where their inquiry was to be held; if so, whether they decided to hold the inquiry in Edinburgh; and, if so, what were the reasons which induced them to hold it there rather than in Aberdeen, where the parties and the witnesses reside.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Provisional Order referred to is one of a group remitted for inquiry, comprising schemes from the North, East and South-West of Scotland; and Edinburgh was selected as the most central and convenient place for the consideration of the whole group, with the concurrence of the Chairman of the Commissioners, and, I believe, with the approval of the great majority of the parties interested. The Secretary for Scotland is not aware that any meeting was held by the Commissioners to decide upon the place of inquiry.
  MR. BRYCE: Would it not be possible to arrange for the Commissioners to sit in different places to conduct these inquiries?
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: It is perfectly possible. It is only a matter of arrangement.
  MR. BRYCE: Is it the case that the Commission did not hold a meeting in this case to decide upon the place of inquiry?
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Chairman of the Commission was consulted.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Have the Commission made any inquiry in Aberdeen into local conditions in connection with these proposed tramways?
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I cannot say. I believe in any case this Order could only have been taken today.

  Highland Parochial Medical Officers.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the number of

  1195
  parochial medical officers in each of the six crofting counties who do not possess the public health diploma required under the Public Health Act, 1897: and will he state why the Local Government Board for Scotland continues to confirm the appointment of medical officers in Highland crofting counties regardless of the conditions imposed by statute.
  The SOLIGITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): The Secretary for Scotland is informed by the Local Government Board that the figures are as follows:—Argyll County, twenty-three Local Medical Officers, of whom three possess statutory qualification; Inverness County, ten Local Medical Officers, of whom one possesses statutory qualification; Ross and Cromarty, eleven Local Medical Officers, of whom two possess statutory qualification; Sutherland County, no Local Medical Officers; Caithness County, no Local Medical Officers; Orkney and Shetland, three Local Medical Officers, none of whom possess statutory qualification. The Medical Officers who do not possess the public health diploma were appointed prior to the coming into operation of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, and consequently do not require to possess the qualification. The Local Government Board do not recognise new appointments of Medical Officers who do not possess the statutory qualification.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the propriety of forming these counties into a combined district, so that they may get the services of highly qualified medical men?
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  Mall to Charing Cross Road.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works when the road from the Mall to Charing Cross will be opened.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The houses to be removed
  1196
  to secure the opening into Charing Cross will be in vacant possession of my Department this summer, and, subject to my obtaining the necessary funds to meet the cost, the work will be carried out as soon as possible afterwards.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Let us hope it will be before the Coronation.

  Wren and Stokes Estate.
  MR. THOMAS O'DOXNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that some tenants (those of Ballynoneen) on the estate of Wren and Stokes, in Chancery since 1883, were evicted from their holdings in 1891, and allowed in as caretakers for three years; that at the end of this period they were obliged to sign proposals to the Court under the eleven months grazing system; and that some refused to sign, and had attachment orders got against them for contempt of Court; and whether the receiver had the authority of the Court in offering yearly tenancies on condition of paying fines.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The evictions were carried out by direction of the Court of Chancery. The tenants evicted were re-admitted as caretakers in respect of the houses, and as grazing tenants in respect of the lands. An attachment order, which has never been executed, was issued against one tenant only. In every case in which a yearly tenancy was created it was done with the sanction of the Court. No fines were taken from the tenants. Any payments made by them were on account of arrears of rent.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Did the Court endeavour to enforce the attachment order?
  MR WYNDHAM: I have no information on that point. I only have information that one attachment order was issued, but has never been executed.

  Dublin Police—Statistics.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will

  1197
  state the reason for the delay which annually takes place in publishing the statistical tables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police; and whether, having regard to the fact that similar statistics in connection with the city of Glasgow are published in February, he will secure an earlier publication of the Dublin statistics in future; also if he will cause to be inserted in the Report for 1901 and in all future Reports, the salaries paid to the chief commissioner, assistant commissioner, and other officers and men as set forth in the annual report of the chief constable of Glasgow, and also the sums contributed by the Corporation and Treasury respectively for the maintenance of the force.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The police statistics for Dublin have been published annually about May. If it be possible to publish them earlier, this will be done. I cannot, however, give any undertaking in the matter. The information referred to in the second part of the Question is given in the Estimates which are yearly presented to Parliament.
  MR. NANNETTI: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The information will I think, be found in the Estimates. I will consider if it can be given in a more convenient form.

  Dromore Riots—Normoyle Case.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that in the prosecutions on Thursday for the rioting at Dromore, County Down, two of the witnesses failed to identify any of the accused, although they had previously made statements identifying the accused; (2) whether he is aware that in the Normoyle case the witnesses who declined to confirm their previous identification were committed to prison for contempt of court; and (3) will he explain why a similar course was not pursued in the Dromore case, and why the Dromore prosecutions were not conducted under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): At the request of my right hon. friend. I will reply to this Question. The witnesses in the Normoyle case were committed for contempt because, in the opinion of the presiding Justice, they were obviously prevaricating, swearing falsely, and trifling with their oaths. There is no foundation for the suggestion that the two witnesses in the Dromore prosecutions pointed at in the Question, namely, Mr. Wilson and Miss Whiteside, were guilty of misconduct of that kind. A bench, of seven magistrates, including the resident magistrate, decided that, while a riot undoubtedly took place on the occasion, there was no evidence to implicate any of the persons accused. The proceedings were not taken under the Crimes Act, because there was no reason to believe that a jury could not be found in that county who would decide according to the evidence.
  MR. MACVEAGH: HOW does the right hon. Gentleman arrive at the conclusion that this is justified because the jury could be relied on, in view of the fact that the case was not going before a jury at all, but before a packed, bench of magistrates?
  MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Member asked why were not the proceedings instituted under the Crimes Act. My answer was that justice could be obtained under the ordinary law.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion that these witnesses swore falsely was made by the Crown Solicitor at the trial?

  Crime in County Cork.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the recent quarter sessions for the Macroom Division of the West Riding of Cork. County Court Judge Bird was presented with white gloves in consequence of there being no criminal business to transact, and that Millstreet rural district is included in this quarter sessions area; and seeing that there is an absence of crime in the locality, can he explain on what grounds it was specially proclaimed under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must refer the hon. Member to the statement made by me on the 17th instant. To that statement I have nothing to add.
  MR. SHEEHAN: May I point out that in the right hon. Gentleman's speech he gave no definite reasons for the proclamation of this district?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am content to rest it on the general arguments I advanced.
  MR. SHEEHAN: But I want specific reasons.

  Boycotting Returns.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any objection to issue a Return showing the distribution of the cases of total boycotting and partial boycotting in the district proclaimed under Section. 2 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. A Return giving this information will be laid on the Table.

  Irish Fishery Industry.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many fishing boats have been built to the order of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland since its establishment, where built, and where the sails and general outfit were supplied from, and the cost of these boats; and were the sails and outfit for the fishing boat now building at Baltimore School made at Baltimore; and, if not, can he explain why this was not done.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The information asked for could not very well be embodied in an answer to a Question, and I have, therefore, sent it direct to the hon. Member, who can give it what publicity he desires.

  Ex-Sergeant Sheridan, R.I.C.
  Mr. P. A. M'UGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the. Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Sergeant
  1200
  Sheridan, a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, whom the Chief Secretary has accused of manufacturing crime in Ireland, is still at large; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken by the Irish Government to bring this sergeant to trial.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This matter was fully discussed in the statement made by me on the Appropriation Bill at the end of last session. To that statement I have nothing to add.

  Liscannor Harbour.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what steps the Government are prepared to take with a view of making good Liscannor Harbour; and are the Government prepared to help the Kilrush Harbour Board in the manner asked by them to enable the Board to improve the entrance to that harbour.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Negotiations are, I believe, proceeding between the County Council of Clare and the new Department in respect of Liscannor Harbour. I trust that some arrangement may be arrived at. I am also considering legislation which, if passed, will assist in placing certain fishery harbours in a more satisfactory position. But I cannot, at this stage, give pledges in respect of particular ports. In respect of Kilrush, the Board of Works are prepared to undertake certain improvements on conditions which have been communicated to the Urban District Council.
  MAJOR JAMESON: In the event of anything being done, will this harbour be put under the County Council?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I shall be prepared to go into the separate question of maintenance when I bring in my Bill.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Pay and Allowances.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will publish the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the pay and allowances of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Report was laid on the Table yesterday.

  Portumna Railway.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government offer of £12,000 to enable the reconstruction of the Portumna Pail-way will be available if a company finds the same amount of capital and undertakes to work the railway.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The attitude of the Government in this matter was fully explained in the replies to Questions addressed to me last session. To these replies I am afraid I must refer the hon. Member.

  Judicial Utterances in Ireland.
  MR. CONDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord 'Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the observations of his Honour County Court Judge Moore, who, at Clonmel Quarter Sessions on Wednesday last, on the hearing of an application of Edward Burke for compensation for the burning of a farm, which was opposed by the Rural Council of Cloghen on behalf of the ratepayers, said that the people of Ardfinnan would not care if Burke as well as the house was burned; and whether, having regard to the effect upon the administration of justice of such language used from the bench, the Government propose to take any steps in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have submitted the Question to his Honour, in case he may desire to make any observations upon it. But, of course, he is under no obligation to this House, and I have no responsibility in the matter.
  MR CONDON: May I ask if there is no means by which such wholesale slander of our people can be stopped?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Questions with regard to judicial proceedings must be asked in moderate terms.
  MR. CONDON: I do not think our people ought to be slandered by judges or anyone else.

  Ireland and the Corn Duties.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for the year 1901, or for any previous year, the amount, approximately, of corn and grain imported into Ireland from foreign and colonial ports, either directly or after being transhipped or registered in Great Britain, and the same for flour; and if he will give the amount of Irish grown corn, whether in grain or flour, shipped from Ireland; also the estimated amount of the Irish-grown corn used in the manufacture of the whiskey, beer, and porter shipped from Ireland.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The direct imports into Ireland were, grain, 16,294,030 cwts., flour, 2,386,610 cwts. The direct exports from Ireland were, grain, 137,142 cwts., flour (bran), 7,700 cwt. I cannot say what proportion was sent via Great Britain. Irish-grown grain is not separately distinguished in the Returns.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Cannot you give me some information as to the last paragraph?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have none.

  Irish Tenant Purchasers and the Income Tax.
  MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that tenant purchasers under the Land Purchase Acts have income tax assessed under Schedule A on farms purchased under those Acts, and subject to annual instalments little less than the former rent; whether they are entitled to deduction from such assessment in respect of the annual interest which they pay on the purchase money; whether income tax is demanded on such farms even where the annual value is less than £160; and whether he will direct the Income Tax Commissioners to reduce the demands under Schedule A by the amount of interest as aforesaid, and not issue any demand note in cases where the net valuation so reduced is less than £160.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Farms purchased under the Land Purchase Acts are, like all other land in Ireland, liable to assessment to income tax (Schedule A) on the basis of the Poor Law Valuation; but the tenant is in practice allowed a reduction of the assessment by the amount of the annual interest which he pays on the purchase money, Income tax would be assessed on a farm of which the annual value is less than £160, but the assessment would be discharged if the tenant should establish his title to exemption on the ground that his total income from all sources is less than £160 per annum.

  Fastnet Lighthouse.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the older for the lenticular apparatus for the Fastnet Lighthouse has been given by the Commissioners of Irish Lights to Messrs. Chance, in accordance with the teems of their contract; and, if so, whether the consent of the Board of Trade to their so doing had previously been obtained.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The order for the lenticular apparatus for the Fastnet Lighthouse has been given by the Commissioners of Irish Lights to Messrs. Chance, in accordance with the terms of their contract, which has been approved by the Board of Trade.

  Education Bill.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether in the event of the Education Bill before the House becoming Law, the managers of any voluntary school possessing an endowment would be allowed to retain that endowment and apply it to purposes similiar to those, to be met by voluntary subscriptions, or whether such endowment would fall into the hands of the local education authority.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think this Question can be answered in general terms. It would depend in each case on the special conditions attached to the trust money referred to
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Clause 13 of the Education Bill, as regards the expenses of an urban district council, will reduce the charge now payable by the owners or occupiers of agricultural land in respect of school rates; whether the expenses of a School Board at the present time are paid out of the poor rate, for which agricultural land, subject to the temporary provisions of the Agricultural Rates Act, is assessed at its full annual value; and whether the provision that the expenses of an urban district council, acting as the local education authority under the Bill, shall be paid as expenses incurred for the general purposes of the Public Health Acts, will limit the assessment of agricultural land to one-fourth of its annual value.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The principle of the Bill is to make education a part of the general local government expenditure; and the incidence of the rates for education will be, so far as possible, the same as that for local government expenditure. This will make no change as regards the charge for higher education in any district; and none with regard to elementary education in boroughs. It will make a change in the ease of urban districts net being boroughs by extending the present exemption, and that exemption is from half to three-quarters in the case of agricultural land.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, after the adoption by a local authority of Part III. of the Education Bill, it will be competent for the managers of a public elementary school not provided by that authority to make a charge for rent for the use of the school buildings.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question is in the negative.

  Wrongful Dismissal of Teachers
  SIR JOSEPH LEESE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Commitee of Council on Education, whether, in pursuance of his

  1205
  pledges given during the last two sessions, the Government will bring in a Bill giving the right of appeal to teachers of public, elementary schools in cases of alleged wrongful dismissal; or whether the Government would introduce a clause securing this advantage to the teachers in their Education Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This subject, no doubt, in some form or other will be raised in Committee on the Education Bill, and any answer now would therefore, I think, be premature.

  Trusts.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the formation of trusts in this country; and whether, in view of the effects of this system in America, the Government will appoint a Commission to report upon the subject.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I do not think the subject is at present ripe for the kind of inquiry which the hon. Gentleman desires.

  National Expenditure.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Notice of Motion standing on the Order Paper for a Select Committee in respect of national expenditure†; and whether His Majesty's Government will consent to the appointment of such Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My attention has been called to the Notice of Motion standing in my hon. friend's name. I confess that I think the terms are too general to make such an inquiry possible, or, if it were held, fruitful. Whether it would be worth while having a Committee to inquire whether there might not be some better machinery than exists at present for criticising Departmental expenditure, is another point upon which I do not pronounce any opinion at the present moment.
  †The following is the notice referred to:—Mr. CHURCHILL: TO draw attention to the growth of public burdens; and to move, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report whether National Expenditure cannot be diminished without injury to the public service, and whether the moneys voted cannot be apportioned to better advantage than at present.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Am I to understand that my right hon. friend is not hostile to the principle of something being done in this direction; and that supposing the proposition is put forward with a narrower reference the Government will be prepared to consider it in a favourable light?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that probably the more prudent course would be to wait until I see the Motion of my hon. friend before giving an answer.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication to the House of what he is prepared to do?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Royal Patriotic Commission.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state the proposals which the Government have promised to make for the dissolution of the Royal Patriotic Commission and for transferring the administration of the various funds now vested in the Commissioners to the Navy and Military Pension Board, as recommended unanimously by the Joint Select Committee of the Lords and Commons last session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The plan which I think would be the best to adopt with regard to the matter in which the hon. Gentleman has shown himself persistently so much interested would be to frame a general central council representing the chief local authorities in the kingdom, and which should include a certain number of persons appointed by the Crown to represent the two great services and the authorities distributing Government pensions. The council so constituted could only act through an administrative and financial Committee. By this machinery we hope, not only to provide; a body competent to allocate the funds of the Royal Patriotic Commission, but also one which shall be in close touch with the Government pension authorities on one side and with the local charity organisations throughout the country on the other. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, legislation will be required in

  1207
  order to transfer the property of the Royal Patriotic Commission to the new council.
  MR. GALLOWAY: Do the Government propose to introduce legislation immediately?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think probably legislation ought to be introduced in the course of the present session. But, of course, I can give no pledge on that subject.

Crofts in the Island of Lewis and in Ross-shire.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the Deer Forest Commissioners state at page 10 of their Report, dated 19th March, 1895, that any scheme that would result in affording cottars the opportunity of obtaining crofts such as presently exist would operate a substantial relief both to the cottars themselves and to the neighbouring crofters; and will he explain why no scheme such as that indicated has at present been evolved to meet the requirements of the cottars in the Island of Lewis and on the mainland of Ross-shire.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that it has not yet been found possible to frame a scheme for this district.
MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question of crofts is especially referred to in the Report? Will the right hon. Gentleman read and study the Report?
[No answer was returned.]

New Rules of Procedure.
SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in order to prevent interference with existing public engagements of Members in the Metropolis and the country, he will arrange that the new Rules relating to the Sittings of the House shall only take effect after Whitsuntide.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that on the whole the course suggested by the hon. Member would be for the general convenience of the House.

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—MARTIAL LAW —DETENTION OF MR. CARTWRIGHT.
[MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.]
Mr. JOHN MORLEY,Member for the Montrose District, 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 compulsory detention of Mr. Cartwright in Cape Town without charge brought, and for indefinite length of time." But the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen,
MR. JOHN MORLEY: Mr. Speaker, I make no apology to the House for this interruption of public business, because the matter to which I must draw their attention is one which involves, in the first place, extreme bard-ship to an individual, and in the second place, a gross and flagrant violation of the legal and constitutional principles of which this House is the guardian and the champion. I will venture to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to dissociate the matter to which I am drawing attention from any views as to the right or the wrong of either the policy or the methods of the war. Those have nothing whatever to do with the case which I wish to raise. The story is very short, very plain, and very simple. Mr. Cartwright was indicted in the ordinary way before an ordinary court in Cape Town for a defamatory and seditious libel, was tried before a judge and jury, and was convicted, and sentenced to undergo one year's imprisonment. That year of imprisonment terminated, as the tight hon. Gentleman has just told the House, I think, on Tuesday. Upon all that part of the matter I have no comment whatever to make. It does not come within the scope of the subject to which I am drawing attention. About two months ago—I think in February—Mr. Cartwright sent in a written application to the authorities in the Cape Colony for information whether upon the expiry of his sentence he would be allowed

1209
to travel. He gave two reasons for desiring this permission to leave Cape Colony and come to England. One reason was that he had been in the doctor's hands, so he alleges, for some time, and that his health required the change to England; and the second reason was that he had no chance whatever of earning his livelihood as a journalist, for there was no opening for him in Cape Colony, and therefore his only chance was to come here; and I may add further, that he stated that he was willing to show to the authorities a bonâ fide engagement for doing work of a purely non-political character in this country. Well, Mr. Cartwright upon this received a refusal. No reason was given for this refusal. No charge was made or indicated. He was simply told that he would not be allowed to travel—that is to say, not allowed to leave South Africa. The House will observe that by this proceeding, by this refusal of the authorities, they took upon themselves to make an enormous and unmeasured extension of Mr. Cartwright's legal penalty. A legal penalty had been imposed upon him, but he had undergone it. His offence was purged, and no additional offence could have been committed by him because, of course, he was in confinement. He was then by this refusal called upon to undergo a further penalty—namely, a compulsory detention in Cape Town, and the prevention of his performing his ordinary avocations. As the Secretary of State told us two or three nights ago, he is now a free man. But in what sense free? He is free to walk about in Cape Town, under supervision, as the right hon. Gentleman said. Therefore I submit that, so far as that goes, the authorities in Cape Town, whose action is endorsed by the Secretary of State, have extended, without any law or intention to appeal to law, a legal penalty.
Upon this state of facts, I put a Question to the Secretary of State for War on April 14th, and I received, not from him, because he was unfortunately not present, but from the noble Lord, the Financial Secretary, in those unfaltering accents which make him a sort of impersonation of martial law—I received from him, I think, the most outrageous and indefensible answer ever
1210
given within these walls since Simon de Montfort invented Parliament. I will read the noble Lord's answer—
"The authorities in South Africa," he said, "did not consider it desirable to grant Mr. Cartwright permission to proceed to England. His views, as the right hon. Gentleman was probably aware"—
I do not know why I should be aware of his views—
"were strongly anti-British, anti it was not deemed desirable by the authorities in South Africa to increase the number of persons in this country who disseminated anti-British propaganda.
The House will observe there is no word said about the military necessities or about anything indeed in South Africa. It is the dissemination of anti-British views in Great Britain. Now I might put a question to the Secretary of State, and I might invite him to tell me first what he understands the authorities in South Africa to mean by anti-British views. I suppose they mean, and can mean, nothing else than views which are not palatable to his Majesty's Government. Therefore Mr. Cartwright is kept in exile—because it conies to that—by the arbitrary action of the military authorities, because he might disseminate views unfavourable to His Majesty's Government in this country. Now I will put another point to the right hon. Gentleman. Supposing Mr. Cartwright holds obnoxious anti-British views—whatever anti-British may mean—will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to tell us where on earth the dissemination of anti-British views could be so entirely harmless as in Great Britain? If they prevented Mr. Cartwright from going to Berlin, or Paris, or The Hague, there might be something to be said for it; but he is not to be allowed to come to Great Britain, where, if anywhere, surely there are enough British views to outweigh the addition of one single individual to those who are alleged to disseminate anti-British propaganda. The one country, therefore, to which he cannot come is the country where we all know he would not do one atom or scintilla of harm of any kind, I say, not only is the action illegal, unconstitutional, tyrannical, and arbitrary, but it is, on the face of it, impudently absurd and preposterous. I thought I would try

1211
my fortune with the Secretary of State himself, and he said just now, not perhaps with his ordinary suavity, that he had already told me the grounds on which Mr. Cartwright had been refused permission to leave Cape Town, and that he would not tell me again.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I merely said that I had already explained to the right hon. Gentleman, and that if he wished me to repeat my explanation I would do so.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman did not take quite the position taken by the noble Lord. He said—
"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."
Sir, there is no case for either Lord Kitchener or the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider. But he went on to say a little more. I asked him if he would kindly tell me what kind of conduct would justify detention and what kind of undertaking to abstain from such conduct would justify a release. Then the Secretary of State said—
"I should regard an understanding to avoid the course and conduct which Mr. Cartwright has been pursuing for some time past as probably a satisfactory one."
Then he said further that the military authorities thought some means ought to be resorted to for preventing the pursuance of the libellous action on the part of Mr. Cartwright, either in South Africa or in this country, which had led to his present situation. Prevent a pursuance of the same libellous action Avoid a course of conduct which had led to his present situation What was the course of conduct which had led to his present situation? It was a libellous action, and he was punished for it; and, therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman how does he suppose that there are no other means of preventing Mr. Cartwright from pursuing a course of libellous action, which is not quite the same thing, by the way, as disseminating anti-British propaganda. Are there no other means than preventing him coming to this country and earning his
1212
living? Surely you already found that in Cape Colony you could punish him, and you did punish him. Supposing he comes to this country, is there no law against libel here? On the Secretary of State's own words the thing is entirely absurd. They are not detaining Mr. Cartwright because of his libellous; action; they are detaining him for some other reasons which they do not disclose, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman to inform us frankly and fully why it is they are pursuing this extraordinary course When anything is done under martial law—and these proceedings are under martial law, I presume—the case is apparently regarded as stopped. Our mouths are closed and our lips are sealed There is to be no present inquiry, no examination. But I submit that that is exactly the opposite of the truth. Have martial law if you like, but all the more because you have martial law must you be prepared to justify and de end what is done.
In this case, what kind of right have the Secretary of State and his military authorities to detain this man, who has undergone his sentence, and who ought now to be as free as I am? I see the Attorney General there, I wonder what his view is on the legal aspect of this matter. I wonder whether he would say that the language I have read out of the Secretary of State that the noble Lord shows a shadow of a pretext for the detention of this man. By right, reason, and com nonsense, Mr. Cartwright ought to be perfectly free, and I for one say boldly here, in spite of all the martial law atmosphere in which we now live, that I wholly demur to their right to exact any undertaking; whatever from Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Cartwright expressed his willingness and pledged himself—at all events he gave a bonâ fide engagement—that he would do no political work in this country, but speaking here as a Member of this House, though Mr. Cartwright may do whatever he thinks proper, I demur wholly to the right of the Secretary of State and the military authorities to exact any undertaking whatever. I wholly repudiate the position which underlies the remarkable answer of the noble Lord the other night in regard to this matter.

1213
I deny that even that constitutes any ground whatever for depriving him of his full civil rights.
I have only one sentence more to say. I am certainly not going to argue the philosophy or legal details of martial law, but I would like to read what was said within the walls of this House by two eminent men in the year 1867. It seems to me to place in two or three sentences the whole position and character of martial law in an absolutely incontrovertible light. The first sentence or two are from Mr. Mill. He said—
"Although there was no such thing a martial law except for military purposes there was a law of necessity. There may be a public necessity in case of rebellion requiring that certain acts not justified by the law of the country should be done, but these acts should he acts of suppression, not of punishment."
The other sentences are those of Mr. Cardwell, a man of strong, firm, and clear head. These are his words, and I commend them to the attention of the House—
"A man was justified in taking the law into his own hands for the purpose of protecting his life when threatened by any extraordinary or sudden violence."
So with regard to martial law. The principle equally applied. Necessity was the true test. In the memorable words of Sir James Mackintosh—
"To continue to act upon a supposed necessity after the necessity had expired was an enormous crime."
That was the view which was held in this House in 1867. I cannot believe now, that apart from all the heat of the politics of the hour, I cannot believe that in their sober judgment Gentlemen in any quarter of the House will take any other view, or will think it an unimportant thing that an invasion of personal right may take place under martial law; nor can I believe that anybody in this House supposes for one instant in this case anything like military necessity or danger to social order has been made out. It is really a wanton, arbitrary, tyrannical, and absurd proceeding.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—
MR. BRODRICK: I must say that I am somewhat surprised at the heat which the right hon. Gentleman has displayed in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has brought before the House a series of constitutional propositions into some of which I do not propose to follow him, but he has done so in respect of one particular action of the military authorities in South Africa, and he himself, in the terms of the Motion which he has submitted for the adjournment of the House, has specially alluded to the fact that what he complains of is that Mr. Cartwright should have been detained without charge brought, and for an indefinite length of time. Now, Sir what are the facts as to the indefinite length of time? Mr. Cartwright, I presume, was due to be let out of prison on Tuesday last—two days ago—and because on Thursday—the communications which have been passing have not yet been completed—I am not yet able to satisfy the right bon. Gentleman that Mr. Cartwright's undertaking will be accepted, the right hon. Gentleman moves that adjournment of the House. I undertook two or three days ago to communicate with Lord Kitchener with regard to the undertaking which Mr. Cartwright gave. I will meet the right hon. Gentleman on the question of that undertaking directly, but at all events I undertook to communicate with Lord Kitchener, and I have done so. I have not yet got Lord Kitchener's reply, and, because for two days we are still in doubt as to what the issue may be, the right hon. Gentleman interrupts the whole business of Parliament in order to call attention to Mr. Cartwright's detention in South Africa for an indefinite length of time. That I venture to suggest to the House shows that the right hon. Gentleman has been more anxious to challenge the administration of martial law in South Africa than to bring his particular case and the hardship of it before the House.
The right hon. Gentleman has asked this question—What do we mean in Mr. Cartwright's case by accusing him of the intention of disseminating anti-British propaganda after he has left South Africa? He answered that question himself by saying that what we are afraid of is that Mr. Cartwright may express views which ate not palatable

1215
to the Government. The right hon. Gentleman is, I suppose, aware of the reasons which caused Mr. Cartwright to be committed to prison. He was the editor of the South African News, a paper which has come unfavourably before the authorities on several occasions. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members simply to laugh here about statements circulated in South Africa among the inhabitants of Cape Colony for the very purpose of raising further rebellion against the Crown, and which are communicated, not merely to British subjects in Cape Colony, but also to the Boers, and so far as they can reach to people on the continent of Europe, as representing the facts of the carrying on of the campaign in South Africa. What was the particular paragraph and the particular provocation in the South African News for which Mr. Cartwright was condemned? On 6th February, 1901, Mr. Cartwright was guilty of what I think is the greatest crime from the journalistic point of view that a British subject can well be accused of. He published in the South African News a statement headed—
"How we are waging war. A dreadful disclosure. Lord Kitchener's secret instructions."
and then follows—
"Lord Kitchener having, as he thought, caged his enemy, seat secret instructions to the troops to take no prisoners, that is, if the Boers surrounded on all sides found themselves unable to resist and hoisted the white Hag as a token of surrender, they were to he shot down to the last man."
Then there follows this, professing to come from an officer. Whether any person, having any title to be called an officer ever communicated to the South African News we know not, but that it was an absolute and outrageous falsehood is well known. This "officer" said—
"I received the order personally from a General of the highest rank, holding one of the first positions in South Africa. The order was repeated twice, so that there might he no mistake. I found that all the other senior officers were aware of the order. What their private opinions and intentions were I do not know, but I heard no word of condemnation."
Well, Sir, that is an attempt, not merely to charge Lord Kitchener and the highest authorities of the British Army, but all the senior officers engaged in that particular operation, with a grave military crime, with the intention of
1216
taking action, which from every standpoint would be abhorrent to the feelings of the people of this country. That would be admirably calculated to increase the violence of opinion between the two combatants, and was framed absolutely and solely for the purpose of damaging the British troops.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: I ask the Secretary of State whether that letter was not published in The Times in London also.
MR. BRODRICK: I have no knowledge of this publication in The Times. I am speaking only of what took place in South Africa. At all events the point I have in view in reading that extract is to show what I believe was not contested, that this journal was acting for the sole purpose of increasing the anti-British feeling in South Africa, and it was because of the seditions libel that Mr. Cartwright was put in prison. The right hon. Gentleman had an eloquent passage at the close of his observations, in which he spoke of the iniquity of using martial law for anything beyond necessity, or the supposed necessity of martial law. He asked the House whether there was any position in which Mr. Cartwright could do less damage to this country than by disseminating anti-British propaganda in this country. I do not know whether there is any position in which he can be of less danger, but I am perfectly certain that it would be less danger if he is not in a position to disseminate any anti-British propaganda at all. I confess I am astonished at the violence with which those who profess to desire a peace policy and a fruitful issue of the present negotiations attack the Government if they do not let loose all those whose writings and actions tend to the prolongation of the war. Mr. Cartwright knows well the palate for which he has to cater. Men like him, having channels of communication with Cape Colony, may undoubtedly exercise a very considerable effect on the minds of the Boers by producing as facts, when they may be entire fictions, like his previous writings from this country, the very arguments which will suggest to the Boers to ask for terms which it is not possible for His Majesty's Government to consider. I know that hon. Members opposite do not believe that speeches or

1217
writings in this country have any serious effect on the war. I can only say that by the very last mail I received the translation of an extract from The Government Gazette of the Orange Free State, the official publication of the defunct Boer Government, dated 25th January of this very year, and containing a somewhat Bowd-lerised edition of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition delivered, I think, at Plymouth in December last. I am not going to trouble the House with that speech. Every word of it justifies my contention that these speeches are treasured, prized, and circulated by the Boer leaders for the solo purpose of getting those of their followers who are getting weary of the war and despairing of the result to continue in the field.
As between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government there is no very wide margin. The right hon. Gentleman contends that Mr. Cartwright has completed his sentence and has a right to go free without any stipulation whatever, whereas, in all cases of martial law it is in the power, a power which has been exercised by the authorities, and rightly and judiciously exercised, to assign in some cases a place of residence to those whose actions lay them open to suspicion and which may be of damage to the State and whom they do not desire to retain in gaol. The most that can be said of the action with regard to Mr. Cartwright is that the Military Authorities have thought it desirable to assign him such a place of residence for a certain period. [Several HON. MRMBERS: What period?] So far as I know, he is limited to Cape Town. What I suggest to the House is this—that this Motion, which we are ready to meet on its merits, is also entirely premature. We have asked for stipulations on Mr. Cartwright's part, undertakings as to his conduct if he is sent to this country. The result is not yet known to us. Until it is, I cannot undertake to overrule the opinion of the authorities in South Africa. We have the strongest possible grounds at all times for avoiding that which may add to our present difficulty in South Africa, and we should, I think, be criminally guilty if we were not specially careful at the present moment as to taking action which might in many cases lead to the indefinite prolongation of the
1218
struggle. Having regard to the facts that this question is still sub judice, that we have pronounced no final opinion upon it, that we have made communications in the sense of the terms which reached us from the right hon. Gentle-man and that these have not yet been answered, I suggest that on every ground it is undesirable to endeavour to force to do that which they will not do—namely, without consultation with the authorities in South Africa, to issue an edict which might have a far-reaching effect on other cases; while the suspension of the question for a few days will certainly not injure the interests of the individual whom it is the object of the right hon. Gentleman to serve.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that this question is sub judice? Who are the judges? Neither the Secretary of State nor the Commander in-Chief in South Africa has anything to say as to what a British subject shall do in this country. If any man on that bench or any of the supporters of the Government are going to maintain that martial law exists in South Africa, that is one thing, and there, when martial law exists, you may determine what is to be done there. But for Lord Kitchener and the light hon. Gentleman to undertake to determine between themselves what shall be done, and upon what conditions a man shall act when he comes to this country—is contrary to the constitution. I could not believe it possible that in the twentieth century, from the Constitutional party, we should hear that martial law is not to be confined even to South Africa—that it is for Lord Kitchener, under martial law, to determine what is to be the conduct of a British subject in this British land. What is the meaning of this communication which is going on between the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa as to the terms upon which Mr. Cartwright is to be allowed to return to England and as to his conduct when in England? Why, Sir, if he comes here and he docs anything which is contrary to British law or contrary to British interest, he is subject to be restrained and punished here under British law. He is not to be governed by

1219
a bargain enforced upon him by threats of imprisonment, not on account of any danger there. A place is to be assigned to him, and the place is Cape Town, where, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he is to be allowed to be free. Then he is not a very dangerous man there. But he is not to be free if he comes to this country. What is this? We have heard of the banishment of the Boer leaders; but this is a power assumed by the right hon. Gentleman and the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa, to banish a man from British soil, a principle of banishment, not on account of the mischief he may do at the Capo, but on account of the mischief that he may do when he comes here. What has the right hon. Gentleman to say to that? He has no business to make himself the judge as to the danger of a man's conduct here. You must judge him by the law of the land. Why, Sir, on the part of the Executive—I am not desirous of using in this House unnecessarily strong language, but I say this is an impudent pretension. It is necessary to the freedom of this country, the security for all out liberties is, that whilst the law is suspended for the moment in South Africa, men in the position of the Secretary of State should not determine upon what conditions a man shall live in this country, what he should say, and what he should do.
It is said that the raising of this question is premature. It is not premature at all. The very moment that such a doctrine as this is stated in this House of Commons it should be instantly denounced and repudiated. It was not necessary to wait even for the expiration of the sentence. The doctrine was propounded weeks ago, in contemplation of the expiration of the sentence, and I do not care whether you take the blunt language of the noble Lord, or whether you take the unconstitutional language of the Secretary of State, it is our business to denounce it, it is our business to make it clear that a pretension of that kind is the destruction of the liberties of every Englishman. It is putting the clock back 200 years for the Executive Government to pretend to determine the legality or the propriety of the conduct of British subjects hero. You may say at elections, if you like, that every vote given against the Government is a vote for the Boers.
1220
But you do not dare to prevent men from coming to this country on that account. I say, Sir, it is a scandal that such language as that should have been heard from that bench. It is contrary to every principle on which the elementary liberties of every British subject depend that the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Kitchener should be carrying on correspondence and communications as to the conditions to be imposed upon a man, not for anything he is to do out there, not in regard to any danger in South Africa, where the war is carried on, but in consideration of a speculation of what he may do if he comes to this country. It is a monstrous and scandalous thing that such adoctrine should ever have been uttered in the House of Commons.
SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I think my constituents would wish me to say one word on this subject. I believe their opinion is that we sent Lord Kitchener to South Africa to finish the war. In order that he might be free from the intricacies and delays of the ordinary law, we armed him with the powers of martial law, and we consider that if he did not use these powers to the best of his judgment he would be a traitor to his country. In all matters concerning the war, and the conduct of affairs in South Africa relating to the war we are prepared to support the judgment of Lord Kitchener against the whole of the Opposition.
MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I do not think that that is a fair statement, as many of us on this side of the House are quite as anxious as any hon. Members opposite can be to see Lord Kitchener bring the war to an end, and to give him whatever powers may be necessary for that purpose. I strongly repudiate the attitude which the Secretary of State for War has taken up on this subject. I should like to point out that from the military point of view martial law goes so far that a man may be tried by court martial and may be condemned, but that when he has served his sentence, even in the field, he becomes free, in the sense which is understood by every civilised country. The Secretary of State said he might be kept in prison. It is true you may keep

1221
anybody in prison under martial law, but not under the sentence of the court martial, because the man has served his sentence. Then it was said he was not in prison indefinitely, but that he is not allowed to go abroad for some period which is not stated. IF that is not indefinitely, I do not know what "indefinitely" is; and I say there is no right to put a restriction on his liberty for an undefined period.
MR. ELLIOT: It appears to me that the House of Commons has a very important duty cast upon it by what has taken place this evening. My right hon. friend seems to have mistaken the issue he had to try. Our duty here is to consider the charge brought against this man. I know nothing about Mr. Cartwright, and for my part I fully believe that he deserved; the sentence which has been passed upon him, and I think he might even have deserved a severer punishment; but, that. Sir, is not the question. I feel that if I had to decide on the merits or demerits of his original offence I could not give an honest verdict in his favour until I had heard the speeches made on his behalf as well as those made against him. I know not how badly Mr. Cartwright behaved. I know nothing about Mr. Cartwright; but be he what he may, he is at least a British subject. He is a fellow citizen of every one of us here, and he stands, and has a right to stand, upon his rights before the law. He has those rights by virtue of the Constitution, and I say those rights have been denied him. Sir, this is a very painful case. It is a case that ought not to have come before us in its present condition. What is the case? It is that the man Cartwright, who has served his sentence, is still being detained in South Africa. When the time comes when a criminal, who has been tried by a judge and convicted, walks out of gaol, he walks out a free man. That is exactly Cartwright's position. I am reminded that martial law remains absolute throughout South Africa. No doubt that gives the military authority in that country power to do what they please in South Africa, and there is no application anywhere except to the House of Commons. And the
1222
House of Commons is bound to see that men's just rights are protected, even though those men are in a country which is subjected—and properly, in my opinion—to martial law. Now, what is it that Mr. Cartwright wants to do and is prevented from doing? If Mr. Cartwright proposed to travel through all South Africa and make inflammatory speeches, or proposed to start a newspaper again in South Africa, I could quite understand Lord Kitchener being perfectly justified, as the guardian of British interests out there, in preventing him from acting in that way—not by virtue of the sentence passed on Cartwright, but by virtue of the martial law that prevails. But what we are told today—and it has not been contradicted—is that Mr. Cartwright claimed to come home to England, and it is actually asserted on this side of the House that it was perfectly competent for the military authorities to deny his right to come to England, because of the danger his actions in England would entail. If ever there was a case in which there were not two sides to the argument, it is this. I repudiate altogether the suggestion that those who intervene in favour of the Constitution, of British law and liberty, are to be in any way taken as supporting the cause of the enemies of Great Britain. I am as anxious as the Secretary for War is, and more than that I cannot say, that our arms should quickly prevail in South Africa, and that the war should be rapidly brought to a victorious close. But I also have regard for British rights and liberties, and I maintain that the House of Commons has a duty upon it, apart and separate from the duty of the Executive Government. It has been said that the House of Commons has sunk in the estimation of the people, a statement I do not believe, but the House will lose respect if it refuses to stand up against any attack on the rights of Englishmen under the Constitution.
EARL PERCY: The right hon. Gentleman said he never heard a subject in this House on which there was less argument on one side. I believe there is a great deal to be said in favour of that view of the question which we on this side of the House support. I agree with my hon. friend behind me that all

1223
of us are anxious to finish the war, and that everything that is necessary should be done in order to finish the war, and I believe that martial law is necessary in South Africa, but I do not agree that we are to form our own opinions as to whether Mr. Cartwright's views had a more evil influence on events in South Africa, according to whether they were published there or in this country. It appears to me that if we allow martial law in South Africa we must give due weight to the opinion of Lord Kitchener as to the effect of such publications. If this case of Mr. Cartwright had any reference to the civil liberties and privileges of an Englishman in this country, then certainly every man who values those liberties or is loyal in his duty to the House of Commons ought to protest against what has been done. But I draw a very different conclusion from the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, who attacks the Government on two grounds. He says that the military authorities have no right to prevent Mr. Cartwright from coming to this country after the expiration of his term of imprisonment, and that Lord Kitchener had no right to exact from Mr. Cartwright an undertaking as to the course of conduct he would pursue if he did come. I think the first of these arguments has been effectually disposed of by the Secretary of "State, who pointed out how over and over again in the past people who fulfilled their terms of punishment in South Africa have been assigned a fixed place of residence, and have been prevented from travelling. Lord Kitchener had a right to say to Mr. Cartwright—"You may remain in South Africa, where you can do no harm, but you shall not go to England." Why is it a greater invasion of liberty to say, "You shall not leave South Africa to go to England" than to say, "You shall not leave Cape Town and go to the Orange Colony"? There is no difference between the two positions. Then it is said that the military authorities have no right to exact an undertaking from Mr. Cartwright as to his course of conduct, From what I have heard I understand Mr. Cartwright volunteered an undertaking.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: I may say—though my information is at secondhand—that in his letter of application Mr. Cartwright expressed his willingness, to show to the authorities a bonâ fide engagement for non-political work in England.
EARL PERCY: That comes to very much the same thing as willingness to give an undertaking. Apparently he was prepared to give an undertaking as to the course he would pursue if he came to this country. I admit I think it does seem rather questionable, though it, is perfectly legitimate, but whether it was judicious or wise is a different matter. The conclusion I draw from the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that he would have been better advised if he had endorsed the action of Lord Kitchener in prohibiting Mr. Cartwright from leaving South Africa, and when the war is over, or when he thought Mr. Cartwright's presence in this country would be attended by no kind of danger—on which I express no opinion—he should be allowed to return without any stipulation whatever.
MR. BLAKE: The general importance of this matter infinitely transcends the circumstances of this particular case, but, even taking the circumstances of this particular case, they appear to me to demonstrate the absolute folly of the course which has been taken, and is now being pursued. The circumstances are these. There was published in The Times newspaper, some three weeks before its re-publication by Mr. Cartwright in his paper at Cape Town, a letter, purporting to be from a British officer. No action was taken by the authorities responsible for the preservation of law and order in free England against The Times newspaper, that most influential journal, for the publication of that which, if it was a seditious libel in Cape Town, was a seditious libel in London. I do not complain of the appeal to the law in Cape Town, and the neglect to appeal to the law here; but I argue that the neglect to appeal to the law here was due to the view, reasonably entertained, that whatever might be the necessity

1225
of appealing to the law in Cape Town, there was no necessity to do so here. I apply that proposition to the exigencies of today. We have had shown by the action there, and the inaction here, the relative dangers, in the view of the authorities, of the publication of seditious libels in Africa and in England. We have had it shown—and I am glad for the honour of this country that, however far, in the view of the Executive, we may have descended even in a twelvemonth—that, at any rate, at that time it was thought not dangerous to England, or injurious to the progress of the war, that The Times should publish something of this kind without being prosecuted for seditious libel. But if that be so, what is the answer, in the circumstances of this particular case, to be made to the suggestion of my hon. friend, that there is no danger in allowing a freeborn Englishman to return to free England, and there, subject to the exigencies of the law and the limitations of the general law to which we are all amenable, to say the thing he will? The facts of the particular case have thus demonstrated the truth of my right hon. friend's proposition. It is absurd to suggest that there is danger here so great as to excuse this extraordinary invasion of the rights of an Englishman.
Another point is this—What are the deliberations about? What is it that is sub judice? Up to now. I had believed that it was by the law and the courts that an Englishman's rights in England were ruled, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite seems to think that Lord Kitchener and the Secretary of State for War are the judges who are to decide on these rights. What is it they are determining? Just look at the absolute folly of the whole business. They are determining what letters of limitation of his rights Mr. Cartwright is to sign, what solemn obligations—I know not whether under seal, or signed with his blood—he is to enter into, as the price of his coming back to England Then when he comes here—is there law here yet? Would he break the law if he breaks that obligation? No; he can not be punished here if he breaks that obligation. He can be punished here, thank God—unless we are to have such judges as have been set up tonight—only if, and when he breaks the common equal
1226
laws of the land. But manacles are to be put upon him; his tongue is to be gagged; gyves are to be put upon his hands by his honourable obligation. I am glad of the certificate of character so far given to Mr. Cartwright, that the Government believe they can trust that honourable obligation. They know it does not stand in law, but they believe they can trust his honourable obligation—which I have no doubt he will observe—by which he, amongst the 40,000,000 inhabitants of these islands, will be the only Englishman marked by the inability and the incapacity to say or write the thing he will, subject only to the responsibilities and liabilities common to us ail. This is a very serious matter. I have never here dilated, and certainly I am not going now to dilate on the war and its effects. I have thought, however, that amongst its effects, has been a very great deterioration in the moral sense, in the love of liberty, in the determination to risk the inconveniences, and to expose one's self to the troubles that have sometimes to be borne in pursuit, defence, and preservation of the rights of free-born Englishmen, and of that deterioration the defence of this day is proof.
Now we hear in the House of Commons the suggestion that martial law, forsooth, is to be such a capricious and uncertain element of power, that the urgent necessity of the case, which is the only defence for the exercise of martial law, is to be construed so widely as to allow the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa to judge of the tone and temper of the British people, of British interests abroad, or of Imperial interests outside South Africa; and on his conception of these topics to banish from England an Englishman, and to retain him in South Africa. That seems to me to be the most extraordinary extension of all the doctrines of martial law of which I ever heard. Consider it for a moment. The noble Lord says that while a man is in the area in which martial law has been set up, his liberty may be restrained. Of course it may on the ground of majority. But the very fact that his liberty may be arbitrarily restrained, is a reason why every Englishman, and, most of all, every Member of the English House of Commons, should look upon the imposition of martial law as an odious necessity, and jealously scrutinise every single act done under its pretence. The man may

1227
be restrained. It is possible to restrain I him in jail, or within the limits of Cape I Town, if you please. But that is because it is alleged to be of the necessity of the case there, in the theatre of war. But to say that a man whose offence, which has been expiated by this twelve months sentence, was committed when martial law did not obtain, and who it is not pretended has committed any other offence, is to be prevented from coming to England, his home 6,000 miles away from the theatre of war, unless he gives some undertaking, diminishing the rights he should enjoy in common with his 40,000,000 fellow Englishmen, is absolutely indefensible. It's a thing which, if I had still any hopes of this House, I should have thought they would this day repudiate.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I rise for the purpose of expressing to the House how greatly I differ from the view my noble friend the Member for Kensington has put forward, and my regret that one who so often delights this House with his eloquence and well-reasoned arguments should have committed himself to such a very bad position on this occasion. This is not a question of Party at all, it is a very great question arising from a very small incident in the course of the warfare in South Africa. It does not matter a row of buttons who Mr. Cartwright is. He may be a ruffian, perhaps he is. But he has been tried by a court martial for any offence he has committed?
MR. DILLON: No by a judge and a jury.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: He has been tried by a judge and jury; he had been found guilty; and South Africa is not an atmosphere, I imagine, in which a man would be likely to get less punishment than he deserved, although I am bound to say, in view of what the Secretary of State has read, Mr. Cartwright appears to have been lucky in the sentence he received; but, at any rate, he has served his sentence, and his offence is blotted out. There is no right or power in this country which allows the Home Government, in time of peace, to proceed against a man who has already served all that the law has a right to require of him. If there is no right, there is no reason. What reason has the Government to be
1228
afraid of Mr. Cartwright? There are many people in this country who spread what is called anti British propaganda, but does that alter the opinion of the British people? Has it in any way impaired the security of the British Government? No Government has benefited so much by the strong support and opinions of the masses of the country as this Government. No Government has less right not to allow those masses to receive any opinion within the law which may be properly expressed to them. This is a great constitutional principle, and I should be very sorry indeed if it were thought by those outside who read the debates in this House that constitutional principles are valued and supported only by hon. Members opposite. There are some of us on this side of the House who are not prepared to see a great constitutional principle violated, not, I think, with any deliberate intent, but simply because those who administer the law have got used to an over exercise of power, and who, having overstepped themselves on this occasion, should be made by the due authority of this House to withdraw within the limits of the law.
MR BARTLEY: We have heard tonight some speeches about great constitutional principles, but what does that really amount to? A man in South Africa has written a most scandalous article to incite his fellow countrymen against this country. He has been tried for it and punished, and it is said that that ends the matter. But I venture to say that we have another side to look at, and it is the fact that we are at war. What this man was doing and might do in the future it was thought by the authorities might lead to great harm, and so the Commander-in-Chief and Lord Milner think he is a man who should not be allowed to come to this country in order to make use of this country's platforms to sow and create dissent from the policy of the war. It is idle to talk about the rights of an Englishman in this way. [Nationalist cheers.] I hear great cheering from hon. Members from Ireland, but they are always elated at anything which is detrimental to this country. The rights of this individual, who has behaved in this scandalous manner, are as nothing compared to the rights of those persons in South Africa whom his conduct would tend to injure.

1229
I do not always support the Government, but I say that in this matter they have taken a proper and a firm line. It is childish talking in this way, and getting Members of the Front Opposition Bench to father these various cases in order to make mischief. We have had a great deal too much of this lately. I say that in spite of what this House does and what hon. Members do, the country is setting tired of this sort of thing. Lord Milner and Lord Kitchener, in the exercise of their high powers, have thought it desirable that this man should be kept where he is, and we are bound to support them in that action. It is quite possible that the Financial Secretary to the War Office did not give a very wise answer. Unfortunately it was, I think, an answer to a supplementary Question widen he had not carefully prepared. [Opposition cries of "No, no."] Nevertheless, the fact remains that in a state of war we ought to support the men whom we trust in doing everything which they consider is necessary to conclude the war. Here is a man judging from the nature of the extract from the article which has been read out who has written something reflecting upon the British soldiers. [Cries of "No, no."] He published statements of a most scandalous and disgraceful character against honour able men who belong to this country, and after he was punished, so far from his punishment ending the matter. I say that Lord Milner and Lord Kitchener were bound to see that that man's actions afterwards did not tend to prolong the war or injure the cause which they had at heart.
I think we are now becoming so extraordinarily mild to our enemies, and bitter and hostile to our friends, that there seems to be delight whenever you can hold up a plausible case of any sort to turn against our own people. This does seem an extraordinary position for this country to come to, and if there is one thing that degrades this House in the eyes of the public, it is that we are so fond of doing this sort of thing. I am sorry for it, because the great bulk of the people support this war, and they believe that it is not being carried out as vigorously as it should be, but they are supporting the Government in it, and I am glad that the Government have acted in the way they have in this matter.
1230
I trust that they will put even more backbone into their policy and their methods. We should consider in every respect that the men we trust out in South Africa are doing the best for us, and we ought not to be so fond of these debates, which are telegraphed over to the enemy, and it is no good saying that they do no harm, because one of the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition was reproduced and circulated in South Africa. I say that by this course we are injuring the country, and I am certain that the British public are getting rather tired of it. I sincerely trust that we shall not see any more of these scenes, but that we snail support those in South Africa who are doing their utmost to carry out the great duty which we have entrusted to them. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "Why not send you out?"]
MR. WALLACE: I desire to repudiate altogether the contention that those who support this Motion are acting in a factions spirit and hostile to their country because they venture to support a great constitutional principle in regard to matters of this kind we are not prepared to sacrifice this great principle even for the sake of supporting the policy of the Government in South Africa. The noble Lord opposite who spoke in favour of this Motion said that he could discover no difference whatever between the action of Lord Kitchener in refusing to allow a man to leave Cape Town and go to the Orange Free State and refusing to allow him to leave the Cape and come home. The noble Lord might have at one perceived the difference We have martial law prevailing in South Africa, but it does not prevail in this country, and whether it is properly proclaimed or not in South Africa, the fact that it exists there would allow Lord Kitchener to exercise his powers there, but he would have no right to extend his powers over any British subject when he comes over here.
I have risen to protest against this new doctrine. For the purposes of this discussion I assume that Mr. Cartwright deserved all he got, and I assume from the nature of the article which has been read out that he ought to have been punished. He has, I understand, suffered his punishment. Having suffered his

1231
punishment, Mr. Cartwright proposes to come back to this country, and we are told that it is within the power of the Secretary of State for War or Lord Kitchener to impose conditions on a British subject when he returns to this country. A more dangerous doctrine has never been enunciated by any Minister, and I feel it my duty to strongly protest against it. If Mr. Cartwright, when he returns here, breaks the pledges he has given, there is no power whatever to punish him for so doing. The law here can take no cognisance of this undertaking, but if Mr. Cartwright comes to this country and is hostile in his acts, the law here is sufficient to punish him, and what we ask is that he should be left like any other citizen to the operation of the law. I protest in the strongest possible way against the language used by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in which he suggested that those of us who take this view are acting in any sense hostile to our country, or are any less anxious and desirous to see peace restored than he is. We have supported the Government in connection with this war, and we are all anxious to see it brought to a conclusion. We are as anxious as the First Lord of the Treasury to see peace brought about, but we believe that the true method to achieve it is to see that the law is carried out in a constitutional manner.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have heard several abstract propositions connected with the operation of martial law from which I admit that I strongly dissent. I think the hon. Gentleman and some of his predecessors upon that side of the House have committed themselves to the doctrine that it is intrinsically and necessarily an improper use of the powers given to a Commander-in-Chief when martial law is proclaimed to say that a certain individual shall not be permitted to leave South Africa, even although he is not imprisoned and is not suffering under a sentence. I dissent from that proposition. I do not think there is the smallest justification for it, and if it be the opinion of the military authorities that serious danger to South Africa and British interests in South Africa would follow from the wanderings about the world of any
1232
person who is in South Africa, they have, in my judgment, under martial aw not only the right but the duty of preventing that.
Another extraordinary fallacy which appears to pervade the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that there is no ground for believing Mr. Cartwright to be the dangerous person that he is represented to be, and that he has apparently been found to be by a judge and jury in South Africa, because, forsooth, the seditious libel for which he has been condemned has been published, or parts of it have been published, in a newspaper in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "First published."]
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Copied from The Times.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is that an argument which is seriously going to be advanced and seriously maintained by anybody in cold blood? Is it even worth putting forward as a debating point? Because a shocking libel upon our generals, officers, and soldiers is published for the purpose of condemnation in this country, then, forsooth, its publication for treasonable purposes in South Africa becomes absolutely innocent, is completely whitewashed, has at all events a large measure of excuse afforded to it. It appears to me that the man who published that seditious libel avowedly with a view of bringing discredit on our troops, officers, and generals, with a view of embittering and prolonging the war, with a view of opening every sore and pouring poison into every wound—that man was guilty of as base and as horrible a crime as the imagination of any of us is able to picture. If the matter is to be argued upon its merits or demerits, I do not think there is anybody, or hardly anybody, in any quarter of the House who would dare to get up and defend this Gentleman's cause.
SIR WILLIAM HAKCOURT SIR WILLIAM HAKCOURT indicated dissent.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the right hon. Gentleman's exclamation indicates that he considers that I have misrepresented some of the speeches which have been made.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is admitted that he was properly tried.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If nothing can be said on that subject, why did the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion—I am not quite sure whether he did, but certainly more than one Gentleman who supported the Motion—why did they bring in the fact that the publication of the libel occurred in another country?
MR. JOHN MORLEY: I did not deal with that matter. I expressly confined myself to the consideration of the point which I have brought before the House.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was one of those who stated that the libel had appeared in The Times. If he did not do so, I withdraw, so far as he is concerned, the charge I made; but I say boldly—and I am in the recollection of those who have heard this debate—that it has been advanced, and that it can only have been advanced to show that, after all, Mr. Cartwright may be a very innocent and well meaning person.
AN HON. MEMBER: I advanced that, and it was with no such suggestion. I advanced it not to prove anything but this; that the authorities here rightly thought that the publication of that in England was not dangerous, and that the authorities in South Africa, I presume, rightly thought the publication there was dangerous, and that therefore it was no argument for preventing Mr. Cartwright coming to England.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that I have misrepresented him, I can assure him that so far as he is concerned I will not press the matter further on the attention of the House. Another fallacy which I am bound to take notice of, and which I think has appeared in more than one speech, is that it is in order to protect the Government in this country, or society in this country, from Mr. Cartwright's libellous instincts, if such they be, that this action has been taken in South Africa. It is suggested that it is because Mr. Cartwright differs from the Government, or because he can do something in this country to this country or to the Government of this country, that his freedom of action is restricted. Of
1234
course, what he does in this country matters not a farthing to anybody, and least of all to the Government. It is not the part he may take in our domestic controversies which I presume has or could have any interest for the military authorities in South Africa. It is what the result in South Africa will be of what Mr. Cartwright might do if he left South Africa, and, be the position of the military authorities right or wrong, that is a perfectly legitimate consideration for them to take into view. It is perfectly sound in law, in justice, and in common sense. Upon the application of it I say nothing at the present time, because I think the House has a little allowed itself to forget—for in the debate it has been represented that this is a great constitutional issue—what the real issue is which we have to determine.
My hon. friends the Members for Oldham and Durham and others appear to think that if they go into the lobby this evening in favour of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, all they are doing is giving expression to some constitutional and legal view which they may be right or wrong in holding. They are doing a very different thing from that. They are passing a condemnation upon Lord Kitchener and his military advisers, and they are passing that condemnation without even having heard their case. In my opinion, it will be a very serious thing—it would be serious under any circumstances and with the fullest knowledge—for this House at the present crisis of affairs in South Africa to pass a vote of condemnation on the man who is not only managing your military affairs, but who is one of those in whose keeping at this moment rest your hopes of peace. And to embark upon such a course before you know what Lord Kitchener's case is, be-fore you have heard his explanation of the events which occurred, to pass censure upon him untried and unheard—that, Sir, is not the way, if my hon. friend the Member for Durham will allow me to say so, to uphold the honour of the British House of Commons. I only ask the House, if they doubt the truth of the words I have just been uttering, to represent to themselves what would be the consternation in South Africa if His Majesty's Government, in connection with Lord Kitchener's action, were to be beaten on a motion for the adjournment of

1235
the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "They will not be."] No, but I say every man who votes for this Motion, if he contribute to the defeat of the Government, must be supposed to desire it, and, at all events, to be doing his best to bring it about. As regards the Government, I make no plea at all. I make no appeal to the House, even to those who were returned to the House to support the Government. But I do make an appeal, and I do so with some confidence, to Gentlemen on the Opposition side who have boasted of the support they have given to the war. I make an appeal to them and ask them what would be thought in South Africa by Lord Kitchener, by Lord Milner, and, above all by our enemies in the field, if the news was telegraphed out to South Africa tomorrow that, without hearing our own generals, without knowing what they have to say for themselves, the House of Commons had passed a vote of condemnation on their action. I will never believe that this House of Commons should be guilty of so unpatriotic a piece of folly in the present case, and I earnestly trust we shall show our confidence in those to whom our interests in those far-distant regions are entrusted by supporting them on the present occasion.
MR. BRYCE: A remark fell from the hon. Member for Oldham, which I think ought to be in our minds on the present occasion. This is not a Party question. It is a question which ought to interest both sides of the House equally, one in whichhon. Members on both sides ought to be equally anxious to arrive at a just conclusion. It is a question of the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country. I shall endeavour to deal in a very few remarks with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He began by saying that the military authorities in South Africa have the right to prevent a British subject from quitting South Africa to come to England. The right hon. Gentleman advanced no authority for that contention. He can advance no authority. I believe it to be absolutely opposed to British law, and I venture to challenge the Attorney General, whom I see opposite, to give any authority whatever in favour of the proposition that a British subject in South Africa can be prevented from coming to England, of which he is a
1236
citizen. The principle contended for by the right hon. Gentleman would equally well justify the military authorities in South Africa preventing any British subject who happened to be paying a visit there from taking his passage home to this country if they chose to think that he was going to conduct an anti-British propaganda. Suppose my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire had gone to South Africa and wished to come back. The principle laid down by the Leader of the House would be just as effective to prevent him from taking ship to England as any resident in the colony.
The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to introduce some prejudice into the question by referring to Mr. Cartwright's offence. We have nothing to do here with this offence. Punishment purges the offence, and Mr. Cartwright can only be detained under martial law, and the only test of martial law is military necessity. It has never been defended on any ground except that of military necessity. I am endeavouring to show that no British subject the military authorities chose to suspect is not to be permitted to come from South Africa to this country if he is going to have in this country an anti-British propaganda. No doctrine more absolutely novel than that a British subject is to be prevented from saying in this country whatever he likes to say, subject to his responsibility to the law has ever been contended for before. It is not because Mr. Cartwright was personally opposed to the Government that we complain of his detention. It is because we say that no British subject is to be restricted in this country except by the ordinary law of the land. When the right hon. Gentleman talks of the words Mr. Cartwright may use here going out to South Africa, does he forget that there is a strict censorship in South Africa, and that anything said here can be prevented from going into South Africa? Does he forget that others will say more than Mr. Cartwright would have said, and more than he undertook that he would not say? The right hon. Gentleman asked us to consider the position of Lord Kitchener. This is not the first time that the Government have tried to shelter themselves under the mantle of Lord Kitchener. I confess I never expected to hear the head of the Government in this House try to relieve himself

1237
and his Government of the responsibility which rests on them in this way, and trying to support and defend the claim of the military authorities to keep a British subject from leaving South Africa. Who is Lord Kitchener? He is our Commander in-Chief in South Africa, and a brave and distinguished soldier, who deserves our confidence for the way in which he has conducted the war. But he is not a constitutional lawyer. It is not Lord Kitchener's duty to say what is the law of England, what are the rights of British subjects, or whether a British subject should or should not be allowed to leave South Africa. Suppose Lord Kitchener were to say, "I think these persons ought not to leave South African" that does not give him the right to prevent them leaving. The guardians of the constitution are the Ministers of the Crown, and it is not possible for them to shuffle off that responsibility. But it appears to me that they are trying to get a responsibility which is theirs on to the military commander in South Africa.
The real issue we have in this case is a simple one. We have nothing to do with the merits of Mr. Cartwright. We have nothing to do with the justice of his sentence. We have nothing to do with martial law, as I have humbly submitted, because the only test of martial law is military necessity, and it cannot be alleged that there is that necessity applicable to England, although I do admit there may be in South Africa. The real issue is shortly and simply this: whether there exists in the law of England any power or right by which the executive Government or the military Government can interfere with the rights of a British subject in England to write or speak what he pleases subject to his responsibility to the law, or to prevent him from coming to the shores of England. If that authority can be given let it be given. If it is not given we are bound to protest against such a doctrine. The First Lord of the Treasury has asked what would be said in South Africa and other parts of the world if this action with respect to Mr. Cartwright had not been taken. I should like to ask what will be said in all the countries of the world, which look to England as the
1238
home of constitutional freedom, if the House of Commons is found throwing away our constitutional rights in this fashion? There is an old maxim, "That eternal vigilance is the price of freedom," and the House of Commons will be false to its responsibilities and traditions, if it neglects to mark, to check, and to denounce this monstrous infraction of constitutional rights.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): I think every Member of this House who has heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen must have been disposed to thank Heaven that the right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that Lord Kitchener is not a constitutional lawyer. The right hon. Gentleman has said that other nations, who look to England as the home of constitutional freedom, will be likely to form a bad opinion of us. There is such a thing as constitutional pedantry; and I venture to say that, if in the present crisis we are guided in our conduct by the maxims which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down, some foreign nations, at least, may very well be disposed to congratulate themselves that they have less constitutional freedom than is enjoyed in this country.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Oh for the freedom of Russia!
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The right hon. Gentleman has asked for a law which justifies the expulsion of a British subject from South Africa.
MR. BRYCE: I said the detention.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: In the present circumstances the rights of a person to go into Cape Town and to go out of Cape Town stand on precisely the same footing. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman no legal precedent whatever. [Opposition laughter.] Members who laugh seem to forget that the operation of the ordinary law is necessarily suspended by the operation of the military law.
MR. BRYCE: Yes, in South Africa.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Mr. Cartwright is in South Africa, and Lord Kitchener has directed that he shall not leave South Africa. How can the right hon. Gentleman seriously ask me to produce some legal precedent in which any Gentleman has been prevented from leaving a British Colony? What have we to do in a matter of this sort? We have to deal with a great crisis in South Africa where war is raging and where rightly and properly martial law is being enforced. What is the use, in the circumstances, of asking whether there are any precedents in the law reports for preventing a man from leaving the Colony? Where military law is in force, whatever the Commander-in-Chief deems to he necessary for the safety of the country under his care may properly be done. The Commander-in-Chief in such a case takes whatever steps he thinks are necessary and when military law is in force the man in command must be trusted. Constitutional maxims are all very well but when it is contended that the Commander-in-Chief is not entitled to prevent any person leaving South Africa, I submit that a proposition of that kind is quite sufficient to condemn the argument which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. I have been asked—By what right does Lord Kitchener prevent anyone leaving South Africa? That general proposition has been put forward, and ask those who have ventured to put it forward to consider this case. We are dealing with questions of general principle which have been boldly advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite who ought to have known better. Supposing the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa knew a person was about to leave the colony for the purpose of raising a force to support the enemy or for the purpose of conducting negotiations to secure foreign support, would anybody say that the Commander-in-Chief was not well within his right in preventing such a person leaving South Africa. I think this illustration will show the danger of being too hasty in advancing general propositions of this kind. We are told that in this particular case the action was unwise. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Durham said that before
1240
he condemned Mr. Cartwright he wanted to hear the case on both sides. We are not now trying Mr. Cartwright, and my hon. and learned friend seems to forget that he has been tried.
MR. ELLIOTsaid he knew that they were not trying Mr. Cartwright, but the point he put forward was whether Lord Kitchener had a right to detain Mr. Cartwright in South Africa after he had been punished for his offence.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I am sorry that I misunderstood the hon. and learned Member, but we cannot leave out of this case the fact that Mr. Cartwright has been tried.
MR. ELLIOT: Yes, and he has been punished.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I do not think anybody will say that the whole nature of a man is changed when he has been punished, and he may be very much the same man as he was before. We are not now going to sit in judgment upon this particular case and say whether in the opinion of this House Lord Kitchener has acted wisely or not. Martial law exists in South Africa and we must trust the man who has to administer it. Constitutional maxims are all very well, I value them as highly as any man, and I hope I am not complimenting myself too much when I say that possibly I understand them better than hon. Gentlemen opposite. But they may be misapplied, or their application may have to be paid for at too great a cost; and I submit that the House will be dealing a very great blow at its standing in the country, if in the matter before it it pronounces a vote of censure upon the Commander in-Chief in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose shakes his head. Whatever may be the intention of moving the Motion, its effect, if carried, will be a vote of censure upon Lord Kitchener. The very best intentions in the world will not prevent things their natural effect.
"Things are what they are and the consequences will be what they will be."

1241
My hon. and learned friend on this side of the House, who claims to have supported the Government in this war, has spoken in support of this Motion, but he seems to think that we can treat this as an abstract question of constitutional law. But we can do nothing of the kind, and if anything is wanting to open the eyes of the House to the true issue of the Motion it will be supplied by the reception it has met with in a certain quarter of the House, where, to say the least of it, the successes of this country in the war had not been received with unmixed satisfaction.
SIR. ROBERT REID: I do not wish to expose myself to the charge of pedantry, but after the position which the Attorney General has taken up, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word in regard to martial law and the application of it to tins particular case. Martial law as I understand it, is an extension to an army of exactly the same rights extended to an individual when he is acting in self-defence; and in the same, way that a man might inflict violence or even death on others if it were necessary for the defence of his own life and limb, so an army collectively, through its commander, may defend itself in like manner, even though it is done at the price of ordinary freedom. That I believe to be the bedrock on which alone what is called martial law rests—martial law, which has been truly said to be no law at all, lint administration under the stress of extreme necessity by the Commander-in-Chief in the Held. In those circumstances it is perfectly obvious, in the first place, that any such application of force must be subject to the ultimate sanctions of a legal tribunal when peace is restored. Just as a man who has done a thing in self-defence may he tried for it, and if the plea of self-defence prevails be acquitted, so after all these scenes of violence are closed, everything done under cover of martial law may be reopened before the constitutional tribunals of the country, and they alone will pronounce finally whether it has been lawful or not.
The second thing that follows from this is more important still. It is that there must he a limitation in the exercise of martial law corresponding with the necessity that evokes it. There can be
1242
no limit wider than that of actual necessity. The Attorney General did not even suggest to them that there is any limit. He seems to suggest that the Commander-in-Chief may, at his pleasure and with impunity, do whatever he thinks fit. I wholly repudiate that proposition. It is contrary to the foundations of our Constitution, and is not to be sanctioned by any authority in the past. The measure of necessity is the only measure by which we can test this action—the measure of military necessity, the defence of the army in the field. What has happened? Mr. Cartwright has been prevented from coming home. If it were said that he was a general of extreme experience and skill and was likely to join the enemy and turn his arms against the British forces, necessity might compel his being detained. But we know why Mr. Cartwright is being detained. "We have been told by the noble Lord, whose candour deserves applause and respect from Members of this House, that the reason is that there may not be added another supporter to the anti-British sentiment in this country. [Ministerial laughter, and cries of "Oh," and Opposition cheers.] If any hon. Members suspect me of it—[Cries of "No"]—or my friends, I believe they never were guilty of a more cruel or uncharitable suspicion in their lives. We disapprove of much that the Government have done, and believe them to be blamable for a great deal of what has taken place. But our first and main thought is, and always will be, the honour and happiness of our own country. But I will let that be. There is supposed to he some anti-British faction in this country. It must be extremely small, but the reason why this gentleman is not allowed to come home is not because he would be likely to convert hon. Gentlemen opposite, but because he might join this small faction, which is animated by a spirit of hostility to our own country. That is not a military necessity. It is no application of the principle of martial law. It is a gross abuse of power placed in the hands of the Government in South Africa. I think it is a pity that the Leader of the House is always saying that whatever we do or whatever we suggest is throwing blame upon Lord Kitchener or upon Lord Milner. For my part, I agree with Lord Milner even less than I do with the Government, but,

1243
as for Lord Kitchener. I have no feeling for him but a feeling of admiration and the truest respect.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Whom are you attacking now?
SIR EGBERT REID: I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman. My criticisms are directed against the right hon. Gentleman himself.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Lord Kitchener is administering martial law.
SIR ROBERT REID: The right hon. Gentleman says in his place it is Lord Kitchener who is administering martial law, but who is responsible to this House? What are we coming to in this House when we are told, when we are blaming the policy pursued in South Africa. "Oh, you are not to say anything against it, because you are reflecting on the agent on the spot"? It has been one of the maxims of the House of Commons, I always thought but I am learning a great deal that is new—very new, and not very true—I have always understood that it was one of the maxims of the House of Commons that the Government were responsible to the House for what took place abroad. But, according to the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to be extremely sensitive in regard to this, although he is not very particular in suggesting all sorts of evil consequences as likely to flow from other people's actions, it is sufficient to say, "You are making a reflection on Lord Kitchener." I venture to say that there is nothing of the kind in any of our minds. Lord Kitchener takes a particular step in regard to a particular person. He is advised, of course, whether it is within his powers or not. The only reflection I should make would be that Lord Kitchener has been ill advised as to the real meaning and effect of martial law in this case. I think it is time that the right hon. Gentleman should take the responsibility for his own conduct, and the conduct of his colleagues. Although I believe truly that the right hon. Gentleman has never been wanting in manly conduct, I think it is not like his usual
1244
manly conduct to ask that the consideration of Lord Kitchener and Lord Milner should be constantly interposed between the House and the censure which we think, on many occasions, the right hon. Gentleman richly deserves.
SIR J. FERGUSSONwho was almost inaudible in the Gallery, was understood to say that in time of war, when the ordinary law-was suspended and armed power was substituted for it, it was not for this House to say what were the reasons which guided our generals in the field in a particular case. Who knew what the crime was which Lord Kitchener had judged? When martial law had superseded civil law, and the ordinary rights of citizens ceased to exist—when British government in South Africa was being carried on under great difficulties it was our duty to give credit an support to those who were carrying on the government. After the war was over, if it was thought proper, Lord Kitchener might be asked to explain his action. But that was not the question. The question was whether the Commander-in-Chief was not to have due credit given to him for a particular act. He put it to hon. Gentlemen, who had only spoken on this question from a desire to see justice done to this man, that this was not the time to go into this matter, and they would be acting most unjustly in so doing. There was a time when a Legislative Assembly tried to control its generals in the field. The Dutch States General did so, and Lord Macaulay had recorded the result, and showed that the generals in the field were much hindered by the action of the States General, who persisted in interfering with the campaign. He thought they ought to show their confidence in Lord Kitchener, and not put such a slur upon him as this Motion would undoubtedly place upon him if it was supported by a large number of Members of this House.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the question before the House. He talked about interfering with the generals in the field, and interfering with the plan of cam paign; there is nothing of the sort here.

1245
It is a question of permitting a British subject, against whom there is, at the present moment, nothing to be said, because he has purged his offence, to return to this country, where he is amenable to the laws of the country. The Attorney-General, whose defence was very skilfully irrelevant, has not once pledged his reputation in support of the action of Lord Kitchener in this particular case, but things have come to a pretty pass when we find a great Constitutional lawyer pouring contempt upon constitutional maxims and constitutional rights. What did the Attorney General say? The learned Gentleman said there may be cases in which a general may be justified in preventing a man from coming to Europe from South Africa—as, for instance, if he is known to be, or reasonably suspected of, intending to enlist reinforcements and obtain supplies for the enemy. But such a man would be under suspicion of aiding and being in touch with the enemy, and it would be not a question of his returning to Europe, but of his arrest on the spot. What on earth has that got to do with the case of Mr. Cartwright? This is not a case of preventing a man coming to Europe to enlist reinforcements or procure supplies for the enemy. The answer given by the Secretary of State for war is not that. He said he was not to be allowed to come to England to fight the Government.
MR. BRODRICK: No, no.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Well, to indulge in an anti-British propaganda. We know very well what that means. It means criticising the right hon. Gentleman inside the House or out of it. He has said so over and over again. Every criticism of the plan of campaign or the Secretary of State for War or the Government is an anti-British business, and ought to be put an end to. The defence of the Attorney General had nothing to do with the case, but the speeches delivered on the other side of the House, including that of the Leader of the Opposition, have shown that a tremendously grave issue has been raised. It has been said in defence of the action of the Government that the necessities of Lord Kitchener and Lord Milner are supreme, that the first thing is to bring this war to an end,
1246
that whatever Lord Kitchener and Lord Milner thought necessary in order to bring the war to an end was justifiable. What does that mean? The charge against Cartwright is that he published an article which raised rebellion in Africa, and because he did that, he must not be allowed to come to this country. He must remain in Africa. If Lord Kitchener is to say that a thing published in this country is mischievous in Africa, and therefore ought not to be published in Africa, why does not Lord Kitchener say that no criticism of the war is to be published in this country? Why should there not be prohibition of all speeches, even by the Leader of the Opposition, in the newspapers of this country? This shows what we are coming to and that is exactly the point I wish to make. Who is Mr. Cartwright I ask again. Mr. Cartwright might be an able man, but with all respect to him, he is only an obscure journalist. He is not well known, or a man of assured position. If he is stopped from returning to England because it is supposed he would write something which would criticise the Government, why should not the Leader of the Opposition be stopped, and everybody who was expected to deliver a speech supposed to be anti-British? Why should not public meetings be suppressed? I mean outside Birmingham and Ireland. According to the Attorney General, constitutional maxims do not count.
EARL PERCY: There is no martial law in England.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, but it is coming very rapidly at this rate. What conditions has Lord Kitchener insisted on? Has he insisted, for instance, that the offence should not be repeated? If Mr. Cartwright does repeat it, he will be amenable to the law in this country, and will be doubly punished. It would then be interesting to read the comment of The Times on the prosecution. The fact is that Mr. Cartwright has not been guilty of wickedly inventing a slander, but of grave error of judgment in believing he was safe in publishing something which had appeared in The Times. For that error of judgment he very properly got twelve months imprisonment. Here we have kept in Cape Town, the centre of activity, a man who

1247
is believed to be so dangerous that he cannot be allowed in England. What papers would Mr. Cartwright write for? He would not be allowed to write for The Times. Every paper which is supposed to be anti-British is prohibited in South Africa. How would any of his writings reach that country? Would they ever have any access there? No. The Attorney General was perfectly right. There is absolutely no precedent for action of this kind. It is not the first time we have had fighting in a British colony; it is not the first lime we have had martial law; but it is the first time we have had a case of this character brought before the House or Commons, and the Attorney General, a great constitutional authority, has admitted that there is no record of a precedent for any such action as that of prohibiting Mr. Cartwright to conic to this country. His offence, which was really that of implicitly believing in The Times, has been expiated, and every man in this country, however foul may be his offence, once he has purged that offence, is free to go where he pleases. The worst that can be done is to subject him to police supervision. Why is not Mr. Cartwright to be allowed to come to this country under ordinary conditions? Neither the Secretary of State nor the Leader of the House has attempted to make out a case, and the Attorney General showed that be knew something about the matter by evading the whole point.
MR. Y HR BURGH: The speech to which we have just listened shows that the question before the House falls tinder two heads. The first is as to whether there is power under martial law to detain any subject in Cape-Colony, and the second is whether the reason is sufficiently strong to justify the detention. My hon. friends the Members for Durham and Oldham, together with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, said that in their opinion there was no power within the limits of the constitution under martial law in Cape Colony to prevent a British subject leaving the colony and coming to England.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: "No right," not "no power."
MR. YERBURGH: "Power," I believe, was the word used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen—"power" meaning "right" in this case. But when the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries addressed us. I was interested to find that be threw over the three hon. Members I have named. He told us practically that there was a right under martial law, as existing, to retain any obnoxious British subject within Cape Colony; and he then went on to say that the whole question was whether the offence committed by the question was sufficiently serious, and whether his position was such as to render him a dangerous person in the view of the authorities. The whole question is whether the case is bad enough. The hon. and learned Gentleman went further. Not only did he lay down that proposition, but he constituted himself judge of the action taken by Lord Kitchener, because, unless my memory serves me wrongly, his words were that "This was a gross injustice." I was not in the House when the Secretary-of State for War made his speech, but I understand that he used the phrase "sub judice", and that the words were greeted with considerable, laughter. But, as far as I know, Lord Kitchener has not been heard, and yet the hon. and learned Member actually comes to that table, and, without having heard the other side, proceeds to deliver judgment against Lord Kitchener.
I have never hesitated, when I considered it necessary, to take action against my right hon. friend the Leader of the House, but I must dissent in the strongest possible way from the statement that he has tried to shelter himself behind Lord Kitchener. It must be Lord Kitchener whose conduct is called into question. It is he who is putting these powers into force, and therefore it is he whom hon. Members are condemning. My right hon. friend is therefore; perfectly right in saying it is not the conduct of the Government that is criticised. Of course, if the House carry this vote, the Government stand condemned; they fall with their Commander in South Africa. But no reasonable person can have a shadow of doubt that, if a vote of this character is passed, it

1249
casts a very heavy imputation upon Lord Kitchener. I will only say farther that in my opinion the supporters of this Motion have lamentably failed to make out their case, and by the mouth of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite they have admitted their case to be absolutely unsound from top to bottom.
MR. ASQUITH: I think that within my experience a case has rarely been presented to the House in which the weight of argument was so entirely on one side. It would need some excuse on my part for trespassing for a few moments on the attention of the House at this stage of the discussion were it not that appeals have been made on the other side to those of us who on this side have on the whole supported the policy of this war and who have, in season and out of season, strenuously defended the conduct and the reputation of our commanders and our soldiers in the field, as though by the logical necessities of their position they were bound to defend, or, at any rate, to apologise for, the course taken by the Government on this occasion. It is to demur in the strongest possible way to that proposition that I rise now to say a few words to the House. Let me brush aside, before I come to the kernel of the matter, the totally irrelevant consideration—dwelt upon by the hon. Member and put forward with great force by the First Lord of the Treasury—that if we assent to a Motion of this kind, or, indeed, if we express any dissatisfaction with the reasons which have been advanced for the retention of this gentleman at the Cape, we are guilty of passing a vote of censure on Lord Kitchener. What a ridiculous proposition' I know nothing of the inner workings of this matter or of its secret history. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen have the advantage of me in that respect, but I do know what has been disclosed to Parliament; and I entertain the strongest suspicion that Lord Kitchener had no more to do with this matter than we have. Lord Kitchener has affairs of much graver consequence to think of at Pretoria in carrying on the campaign against the Boers than in discussing with his generals or some subordinate
1250
officers in Cape Colony what shall be done with a more or less obscure journalist. Lord Kitchener has rightly, under our system—and a very good system I think it is—taken upon himself the responsibility for the acts of his subordinates, and no doubt he has presented to the Government whatever reasons can be urged in defence of it. But that does not affect in the least degree this proposition, which lies at the root of the constitutional responsibility of Ministers to Parliament, that in matters of this kind it is not the general in the field any more than it is his subordinate officer; it is the Government, and the Government alone, who are responsible.
That being so, and the question being simply whether the decision of the Government announced tonight is a right and proper decision, how does the matter stand? It depends partly on considerations of law and partly on considerations of policy. As regards the law, it has been stated by my hon. and learned friend the Member for the Dumfries Burghs, with great authority, with perfect lucidity, and in propositions which I do not think any lawyer in the House will venture to contradict. They come to this that what is called martial law which means the suspension of the ordinary law of the land and the rule for the time being of military force—as its existence is justified, so the extent of its application is measured and warranted by necessity alone. The Legislature in passing Acts of Indemnity after periods of martial law has never been too minute or too exacting in questioning acts which may have been, under heat and precipitation, committed in circumstances of great momentary embarrassment. I can understand a man being locked up without reason assigned if he was thought to be dangerous to the peace of a colony, or if he was likely to give assistance to the enemy in the field. I can understand under the régime of martial, law a man being deported from the colony on the ground that under existing circumstances his room would be preferred to his company. But never until tonight, never until this case, never until the noble Lord a few days ago told us what the grounds of detention of this gentleman were, never in the history of the law has it been

1251
suggested that a commander was entitled, under the régime of martial law, not to keep a man in gaol, bur, to allow him to wander freely in the country where martial law prevails, and yet to keep him in that country which is the scene of disturbance against his will, unless he will give a pledge as to what he will do or not do when he gets away from the scene of disturbance to a free country where martial law does not prevail. That is the proposition, and the only proposition, which the House has to consider. Whatever your views may be about the war, its origin, and its conduct, whatever may be your admiration and confidence—and I yield to no one in that respect—in the generals and officers in the field, I say that the House is not bound by any consideration of patriotic reserve to abstain from discussing—aye, and condemning—a proposition of this kind put forward on the authority of Ministers of the day, a pro-position in which I for one will never acquiesce, and against which I invite the House to protest.
MR. PEMBERTON: It has been said by the First Lord of the Treasury and others that in voting against the Government on this occasion one would really be condemning their policy as a whole, and especially the conduct of Lord Kitchener. I do not think that is an argument worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. One may very well think the bulk of the policy of the Government to be good and sound, and be willing to support it; 1I think one may go further and vote in favour of certain parts of that policy of which one does not wholly approve; but there are certain things which appear to be more important than that, and this, I think, is one. Undoubtedly the Government as a whole are responsible, and I have no hesitation in saying that I think it is unfortunate they did not say that certainly this man should not be kept in Cape Colony if he wished to leave it. One could by some twisting of words—or, perhaps, I ought not to use that expression—but by some subtle argument, like that of the Attorney General prove that as martial law exists in Cape Colony the man who has to administer it—Lord Kitchener—has authority to do really as he likes. But I think the fairer way of looking at this
1252
matter would be that to keep a man in the colony cannot really have anything to do with the peace of the Empire, or with the necessities of the colony in time of wax. I cannot follow that argument, and I cannot help thinking that the bulk of hon. Members of this House are of opinion that there is a weak point in this part of the argument. My contention is that if we err at all we should err on the side of generosity in preserving to the utmost the rights of any British subject. I have not the least doubt that a very large section of the Party to which I belong do not like the extension of martial law all over South Africa. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"] Although we do not like it, we recognise it as a necessity to which we must bow, but that does not mean that it should not be extended to eases where it is not necessary. I hope that any limitation of the rights of British subjects will be as small as possible. This is a question to me of principle just as it is to the hon. Member for Durham and the hon. Member for Oldham and others. We think this principle is of more importance than merely supporting the Government. I think it is an unfortunate argument put forward by the First Lord of the Treasury in his appeal to the Party when he says that by voting against the Government on this occasion hon. Members will be doing serious harm to the policy of the Government. I believe that is what I may call the Government Whip, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to use the whip in this case. What are we elected for? We are elected, it is true, to support either one Party or the other, but we are also elected in order to exercise a reasonable discretion in certain matters. I know I was elected in this way, and I am quite willing to stand by it. I think it is most unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should have used such an argument. Surely the First Lord of the Treasury must know that self-preservation will not induce them to vote against the policy of the Government. I do not think that should be used as an argument to influence people's votes against what they believe to be right upon a matter which many of us do not think is a question of Party, but a

1253
question of constitution, and of the duty of this House as a House. I only regret that the Government could not give an explanation which would enable this Motion to have been withdrawn, and which would have been a far more satisfactory course than driving supporters of the Government to vote in favour of this Motion.
MR. C. P. SCOTT: Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to know that Mr. Cartwright's case did not stand alone, but that there had been a number of similar cases. It ought to be understood that the House was dealing with an attempt, not on the part of Lord Kitchener, but on the part of certain other persons in the Colony, to prevent journalists who happened to know a great deal about the facts in South Africa from coming to this country and informing the mind of the British public. He knew of at least two or three other journalists who had been or who were now detained in South Africa on the same kind of plea as that put forward in Mr. Cartwright's case.
Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order; I must remind the hon. Member that he will not be in order in discussing other cases.
MR. C. P. SCOTTsaid he merely wished to point out that there was a principle involved, and this was not simply the conduct of a single individual. It was said that by carrying this motion they would be passing a vote of censure on Lord Kitchener, but he did not think Lord Kitchener knew anything whatever about the cases of these journalists. He believed the course taken had been decided upon by some official at Cape Town whom be did not know. It would be a most salutary thing if they were to do something by way of protest against the excesses of these irresponsible persons—something which would clip their claws and teach them that Members of that House had a little more respect for the rights of British subjects than they appeared to have.
MR. MALCOLM: The Attorney General has spoken of the pedantry of constitutionalism. But there is such a thing as the price
1254
of unconstitutionalism, and when the din of battle is over the echoes of this debate will ring in the ears of the people of the Empire. Since I have been in Parliament there has been no more unswerving supporter of the First Lord of the Treasury, and to go against the Government now, as assuredly I shall do, is repellent to me. But I wish to repudiate as warmly as I can the peroration of my right hon. friend—not a very new peroration—in which he stated that those who voted for the Motion will show themselves careless of the honour of the British Army, and of the prospects of peace.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
Mr. MALCOLM: Sir, I repudiate it, and I say to the First Lord of the Treasury, with all the respect that is due to him that I think our honour as British gentlemen repudiates the one proposition as much as the fact that our kith and kin are fighting in South Africa repudiates the other. This is not a vote of censure on Lord Kitchener. It is a censure on a policy, not on a person. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are condemning Lord Kitchener unheard, but why is he unheard? The date of Mr. Cartwright's liberation must have been known long ago, and the Government could have had the defence in their hands. But if attention had not been called to this case some days ago it might have gone sub silentio, and this obstruction of justice might have been turned into a precedent for the future. There is no argument which has been used more acceptably in the country than that the Government have always clean hands throughout the war in dealing with the enemy and with the pro-Boer party. But when I consider that the common law has been set at nought in this case, and that even the extraordinary law has been abused, I do not think it will be possible to go quite so cheerfully to the constituencies to talk about clean hands. [Ministerial cries of "Oh."] I lament the prejudice shown by the Secretary of State for War in his answer to the right hon. Member for Montrose. The Secretary of State enlarged on the offence of Mr. Cartwright, but that was known before; and

1255
the offender has been punished and liberated, though he is still not free. His conduct was scandalous in the extreme, and I do not think there are any hon. Members in this House who will stand up for a moment to defend that conduct. But it it is as bad as the First Lord has made out then I think Mr. Cartwright ought to have had a far more severe punishment. But he has had his punishment and taken it like a man and he is now out of prison again.
The question is where shall he be kept? Is he to be kept in South Africa or in England. We have been told that he will be less harmful in South Africa than in England. What has become of the unity of the Empire? Is it going to be a new tern in our imperial policy that the further the man gets away from the scene of action the more dangerous he is likely to become. If Mr. Cartwright returns to England, as I hope he may be allowed to do and even if he does, as the Attorney General suggests, come over here and raise the banner of pro-Boerism, if he comes over here and raises an army chat will march from London to Dover, then. Sir, the common law of the land will look alter Mr. Cartwright and the common law will make him just as innocuous to our people as Mr. Massingham or Mr. Stead. I wonder who is going to make Mr. Cartwright keep to this undertaking which the Government have exacted from him? Who is going to make him keep that undertaking upon his return to this country. I do not think peace will be facilitated by operations of this sort and by the total oblivion of the watchword Civis Romanus sum.
MR. LAMBTON: So many hon. Members on this side of the House have spoken in support of this Motion that I think it is about time someone on these Benches should say a word or two for the Government. With all due respect to hon. Members who have spoken I must say that I think we have wandered into a very strange discussion tonight. The question of the constitutional rights of Englishmen has been raised and the question of the liberties of the English
1256
people, but in my opinion these questions are far away from the case of Mr. Cartwright. The question immediately before us is really whether we shall support martial law in South Africa or not. In spite of what my hon. friend below the gangway has said, I think the First Lord of the Treasury is perfectly right in saying that if we vote again-t the Government tonight we shall be supporting a vote of censure upon Lord Kitchener. The real question is whether we are to trust Lord Kitchener with the administration of martial law or not. The whole question of expediency must be left to Lord Kitchener. As to what was thought of martial law 2,000 years ago, I remember the description in the Ars Poetica of what Achilles should do; and I will suggest to the right hon. Member for West Monmouth that Achilles was more likely to bring war to an end than even a Lord Chancellor or a great constitutional lawyer. Horace wrote of the character of Achilles—
Impiger, iracundus, indexorabilis, acer;
Jura neget sibi nata, nihil non arroget armis.
As some hon. Members may probably have forgotten their Latin, perhaps it will be advisable for me to translate my quotation—
"If yon would rightly depict Achilles, you must describe him as a man, active, wrathful, implacable, energetic; let him declare that laws were not made for him let him claim everything for armed might."
I say that is a proper description of martial law, for common law cannot exist where martial law is in force. I have heard of eases elsewhere of the excessive use of power. I can remember the case of Canada. At one time, gentlemen were transported to Bermuda. That was done in pursuance of a policy undertaken by Lord Durham—a man who is much in favour on the other side of the House at the present moment. He was Governor-General of Canada, and his action on that occasion was treated in Parliament in the same way as you are endeavouring to treat Lord Kitchener's action in South Africa now. The result was that Lord Durham resigned his position in Canada, and if we are going to treat Lord Kitchener as we treated Lord Durham, we may cause that eminent General, who has done so much for South Africa, to resign his position. I think the First

1257
Lord of the Treasury is perfectly right in asking the House to give a vote of confidence in Lord Kitchener, and I hope we shall pass it by a very large majority.
MR. MARKHAM: I know Mr. Cartwright and I am probably one of the few men in the House who do know him. The hon. Member for West Perthshire would probably know him, as he has spent many years in Johannesburg. Mr. Cartwright was for a long time attached to the Johannesburg Star He was there advocating the policy you are now advocating there. He changed from that policy, believing it now to be in the interest of South Africa. I have not risen to defend Mr. Cartwright or to condone his offence in publishing this article. But I do know of my own knowledge that when this article was taken from The Time, he never saw it, but he took the full responsibility for his action and went to prison. I say that it is gross calumny on the part of the First Lord of the Treasury and the Member for North Islington—["Cries of "Oh," and "Withdraw."]
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in saying a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman is gross calumny.
MR. MARKHAM: I withdraw that statement and I apologise to the House. He even said, but more especially it was said by the hon. Member for North Islington, that Mr. Cartwright was the author of these attacks on the soldiers. That statement is not true. The statement made by the hon. Member for South Longford was perfectly true that this article was published in The Times three weeks before, and yet you are asked in this House by the hon. Member for North Islington to condemn Mr. Cartwright as the author of this article in question. Mr. Cartwright was the one man in South Africa who was setting forth views, as he thought them, not anti-British.
Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is extending the debate entirely beyond the question under discussion. It is not in order to discuss the history of Mr. Cartwright prior to his being sent to prison. The right hon. Gentleman in
1258
his Motion has only raised the question of compulsory detention after his period of imprisonment has expired.
MR. MARKHAM: We have heard much in this debate about anti-British views, but if you hold that I am not entitled to debate the question whether the views and opinions which Mr. Cartwright has advocated so long are true to British interests and not anti-British interests, I will not pursue the question. Mr. Cartwright is a man than whom no one is more patriotic. I say that Mr. Cartwright has made great sacrifices. He made a grave error. It has been said that, "A man who makes no mistakes never makes anything." Mr. Cartwright having made this mistake has paid the penalty. I say that Mr. Cartwright does not hold anti-British views, but is animated by the desire of seeing this country doing what is right in South Africa, and nothing else.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES),who was received with cries of "Divide" said: My remarks will be brief, but if they are interrupted I cannot answer for their length. I decline to discuss the merits of Mr. Cartwright, his merits or demerits having nothing to do with the matter. I also decline to discuss the question whether it is right or wrong to carry out martial law in South Africa, That has nothing to do with the matter. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury shelters himself—no, he does not shelter himself, but he cites Lord Kitchener, and says that if we are to adjourn the House this day we should pass a vote of censure on Lord Kitchener. The suggestion then is that Lord Kitchener insists on keeping Mr. Cartwright in South Africa. Where is the evidence? Not a shred of it. Not a word, not an opinion from Lord Kitchener is cited from any despatch laid oil the table. No reason is assigned for Lord Kitchener being brought before the House in this way. There is not a tittle of evidence that Lord Kitchener desires to keep Mr. Cartwright in South Africa, or that he even knows the name of Cartwright. It is absurd to come to us and use the name of some great man in South Africa in this House. I have heard Sir Redvers Buller eulogised from

1259
that Bench, and ask myself the question whether Lord Kitchener may not some day be regarded with a somewhat similar amount of enthusiasm to that which Sir Redvers Buller now enjoys. What is the question here? The question is whether Mr. Cartwright shall be allowed to come to England with an undertaking. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Yes, that is so. It is so stated by the Secretary of State for War. He says that the whole point is whether he can get a sufficient undertaking to justify him in allowing Mr. Cartwright to come to England. It is not a question whether martial law shall be carried on and applied in South Africa, but whether martial law is to be extended to England. Is it not pitiful that His Majesty's Government should pursue this Cartwright in this way. That you should exercise all your military authority, give the greatest possible number of troops, and the most extensive power to Lord Kitchener in South Africa to follow his military operations I can understand, but what can you fear from Cartwright? What harm can he possibly do? If he can do any thing it is surely rather in South Africa than here. I am very sad and sorry that His Majesty's Government have thought it worth their while so much as to cast their eyes on such a creature as Cartwright, but I am glad to see that it has been the occasion for a little movement among the dry bones of this side of the House, and for arousing some spirit in the Tory Party. I cannot so quickly forget that I am a Tory—not even in the straits of the Government over Cartwright—and that I have learned to believe in the principles of the Constitution with regard to freedom of speech. There may be those who will vote with the Government tonight. Let them remember that they are doing it at the expense of every sound constitutional principle which we have fought for, and to which the Party ought to adhere.
MR. GUEST: I want to know what is the attitude of the Government now on this question. I have sat through the debate, and it seems to me that we have arrived at this point;
1260
this is a question of martial law and its interpretation. We have had martial law defined and accepted on both sides of the House Now it seems to me that that definition has very probably been infringed, because the claim of necessity for self-defence, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, was entirely lost sight of when it was admitted that Mr. Cartwright was not allowed to come home, not from any question of necessity, but because of what he might do in this country. That has given way, and I feel there has been a very doubtful exercise of martial law, and under those circumstances what some of us Want to know is what is the attitude of the First Lord of the Treasury and His Majesty's Government? Are they going to support Lord Kitchener through thick and thin, or are they-going to admit this question of doubt as to the exercise of martial law; or are they going to grant us an enquiry? This is not so simple a matter as the First Lord of the Treasury seems to think. It is needless for me to recapitulate what has fallen from the lips of several members on this side of the House. We yield to none in our wish to carry the war to a conclusion, and to that end would support the Government and Lord Kitchener, but I think we are entitled to know what the Government are going to do. Are they going to communicate with Lord Kitchener, or simply back him up through thick and thin; or are they merely going to put their foot down and decline to have any more discussion on the great constitutional question raised tonight. It is with great deference that I appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury and those on that Bench to make some concession to the very general feeling entertained on this side of the House, and not drive those who desire to do nothing more than to support His Majesty's Government into opposition to it.
Mr. SEELY: I only-rise to say, as I intend to vote for this Motion, that I do not consider it in any way whatever as a vote of censure on Lord Kitchener, and I feel absolutely certain that Lord Kitchener will not consider it so himself. It is a

1261
vote of censure on His Majesty's Government for the manner in which they have dealt with one of the most important questions which exists for any Government, namely, their duty to protect the individual rights of British subjects. I am not going to go through the question itself. The Government know perfectly well that the reason they have given to this House for keeping Mr. Cartwright in South Africa is one which the First Lord of the Treasury, or the Secretary for War, or any man who sits on that Bench would no more have thought of giving if he had been first responsible for the matter than they would have thought of acting in the way they act in some countries we know of. Then we have had from them no repudiation of that language, no expression as to how this question of martial law ought to be dealt with. For that reason I cannot hold with them this
afternoon and it is the more essentia when we are at the present moment asking large numbers of men to come under our rule. You will have to govern those men by Crown Colony Government. One thing, and the only thing, that will make these men satisfied to come under your rule is the knowledge that as British subjects they will be protected. It is because this question is at issue the question of the old rights of British subjects, the question of the proper feeling of the House of Commons, and the proper right of censuring—not the men who are fighting for them over the sea, but the Government who is responsible to them for the action of every individual and for every act of policy all over the empire that I shall support the Motion.
(7.49.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 182; Noes, 259. (Division List No. 130.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Leamy, Edmund

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Dunn, Sir William

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

Edwards, Frank

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Ambrose, Robert

Elioank, Master of

Leng, Sir John

Asher, Alexander

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lewis, John Herbert

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Ellis, John Edward

Lloyd-George, David

Atherley-Jones, L

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lough, Thomas

Barlow, John Emmott

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lundon, W.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Fenwick, Charles

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Bell, Richard

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Macneill, John Gordon Swit

Blake, Edward

Ffrench, Peter

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Boland, John

Field, William

M'Cann, James

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

M'Crae, George

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M-Kean, John

Broadhurst, Henry

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Gilhooly, James

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Burke, E. Haviland-

Grant, Corrie

Malcolm, Ian

Burns, John

Griffith, Ellis J.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Markham, Arthur Basil

Caine, William Sproston

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Mather, William

Caldwell, James

Haldane, Richard Button

Mooney, John J.

Cameron, Robert

Hammond, John

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose

Causton, Richard Knight

Hayden, John Patrick

Moss, Samuel

Cawley, Frederick

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

Murphy, John

Channing, Francis Allston

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

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

Clancy, John Joseph

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

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Holland, William Henry

Norman, Henry

Craig, Robert Hunter

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Crean, Eugene

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

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

Cremer, William Randal

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipuerary Mid

Crombie, John William

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenuy)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Jones, William (C'rnarvonshire

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

Dolany, William

Joyce, Michael

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Dillon, John

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

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

Donelan, Captain A.

Kitson, Sir James

O'Dowd, John

Doogan, P. C.

Labouchere, Henry

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lambert, George

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

O'Malley, William

Roche, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

O'Mara, James

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wallace, Robert

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Russell, T. W.

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds S.)

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Schwann, Charles E.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Partington, Oswald

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Paulton, James Mellor

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Weir, James Galloway

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

White, George (Norfolk)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

White, Luke (York, E. B.)

Pease, Sir Joseph W.(Durham)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Soares, Ernest J.

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

Priestley, Arthur

Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

Young, Samuel

Reddy, M.

Sirachey, Sir Edward

Yoxall, James Henry

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Sullivan, Donal

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Rigg, Richard

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

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

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Robson, William Snowdon

Tomkinson, James

NOES.

Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Chapman, Edward

Graham, Henry Robert

Agnew, Sir Andrew-Noel

Charrington, Spencer

Greene, Sir H. W (B'ry S Edm'nds.

Aird, Sir John

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury).

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

Hain, Edward

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hall, Edward Marshall

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Halsey, Rt. Hon Thomas F.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd'x

Austin, Sir John

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cranborne, Viscount

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Baird, John George Alexander

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Balcarres, Lord

Crossley, Sir Savile

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

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

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Davenport, William Bromley

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham)

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Banbury Frederick George

Denny, Colonel

Heaton, John Henniker

Banes, Major George Edward

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

Helder, Aug stus

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Henderson, Alexander

Bartley, George C. T.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Digby, John K. D. Wing field

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Hob house, Henry (Somerset, E.)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Bignold, Arthur

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Horner, Frederick William

Bigwood, James

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Bill, Charles

Duke, Henry Edward

Hoult, Joseph

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Houston, Robert Paterson

Bond, Edward

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Boulnois, Edmund

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Bousfield, William Robert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Fergusson, Rt. H n. Sir J. (Manc' r

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Brcokfield, Colonel Montagu

Finch, George H.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.)

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Bull, William James

Fisher, William Hayes

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

Billiard, Sir Harry

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Kenyon Slaney, Col W. (Salop.

Butcher, John George

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Keswick, William

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Kimber, Henry

Cautley, Henry Strother

Forster, Henry William

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

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

Law, Andrew Bonar

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Calloway, William Johnson

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Gardner, Ernest

Lawson, John Grant

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Garfit, William

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gordon, Hon J. E. (Elgin& Nairn

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

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

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

Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Chamberlayne, T. (Southampton

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

1264

1265

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

Parkes, Ebenezer

Stanley, Fdward Jas. (Somerset

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Lowther, C. (Comb., Eskdale)

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

Penn, John

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Percy, Earl

Stroyan, John

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

Pierpoint, Robert

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Macdona, John Cumming

Plummer, Walter R.

Thornton, Percy M.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Tollemache, Henry James

Maconochie, A. W.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Peyce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Purvis, Robert

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

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

Randles, John S.

Valentia, Viscount

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Majendie, James A. H.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Manners, Lord Cecil

Remnant, James Farquharson

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

Maxwell, W. J. H (D'mfriesshire

Renwick, George

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und, Lyne

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Ritchie, Ht. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell (Birm

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Mitchell, William

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Round, James

Wilson-Todd. Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Morrison, James Archibald

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Mount, William Arthur

Seton-Karr, Henry

Wylie, Alexander

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Sharpe, William Edward J.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. (George

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Nicholson, William Graham

Smith, HC. (North'mb. Tyneside

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Spear, John Ward

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

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Mr. Walter Long, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tally, Mr. Macartney, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Baird, and Sir Albert Rollitt; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Rigg, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Runciman, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Coulding, Sir James Woodhouse, Mr. Gretton, and Sir Frederick Godson.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SHOP CLUBS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 157.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No. 157.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday 11th June, and to be printed. [Bill 168.]

ORDER FOR ATTACHMENT OF A MEMBER.
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received the following letter relating to the attachment of a M ember of this House—
"High Court of Justice, Ireland,
"Chancery Division—Land Judges.
"21st April, 1902.
"Sir,—I beg to inform you that on the 19th of this month an order was made by me for the attachment, on the ground of Contempt of I Court, of Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh, Esquire, Member of Parliament for Leitrim, North.
"I have, Sir, The honour to be,
"Your obedient servant,
"John Ross,
Judge of the High Court of Justice,
Chancery Division."

SELECT COMMITTEE ON SAVINGS BANKS FUNDS.
SIR WILLIAM WALKOXD, in moving that Sir Frederick Dixon Hartland be added to the Select Committee on Savings Banks Funds, said it was due to the House that he should state that it was through inadvertence on his part that the hon. Member's name did not appear on the original notice for the appointment of the Committee. He would ask the House to pass the Motion now.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland be added to the Select Committee."—(Sir William Walrond.)
Mr. CHANGINGsaid he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day whether he would add a labour representative to the Committee. The right hon. Member declined and said he did not recognise labour members as such. He used the term to describe that class of Member in the House who had themselves in their own lives practical experience of the wants and requirements of the great majority of the depositors in the Savings Banks and who knew their wishes. In opposing the Motion, he wished to say he had no hostile criticism to offer the hon. Member whom it was proposed to add to the Committee, nor as to the other Members of the Committee. He had no doubt that they were capable and impartial men. The Committee would have to consider exceedingly complex questions of finance, and, of course, it was desirable that it should contain Members who were especially acquainted with banking operations and with the relations of the Treasury to the Savings Banks. That was fully admitted, but, at the same time, on analysing the composition of the Committee, he found that no less than eight of its members were directly or indirectly connected with the banking interest, and the hon. Member whom it was now proposed to add to the Committee was actually a fellow director of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, also a member of the Committee, on the Board of the London City and Midland Bank. He regretted that after the attention of the Government had been
1268
drawn to the matter by his Question, they had not, in the interval, taken an opportunity, in order to secure that the Committee should be thoroughly representative, either to withdraw the name of the hon. Member in favour of an hon. Member representing the working classes, or to enlarge the Committee. If he were in order he would have moved the substitution of his hon. friend the Member for Mid-Durham. It was not merely a question of book-keeping and finance. Mr. Gladstone said it was a great question of national policy. The moment the Committee began to investigate the grave issues that would be committed to them, though there might be community of interest in one sense between the Treasury and the Savings Banks, between private bankers and the Post Office Savings Banks, he thought that it was perfectly obvious that conflicted interests would at once arise.
Of course he was precluded from going into the merits of the question, but the issues and the arguments were plain. There would be an effort to maintain or improve the rate of interest on behalf of the depositors, or to modify it in the interest of the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had twice already tried to reduce or to modify the rate of interests, and was met by the contention that the situation was really caused by administrative restrictions, and that the Treasury was £1,600,000 in the debt of the depositors. If they went into the question of the interest or of the extension of the area of investment to find profitable investment for the enormous accumulations, there was at once conflict between the Treasury and the Banks. If they went into the question of the limit of deposits which had been raised from £.30 to £50, that would immediately bring about a conflict of interest between the depositors and private bankers. All these questions were of great importance, and it was essential to the fairness of the inquiry that they should be regarded from several points of view. There was the suggestion of separating the Savings Banks from the Treasury entirely and making it a separate department, and lastly there was the question of the utilisation of the accumulations of capital in the Savings Banks for other objects. Thus in Germany, Belgium and elsewhere first the Old Age Pensions Funds and then the accumulations of capital in Savings Banks were advanced on loan for housing and

1269
other purposes to the local authorities under conditions of equal security, and procuring a bettor interest for depositors. Having regard to all these questions it was desirable that on this Committee should be represented, not only the Treasury and banking interests, but also the working-class interest. He hoped the Government would reconsider the matter and
do something to secure the services of some one who specially represented the interests of the depositors generally.
(8.15.) Mr. SPEAKER put the Question in pursuance of Standing Order No. 16.
The House divided—Ayes, 200; Noes, 116. (Division List No. 131.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Fellowes Hon. Ailwyn Edward

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Aird, Sir John

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

Maconochie, A. W.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Finch, George H.

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

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M' Iver Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh, W

Atkinson, Ht. Hon. John

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Fisher, William Hayes

Majendie, James A. H.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Malcolm, Ian

Baird, John George Alexander

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Manners, Lord Cecil

Balcarres, Lord

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Maxwell, W. J. H. (D'mfriessh.)

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

Forster, Henry William

Middlemore John Throgmorton

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Galloway, William Johnson

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Gardner, Ernest

Milner, Rt Hon-Sir Frederick G.

Beach, Rt Hn Sir Mickael Hicks

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

Mitchell, William

Beckett, Ernest William

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

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Gorst, Ht. Hon. Sir John Eldon

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Goschen, Hon. George Jeachim

Morrison, James Archibald

Bigwood James

Graham, Henry Robert

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Bill, Charles

Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds

Mount, William Arthur

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Gretton, John

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Bond, Edward

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hall, Edward Marshall

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Brcokfield, Colonel Montagu

Halsey, Ht. Hon. Thomas F.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Bull, William James

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Butcher, John George

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Pemberton, John S. G.

Carson, Ht. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Percy, Earl

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Pierpoint, Robert

Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire

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

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Heaton, John Henniker

Plummer, Walter H.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Helder, Augustus

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Henderson, Alexander

Pretyman, Ernest George

Chamberlain, Ht. Hon. J. (Birm.

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Purvis, Robert

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Randles, John S.

Chamberlayne, T.(S'thampton

Horner, Frederick William

Ratcliff, R. F.

Chapman, Edward

Houlds worth, Sir Wm. Henry

Reid, James (Greenock)

Charrington, Spencer

Houston, Robert Paterson

Renwick, George

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Howard, J. (Midd, Tottenham

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

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

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Round, James

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Russell, T. W.

Cranborne, Viscount

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Kimber, Henry

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Law, Andrew Bonar

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Davenport, William Bromley

Lawson, John Grant

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

Dickson, Charles Scott

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

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

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Spear, John Ward

Douglas, Ht. Hon. A. Akers

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset

Duke, Henry Edward

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stewart, Sir. Mark J. M'Taggart

Eaber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.)

Macdona, John Cumming

Stroyan, John

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

Worsley-Taylor. Henry Wilson

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Wylie, Alexander

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Williams Rt HnJPowell-(Birm.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Thornton, Percy M.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

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

Valentia, Viscount

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Wilson Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Hemphill, Ht Hon. Charles H.

O'Dowd, John

Allan, William (Gateshead)

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

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Allen, Charles P. (Gloue. Stroud

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Ambrose, Robert

Jameson, Major J Eustace

O'Malley, William

Athlerley-Jones, L.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Mara, James

Austin, Sir John

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Kennedy, Patrick James

Partington, Oswald

Bell, Richard

Kinlock, Sir John George Smyth

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Blake, Edward

Lambert, George

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Boland, John

Leamy, Edmund

Pirie, Duncan Y.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Power, Patrick Joseph

Caldwell, James

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Reddy, M.

Cameron, Robert

Leng, Sir John

Redmond, John F. (Waterford)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rigg, Richard

Cawley, Frederick

Lloyd-George, David

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Clancy, John Joseph

Lough, Thomas

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lundon, W.

Roche, John

Crean, Eugene

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Schwann, Charles E.

Cromer, William Randal

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Delany, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Crae, George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Dillon, John

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Kean, John

Soares, Ernest J.

Doogan, P. C.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Sullivan, Donal

Edwards, Frank

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

Elibank, Master of

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Thomas, David Alf red (Merthyr

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Mooney, John J.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Fenwick, Charles

Murphy, John

Weir, James Galloway

Ffrench, Peter

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, George (Norfolk)

Field, William

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

White, Luke (York. E. R.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Flynn, James Christopher

Norman, Henry

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gilhooly, James

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

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'erary, Mid

Young, Samuel

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Yoxall, James Henry

Hammond, John

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

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Channing and Mr. Broadhurst.

Hoyden, John Patrick

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Hayne, Ht. Hon. Charles Seale

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

NEW BILLS.
  CONTEMPT OF COURT BILL.
  "To amend the laws relating to punishments for contempt of Court," presented by Mr. Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh, under Standing Order 31; supported by Mr. O'Dowd, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Dillon, and Mr. Clancy; to be read a second time upon Thursday 8th May, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]
POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
To provide for superannuation allowances to Poor Law officers and servants in Scotland, and for contributions towards such allowances by such officers and servants, and to make other relative provisions," presented by Mr. Maxwell, under Standing Order 31; supported by Sir Lewis M'Iver, Sir Robert Reid, Mr. Nicol, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Cross, Colonel Denny, Mr. Ure, and Mr. Renshaw; to be read a second time upon Monday 12th May, and to be printed. [Bill 170.] (8.30)
NEW PROCEDURE RULES.
[TENTH DAY'S DEBATE.]

NEW STANDING ORDER—(BUSINESS IN SUPPLY.)
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed to proposed New Standing Order (Business in Supply) [11th April], "That as soon as the Committee of Supply has been appointed and Estimates have been presented, the business of Supply shall, until disposed of, be the first Order of the Day on Thursday, unless the House otherwise order on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, moved at the commencement of public business, to be decided without Amendment or debate.
"Not more than twenty days, being days before the 5th of August, shall be allotted for the consideration of the annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account. The days allotted shall not include any day on which the Question has to be put that the Speaker do leave the Chair, or any day on which the business of Supply does not stand as first Order.
"Provided that the days occupied by the consideration of Estimates supplementary to those of a previous session or of any Vote of Credit, or of Votes for Supplementary or Additional Estimates presented by the Government for war expenditure, shall not be included in the computation of the twenty days aforesaid.
"Provided also that on Motion made after notice by a Minister of the Crown, to be decided without Amendment or debate, additional time, not exceeding three days, may be allotted for the purposes aforesaid, either before or after the 5th of August
"On a day so allotted, no business other than the business of Supply, shall, except on the last two of the allotted days, be taken before midnight unless it is unopposed, and no business in Committee or proceedings on Report of Supply shall be taken after midnight, whether a general Order for the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule is in force or not, unless the House otherwise order on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, moved at the commencement of public business, to be decided without Amendment or debate.
"Of the days so allotted, not more than one day in Committee shall be allotted to any Vote on Account, and not more than one sitting to the report of that Vote. At midnight on the close of the day on which the Committee on that Vote is taken, and at the close of the sitting on which the Report of that Vote is taken, the Chairman of Committees or the Speaker, as the case may be shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Vote or the Report.
"At Ten of the clock on the last day but one of the days so allotted, the Chairman shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the Vote then under consideration, and shall then forthwith put the question with respect to each class of the Civil Service Estimates that the total amount of the Votes outstanding in that class be granted for the services defined in the class, and shall in like manner put severally the questions that the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy, the Army, and the Revenue Departments be granted for the services defined in those Estimates.
"At Ten of the clock on the last allotted day, the Speaker shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the report of the Resolution then under consideration, and shall then forthwith put, with respect to each class of the Civil Service Estimates, the question, That the House doth agree with the Committee in all the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of that class, and shall then put a like question with respect to all the Resolutions outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy, the Army, the Revenue Departments, and other outstanding Resolutions severally.
"On the day sappointed for concluding the business of Supply, the consideration of that business shall not be anticipated by a Motion of Adjournment, and no dilatory Motion shall be moved on proceedings for that business.
"Any additional Estimate for any new service or matter not included in the original Estimates for the year, shall be submitted for consideration in the Com-

1275
mittee of Supply on some day not later than Two days before the Committee is closed.
"For the purposes of this Order two Fridays shall be deemed equivalent to a single day of two Sittings."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Which Amendment was—
"In line 6, to leave out the words Not more than twenty days, being days before the 5th of August, shall he allotted for the consideration of the annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account. The days allotted shall not include any day on which the Question has to he put that the Speaker do leave the Chair, or any day on which the business of Supply does not stand as first Order."—(Mr. Lough.)
Question again proposed, "That the words 'Not more than twenty days, being days before the 5th of August, shall be allotted for the consideration of the annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account,' stand part of the Question."
MR. JOHN REDMOND (Water-ford: It seems to me that this is probably one of the most far-reaching of the new Standing Orders proposed, because admittedly there is no part of the business of the House of Commons more important, from a constitutional point of view, than the right the House has always exercised up to the present of scrutinising Supply, and on Votes in Supply of discussing the whole policy and administration of the Government of the day. I protest against this new little in toto, and I take the ground of opposition that this Rule has proved in practice to be a failure. The new Standing Order now under consideration is not identical with the sessional order dealing with Supply, which has been in operation for some years. There are some differences, but in the main it is practically the same. I say, therefore, we are not in the position of considering a new Rule about which Members might have different views as to the likelihood of its success in the future. We are considering really an old Rule which has been tested by some years of experience, and, taking that ground, I assert that the Rule now before us has been proved to be a failure. This Rule involves the most important right of this House, namely, the right of discussion in Supply, and I say that it turns into an absolute mockery what was always
1276
regarded in this House as an accepted axiom of the Constitution, namely, that the discussion of grievances should precede the voting of Supply. I say in addition it has led to an increase of expenditure, and that under its operation enormous sums of money, increasing year by year, have been voted without any discussion whatever, owing to the application of the closure. Further than that, I assert that, badly as this Rule has worked generally, so far as Ireland is concerned it has rendered all effective discussion of Irish Supply and criticism of Irish administration absolutely-impossible.
I remember very well when this Rule-was first proposed in the House as a sessional Order by the First Lord of the Treasury. He told the House that he had devised a plan with the object of giving to private Members a better opportunity of discussing Supply, and of criticising the Government. I ask any Member of this House whether he can honestly say that the result of the working of the sessional Order during the past few years has been in that direction. I assert that the result has been the direct opposite. That is a matter of fact; it is not a matter of opinion with which I am dealing, and it can be brought to the test of figures. Under the operation of this sessional Order the number of Votes which have passed without any discussion at all has steadily and rapidly increased. In the year 1896 there were twenty-one Votes out of all the Votes applying to England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales that were passed without any discussion at all, but from that time the number has increased. The new Rule came into operation, and what happened? In 1897 there were thirty Votes passed without any discussion whatever; in 1898 there were thirty-two; in 1899 there were forty-six; in 1900 there were forty-six; and in 1901 there were ninety-six. Not only has there been an increase in the number of Votes that have not been discussed, but the amount of the Votes has also increased. In 1897 the amount of money voted without any discussion at all was £52,000,000; in 1898, £43,000,000; in 1899, £56,000,000; in 1900, £95,000,000; and last year it was £88,000,000. Is it not a somewhat appalling statement to be able to make to the House of Commons that during the

1277
last five years of the operation of this sessional Order a sum in round numbers of £400,000,000 has been voted without one single moment of discussion?
If I stopped here and said nothing further, it seems to me that I have said enough to prove the absolute failure of this Rule which we are now to have permanently incorporated on the Standing Orders of the House. But there is very much more to be said. Under the operation of this Rule expenditure, has increased in the most alarming way. No one who has listened this year and last year to the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer could fail to have been impressed with the fact which the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, that the enormous increase of the Budgets has not been wholly due to war expenses. He has repeatedly pointed out in the most forcible manner that there has been an increase of expenditure in all departments, irrespective altogether of the war. I remember last year the emphatic and impressive way in which he warned the House of Commons, that if expenditure was not curtailed—irrespective of the war altogether—it would be necessary to increase taxation. There has been practically, as the Chancellor himself complained, no party of economy in this House. There has been no party which took upon itself the duty of endeavouring to keep expenditure within reasonable bounds. The First Lord of the Treasury has more than once it passing this sessional Rule stated that discussion in Supply has never led to the reduction of Votes. Of course, that is a statement which is technically true, but I believe that it contains a very false suggestion. It is true that when reductions are moved the Government has always, or nearly always, a majority. If it failed to obtain a majority on any particular Vote the Government would fall, and the result is that the Motions for the reduction of Votes scarcely ever lead to an actual reduction of the then Estimate before the House. But does the First Lord of the Treasury suggest that the close examination of the Estimates and the searching discussion of Supply must not tend in the direction of economy rather than extravagance? It is perfectly clear to me that the more you
1278
curtail the opportunities of discussion, and the more you limit the right of the House of Commons to examine the Estimates, the more certain you make it that the Estimates will go on increasing year by year, and I say this has been the experience of this Rule. But if these remarks apply generally how have we to look at the Rule from the point of view in which, of course, I am mainly, if not altogether, interested—the point of view of Ireland? I remember when the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Rule first-he promised us for the discussion of the Irish Estimates four days, and as a matter of fact, we obtained four days under the early operation of the Rule. That was changed very soon to three days, and there is nothing in the Rule as now proposed to bind the Government to give us three days, two days, or one day. We in this matter of Irish Supply are absolutely at the mercy of the right hon. Gentleman. We have to beg from him some opportunity for the discussion of the Irish Estimates, which, of course, raise in the only effective form in which it can be raised, the whole question of Irish government and administration.
Will the House consider what the meaning of this is? Here you are governing Ireland against the will of the overwhelming majority of the Irish people. We are brought to this Imperial Parliament against our will. Von by sheer force insist upon governing our country, and you actually refuse to us the opportunity of adequate discussion of our own government. For many years past there has not been one word of discussion of the Estimates for some of the most important Irish Departments of the Government. Let me take some examples. The Royal Irish Constabulary is a peculiar force. I do not intend to make any attack on the members of that force, but I wish to point out that it is in reality an army of occupation, equipped in military fashion. Now, Sir, the policing of Ireland at this moment costs per head just double what the policing of England, Scotland, or Wales costs. Obviously that is a very important Department of government in Ireland. Will it be believed that for at least five years there has not been an opportunity in this House of saying one single word on the Irish police system? We have been anxious to discuss the Police Estimates and to

1279
protest against the maintenance in Ireland of this army of occupation, but under the operation of this Rule the Irish Members have not had any opportunity for criticism or discussion. Let me take another great Department—that of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. In the old days the Lord Lieutenant was not a Member of the Cabinet and the Chief Secretary was, but now the order is reversed; and will it be believed, that for years we have been given no opportunity of discussing the enormous cost of the establishment of the Lord Lieutenant, who is now primarily responsible for Irish administration?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the hon. Member is aware, it is impossible to discuss the question of Irish policy on the Lord Lieutenant's Vote.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I do not agree. The Lord Lieutenant is the representative of the Irish Government in the Cabinet, and on the question of the Vote for the Lord Lieutenant I maintain it would be in order to discuss the question of Irish administration
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sure the hon. Member is mistaken.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: The cost of the government of Ireland is the most extravagant in the world. The Lord Lieutenant is paid a salary exactly double what the President of the United States is paid, and the whole cost of the maintenance of the Lord Lieutenant's department is excluded from discussion by the operation of this Rule. In 1897 I find the Vote for the salaries of the Resident Magistrates was closured. I do not know whether the Vote is to be closured this year or not. In 1897 Resident Magistrates in Ireland were not engaged in as difficult and responsible duties as they are now. Now, the administration of the whole of the criminal law of the country is placed in their hands. They are responsible to no one—they are removable at a moment's notice. They are made up entirely almost of half-pay officers, promoted policemen, and a small percentage of the whole are gentlemen who were called to the Bar and were failures at their profession. Trial by jury is suppressed by a recent proclamation among a population of one and a half
1280
millions of the people, and is it tolerable when this is done that there is to be no opportunity given on the Estimates for the discussion of the money paid to these gentlemen, and that we are to be put off simply by the statment that there is no time, that the two or three or four days allotted to Irish Estimates have been exhausted, and that the closure is to be applied to the remaining Irish Votes? Similarly, with regard to the question of grants to Queen's Colleges, raising in an important way the whole question of University education. Nine of these were discussed in 1897. In 1898 the Local Government Vote was not discussed. The County Courts Vote was not discussed, and the Chief Secretary's Vote—and if the Leader of the House is right, as I am not sure be is, that the administration of Ireland could not be raised on the Lord Lieutenant's Vote—what is to be said for the system of Supply under which both the Lord Lieutenant's Vote and the Chief Secretary's Vote were both closured without discussion? Yet we find that in 1898 and last year there was not one single hour devoted to the discussion of one of those Votes or the other. The Chief Secretary's Vote this year was discussed in an indirect way. We succeeded in getting it put down first in the Vote on Account, and in that way we have succeeded in having a discussion, but, so far as the ordinary estimates are concerned, L take it for granted that this year—just as last year and the year before—the money to be devoted to the cost of the Chief Secretary's Department will be closured, and we will have no opportunity for a discussion whatever. Last year the Land Commission was not discussed. Does it not reduce the whole Government of Ireland to an absolute farce when you find in the same session of Parliament the Lord Lieutenant's Vote, the Constabulary Vote, the Land Commission Vote all closured without one word of discussion?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is that last year?
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Yes, last year. I do not know whether hon. Members quite realise what this Land Commission is. The Land Commission is engaged in the fixing of what is called fair rent in Ireland. It is intimately concerned in a hundred ways

1281
with the very life of the great majority of the people. There is not a day that passes over my head that I do not receive representations from one part of Ireland or another asking me when the Estimate for the Land Commission come on to call attention to this or that grievance. Yet the Land Commission Vote was passed last year without one single moment of discussion. I put it to the House of Commons, does it not reduce the whole Government of Ireland to a farce; and I am anxious not to repeat myself, but must emphasise the fact that you have deprived us of our own Parliament, which was co-eval and co-ordinate with your own, and that lasted as long in Ireland as your Parliament lasted in England. Von took away our Parliament by force, and you insist on governing Ireland from England; yet you refuse an opportunity to the Irish representatives in this House to discuss the Estimates of one of those great Departments of Government that you insist on keeping in your own hands.
It may be asked, have you any remedy to propose The right hon. Gentleman is proposing these Rules as a remedy for some of the evils which are connected with the present system of doing business in this House. He has been perfectly candid in this, for in his speech in Manchester he admitted that the new Rules could not do much; yet he expects them to do something. What does he propose to remedy this evil with reference to Supply? Absolutely nothing. He proposes to re-enact, in the shape of a Standing Order, the sessional Order which has been in use for the last five years, and under the operation of which all these evils have taken place. I do not think sufficient attention was paid to the speech of the Leader of the House the last time this Rule was under discussion. He took it for granted that the session would only be six months, or 960 hours. He stated that out of that, thirty-five days would be allotted to Supply, and he went on to say that out of the number of hours in the whole session thirty-five days was a reasonable time to give to Supply. I admit that thirty-five days does seem a large proportion to give to Supply out of the time mentioned. But when he gives thirty-five days to Supply he is not able to produce a
1282
better state of things than was produced under this Rule for the last five years. What justification is there for turning this Rule into a Standing Order at all? Under the existing Rule I have pointed out the number of Votes that have passed without discussion at all has gone on increasing from twenty one to ninety-six, and the amount of money has increased from something like £30,000,000 to £95,000,000 or £100,000,000. If thirty-five days is a large proportion out of 960 hours in a session for Supply, what does it point to? Surely it points to the impossibility—the absolute impossibility—under existing conditions, and within the limits of a session of six months, to adequately discuss the business that comes before this House. When it is seen that between four and five hundred millions of money is passed without discussion in five years, no one can pretend that the discussion of Supply is proper or adequate. The right hon. Gentleman accused me in the commencement of the session of making the same speech again and again, and I answered him by saying that I had come to the House of Commons to make one argument, and one only, and that is to point out to the House of Commons that they are engaged in an impossible task. Increase the session from five to twelve months, and you will not get rid of the difficulty. You would not be able even then to give adequate time for the discussion of Supply, and provide reasonable time for the discussion of other matters.
I have never disguised that from one point of view I have welcomed these new-Rules. I regard them as the last dying effort to make the present system successful. The Leader of the House himself has to admit that these new rules will not remedy the evils, and every man of common sense who knows the House, knows that you cannot remedy the evils under which the House is labouring. The truth of the matter is that as the guardian of Supply, this House is a lamentable failure. But has it not also broken down as a legislative machine? According to the Leader of the House there remain only out of the whole session 276 hours for the discussion of all the legislative business, and all the affairs of the Empire.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Legislative business.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: But legislative business includes many things that might be held to be included in it—for instance, it includes the Budget.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No. The general argument of the hon. Member is quite correct, but I carefully excluded the Budget from that. What I meant was there were only 276 hours for new legislation which the country requires and for carrying on its work with regard to home affairs or colonial matters in which legislation is required.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: That is to say that 270 hours is all the time that this House can afford to the whole legislative programme of the Government, whether dealing with England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the Colonies, or any other part of the Empire. Is not the mere statement of that an absolute condemnation of the present system, and an absolute proof of the impossibility of the present system? It is absurd to think that the whole legislative programme of the Empire can be conducted with efficiency in 276 hours; and I think it is the most conclusive proof ever given of the absolute breakdown of this House as the guardian of Supply, or as the legislative machine. Does the Leader of the House propose to go on as we are going at the present time, knowing that year by year the block of business will go on increasing, knowing that the multiplicity of duties in which the House is engaged will go on being infinitely greater? This particular Rule will have the effect of cutting us out from any adequate opportunity of discussing the Government of our own country that has been forcibly taken away by this House; and I hope no effort will now be made by the right hon. Gentleman to curtail discussion upon this Rule. It is by far the most important, and it would be monstrous, certainly, if any attempt were made to scamp discussion of tin's resolution, or if adequate consideration were denied of putting into the form of a Standing Order a sessional Order which has been in operation for five years, and the result of which has been the increase of the general expenditure of the country, an increase of the number of Totes passed without discussion,
1284
and which also had the effect of passing in five years without a word of discussion £500,000,000 of public money.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that on both sides of the House there were differences of opinion with regard to the nature of the devolution which ought to be adopted by the House, but every Member on the Opposition side would concur in what was said by the Leader of the Irish Party. Knowing the difficulties that had to be met and coped with, some would go further, some not so far; but all would go as far as the hon. and learned Member had done with regard to the right way of dealing with them. This Rule was undoubtedly popular, not only with the administration, but also to a large extent, with the majority of the House of Commons. It was the Members who did not attend during discussion in Supply who were the main supporters of the Resolution. It gave them a day upon which they could go away and leave the conduct of the business to a hundred Government Members and the critics, who were at liberty to vote for or against the Government. From the first he had very much doubted the wisdom of this Rule, although it no doubt had many beneficial results. It enabled the House to discuss great questions of policy arising out of the Colonial, Foreign, and Post Office Votes. M ore such questions had been adequately discussed under this Rule than before, but on the other hand, it had completely extinguished the opportunities for discussion on minor but important Votes, in which, perhaps, more than in the larger matters, administration needed to be watched and criticised. The Colonial Vote, for instance, was one of those which at the present time embraced one large question which took up a good deal more time than was usually the case, and as a consequence all minor questions formally raised upon the Vote were extinguished. Before this Rule came into operation, all those matters were discussed, but since it had been in existence, barely one had been subjected to a discussion. The success of the Rule depended upon the way it was worked, and it had worked better in the first year of its existence than it had ever worked since. The old arrangements with

1285
regard to the disposition of the days of Supply had been gradually broken down, and more and more apparent became the tendency to confine the days allotted to Supply to the discussion of a number of very important Votes, which completely cut out from all discussion Votes of minor interest. The evils of the old system were great, and the evils of the new system, which were also obvious from the first, were becoming more apparent year by year, and he was perfectly convinced that unless some such remedy as was proposed was adopted they would increase until the matter became a public scandal.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that what had impressed him more than anything else was that this House was becoming imbued with the great fact that it was unable to carry on its business because it was attempting to carry a load which it was incapable of carrying. As it affected Ireland, he agreed with the hon. Member for Waterford that the operation of the Rule in the past had been very serious indeed, and that it was likely to become more serious in the future. There were thirteen contentious Votes on the Irish Estimates, and out of those thirteen contentious Votes they were only able to discuss four last year. Where were they likely to be this year? Let the House just consider where this Rule would probably land them. For weal or woe, nine Irish counties and two Irish cities had been proclaimed under the Crimes Act. Questions connected with the action of the authorities under that proclamation, the action of the police, the right of public meeting, the action of the prison authorities, and so on, were certain to arise. If the constitution were suspended, and the form of government provided under the Crimes Act established, surely Irish Members bad a right to demand that there should be opportunities for reviewing the methods of the Irish Executive if they thought fit to do so. They had always had that right in the past; no one in bygone days had conceded it more freely than the present Leader of the House; and what they had done in past days they had a right to do now and in the future.
Then there was the Land Commission
1286
Vote. That had not been discussed for two years. The whole property of the country was practically at the disposal of that Department, and not a day passed but Irish Members received letters from constituents asking them to bring certain cases under the notice of the House in reference to the Land Commission. The State paid £140,000 a year for the upkeep of the Commission: the Commissioners proceeded very leisurely in their work, maintaining that the methods which had been brought into operation by Parliament took far more time than the old methods; the rents fixed per annum now were less in number than in the olden times; but no opportunity was afforded of discussing these things. There was also the question of appeals, which really was a public scandal. For two years this Vote had not been discussed, and he saw little prospect of the opportunity arising in the future.
Another important Department was the Local Government Board. Three years ago a great measure of local self-government was passed for Ireland. Happily, it had worked exceedingly well, but there were certain questions which not only would bear, but demanded discussion. When that measure was being considered, the Government gave way to the landlords and abolished the single Member constituencies, putting in their place double constituencies. The result was that room could not be found in the Board-room for the Members; the meetings were simply crowded Babels, and it was almost impossible to do business. The Board was perhaps the weakest in the whole of Ireland; it was constantly in collision with the local authorities; friction existed all over the country. It would do good to the Board itself if its public action could be discussed in the House, but no opportunity for such discussion arose.
Then there was public education—the greatest scandal of all. Practically a new system of primary education had been set up, but Members had not had a chance of discussing it. Twelve months ago Dr. Walsh resigned his seat on the Board; no successor had been appointed, but there had been no opportunity of finding out why. The position of teachers and the position of the training colleges also required consideration. If the House of Commons was to legislate for Ireland, it was bound to give Irish

1287
Members of every party an opportunity of fairly discussing the business of Ireland. That opportunity was practically denied under this Rule. He would probably be told that Ireland was treated no worse than England or Scotland in the matter, but that was not the case. Not a single year passed in which the chief Departments of Government in England were not discussed, but out of the thirteen great Departments in Ireland only four were discussed last year, and then in a most perfunctory and inadequate manner. But there was a strong reason why Ireland should not be placed even in the same position as England or Scotland. The House might shut its eyes to the fact, but the fact could not be got rid of. England and Scotland were governed by consent; Ireland, in the main, was not. That made an enormous difference, and ought to constitute a reason for giving a great deal more attention to Irish affairs than they at present received.
By the proposal before the House they were asked to turn a sessional Rule into a Standing Order. The only reason given for the change was that the Rule had worked better than the old system. It was not that it worked well; nobody could say that. The Rule had absolutely broken down; last year it was necessary to closure Votes comprising £80,000,000 without a word of discussion. The House would be taking a very serious step in adopting the proposal of the First Lord. He doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman was exactly right in saying that things were worse in former days. That depended upon from where they started. He could remember a time when the great block in Supply did not occur, and when the Estimates were properly discussed. It was only since the late seventies and the early eighties that this block had arisen. Why should not the meaning of that he recognised? Why should it not be recognised that old things had passed away and all things had become new? What was the use of putting new wine into old bottles I Why should it not be recognised that the House of Commons had changed, that the democratic spirit had entered into it, and that it could not be worked today on the principles of twenty or thirty years ago He was concerned only for Ireland, and he looked
1288
forward with absolute apprehension to what would happen this session or next in regard to Irish Supply it Irish Members were not allowed to discuss Irish government. If at the end of the session the Votes for all these Irish Departments were put in a lump sum without discussion, there would be placed in the hands of those who advocated Home Rule an irresistible argument. It was impossible to go on with the work of the House in its present condition; they were attempting an impossibility, and the sooner they awoke to the fact the better it would be for England and for Ireland.
MR. DILLONsaid the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had only proved that no one could accurately forecast the effect of a change in the procedure of the House until the change had been in working for five or six years. For the first session, or two after the introduction of a change, the Government responsible for it, and especially while it was a sessional Rule, exercised an amount of forbearance, toleration, and moderation in its use, in order to recommend its adoption to the House. But, as he had before said, in considering new Rules of Procedure, the House should endeavour to measure their merits not by considering how they would work in the hands of an indulgent and tolerant Government, but how they must be worked for the purposes of silencing opposition. The Government, harassed as they were and as they would be in an increasing degree by the complicated affairs of this enormous Empire, would inevitably strain to the uttermost the power given them to expedite business and silence opposition, and it was from that point of view that the critics of the Government were bound to consider any departure from the ordinary procedure of the House. He had been a bitter opponent of this Rule from the outset. For twenty years he had taken a close interest in the work of Supply, and the prophecies he made in 1896 that the optimistic views then put forward in; regard to this Rule would be unfulfilled, and that the Rule would work worse and worse in each succeeding year, had been

1289
amply justified, and many men who then supported the Rule had come to the conclusion that it was calculated to impair, if not to destroy, the efficiency of the House of Commons as a check upon expenditure and an instrument for criticising the action of the Executive Government.
In 1896 the First Lord of the Treasury said that the sole object of the Rule was to afford more ample opportunities for discussing the business of "Supply, and the attempt was made to induce the more innocent Members of the House to imagine that the Government were making some concession in return for the taking of Fridays from private Members. That was an absolute mistake. Private Members obtained really nothing as a quid pro quo. From time immemorial Fridays, in addition to Tuesdays, had been private Members' nights. Down to about thirty or forty years ago, on every Friday a Motion was made at the commencement of public business that at its rising the House should adjourn until the Monday following. On that Motion any subject under the sun could be discussed, and it was a privilege which could not be taken away even when the Government took the time of the House. That was one of the reasons so few Questions were asked in those days. Members would wait until Friday to press a Minister for information, and then, if information was refused, a Motion could be moved and the question adequately discussed. That privilege was so largely availed of, that frequently business did not commence until eight, nine, ten, oreven eleven o'clock. That privilege was taken away from private Members on the express condition, understanding, and bargain that Supply should be put down as first Order on Friday in order to give Members an opportunity of moving Motions against the Question "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." A suggestion was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire about the year 1894 that there should be one day every week devoted to the business of Supply. An attempt was now being made to father this rule upon the right hon. Gentleman because of that suggestion. He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman would ever have supported a proposal that the devotion of one day every week to Supply
1290
should be supplemented by this automatic closure at the end of the session. The really vicious element in this Rule was its want of elasticity and the application for the first time in the history of Parliament of the automatic closure to the business of Supply. He prophesied in 1896 that if this Rule were passed it would be followed by a great and rapid increase in the expenditure of the country, and at that time he was laughed at for making such a prediction.
The figures were so remarkable that he would ask hon. Members to listen to them. In 1880 the net expenditure for Great Britain, excluding the grants to the Local Taxation Fund, amounted to £71,648,000. In the year 1895–6 the amount was £85,700,000. In other words, in fifteen years the total increase in the net expenditure amounted to £1–1,000,000, or a little under an increase of £1,000,000 per annum. In the year 1896 this closure Rule was first introduced. In the year 1895–6, as he had already stated, the net expenditure was £85,700,000, and in 1899–1900, the year preceding the war, the total net expenditure was £114,000,000, an increase in four years of £29,000,000. or an average increase of £7,000,000 per year since the Rule came into operation. This increase came on the top of an average increase for the previous fifteen years of nearly £1,000,000 per annum. Was it not a remarkable fact that hon. Members who opposed the Rule in 1896 prophesied that this Rule would come to pass? It might be said that there was no connection between this increase and the closure Rule, but if all the causes of this enormous increase were investigated they could not shut out altogether the operation of this Rule.
What sudden change had occurred in the condition of the world to justify this phenomenal and revolutionary jump in the expenses of this country? They heard a wood deal about the condition of Europe, but he defied any hon. Member to point to any striking event which occurred about the year 1895 or 1896 which would explain why the expenditure of this country had increased by £6,000,000 per annum. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed new taxes, and appealed to all sides of the House to support him in the economy which he preached and did not practice, it was absurd for the right hon.

1291
Gentleman to groan and lament and fill the country with his wails over new expenditure when the Government deliberately set themselves the task of cutting away those safeguards against extravagance which had been adopted by the experience and wisdom of generations. Everybody who had followed with attention the recent discussions in Supply, which took place so constantly not only inside but outside this House in regard to the expenditure on the Army and Navy, would agree with him that one of the great complaints of experts and advocates of such expenditure was that Ministers in the past had felt compelled to put down their Estimates for fear of the criticism in Committee of Supply. He regretted that that fear had grown less and less, and it had now almost entirely vanished. The experts and advocates of expenditure were no longer afraid of the Committee of Supply, because they knew that the closure would prevent those criticisms which Ministers were afraid of. That was the reason why he claimed that the operation of this Rule was a large element in causing the enormous and outrageous increase in the expenditure of this country which was annually wept over by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Committee of Supply used to be the right arm of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it used to be the means by which he was enabled to resist the experts of the great fighting Departments of this country which were always pressing for increased expenditure. The more money they allowed to those great Departments, the more they developed the pressure for greater Totes. In this way the automatic closure Rule had operated as an immense incentive to extravagance. What was the use of hon. Members coming down to the House to worship at the shrine of economy when Rules like this were in force for promoting extravagance? If they adopted this Rule, they must be prepared for increased taxation. The great fault of the Rule which they were now being asked to make a Standing Order was the application of automatic closure to Supply. Hon. Members would remember the protest made by the Leader of the Tory Party against the closure when it was first introduced, and there was a still more violent protest made against the automatic closure which was
1292
discussed in this House for weeks and months. In the case of great Bills, the judgment of the House was asked for in a particular case, and on the merits of that particular case, and the closure was not applied until discussion had gone on perhaps for several weeks.
Under this Rule they were asked to vote the automatic closure upon what he considered to be the greatest business of Parliament. They were asked now to pass the Rule for the granting of large sums of money without reference at all to the question whether it had been properly discussed or not. An attempt was made by the First Lord of the Treasury to show that there was a great difference in principle between applying the closure to Bills and applying it to Supply. He could not see any difference in principle between a Standing Order applying the automatic closure to all legislation just before the end of the session and its application to Supply. He could give three or four reasons why the closure was more objectionable to Supply than to legislation. When it was applied to Supply it was more opposed to the old traditions of Parliament. Automatic closure was introduced in the year 1896, whereas the closure applied to Bills had been in existence for over ten years. The business of Supply was at least as important as legislation. Supply was the only means by which the action of the Executive Government could be made responsible to the House of Commons. That was the great function which distinguished the House of Commons from other Assemblies—the power of controlling the Executive Government from day to day. The Committee of Supply was the only place where those who were in favour of economy could endeavour to safeguard the taxpayers. The work of Supply was the only work of the House of Commons which could not be reviewed and altered in another place. What would be said to a Minister-perhaps the occasion would arise—who came forward with a Standing Order to the effect that on a certain day in August all the legislation pending in the House should be passed without discussion. He defied any Member making a good case for the closure of Supply to make a good case against the automatic closure of Bills clause for clause. The First Lord said in 1896, when introducing this Rule for the first time, that when a Bill was passed a permanent alteration was

1293
made in the laws of the country; but Supply being annual expenditure, what Parliament had done in 1895 it could undo in 1896. He (Mr. Dillon) disagreed with that. Were they to be told that the action of the Executive Government was so light and trifling in its consequence when a slight difference might have prevented the South African war? He should like to know when we could undo the effects of the South African war, and a very little might have altered the course of those tremendous events. For a long time it was very doubtful whether we should have any war in South Africa or not. Generations would pass before the effects which had flowed from the action of the Executive Government in the Spring of 1899 could be undone. There was no reality in the distinction which the right hon." Gentleman had made. The fact was that the actions of the Executive, having regard to the results which frequently flowed from them, were frequently much more far-reaching in their consequences than any legislation placed upon the Statute-book. He thought it was more true to say that they could undo legislation more easily than the results which sometimes flowed from the action of the Executive.
This Rule had worked very badly Everyone admitted that. Suggestions had been made from time to time as to some plan by which the evils which had grown up might be dealt with. There was the suggestion of the First Lord that a Committee should be appointed, having power to allocate the time to the Votes and the order in which they should be taken. He opposed that proposal, because he believed it would be absolutely unworkable. It was an attempt by the Government to shuffle the responsibility off their own shoulders, but it would break down. The real essence of a good system of discussion in this House was that it should be to some extent elastic. It was absolutely-preposterous to suggest that the whole time should be measured out, a certain proportion of the time being given to particular Votes. He remembered when an hour was long enough for the Colonial Office Vote, but since the widespread activity of the present occupant of that office, the general feeling was that two or three days would be little
1294
enough; and the same thing was true of the Home Office and the Foreign Office. It was idle to say that at the beginning of a session they could measure out so many hours to one Office, and so many to another Office, without any real regard to the work of the Departments. What they wanted was a fairly elastic system, which would give interest and reality to the debates, and not destroy the interest of a Minister in giving satisfaction to his critics. In the old days a Minister really exerted himself to meet objections and criticisms and to carry his Vote through, but at present Ministers had no motive whatever for taking any trouble with their Estimates. Mr. Courtney was as good an authority on procedure in Supply as ever sat in the House. He was rather inclined to support the Rule at first, but he said that experience showed that it tended to produce more negligent discussion. Ministers need not trouble at all, and Members would probably admit that they had lost zeal and pleasure in worrying them. The offer, he continued, of the First Lord of the Treasury of a Committee in which the Opposition would be in a majority, was a self-sacrificing offer, but was an illustration that the business of Supply no longer worried Ministers. That was Mr. Courtney's opinion, and he was absolutely right. It was an explanation of what had taken place since the Rule came into force. The fact was that under the Rule discussion of Supply-had become a farce, and they were only at the beginning of that. If the Rule was to be enforced, he looked forward to the time when Ministers would treat all criticism in Supply with absolute contempt. Supply in future would not be got through by argument, explanation, or defence, but by force and automatic closure. Why should Ministers work for hours to get up information, when all they need do would be to make a brief speech, and wait until the clock struck twelve? That was the reason why Ministers were so fond of the Rule, and that was the reason why in its operation it had unquestionably acted as a powerful stimulus to increased expenditure. He would not allude to the effect of the Rule on Ireland, because that had been eloquently

1295
dealt with by his hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone. But he believed that no more revolutionary change had yet been made as regarded the rights of Members, and no greater blow had ever been struck at economy than the proposal of the Government. He cared very little for the orations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members in favour of economy, when the great safeguards of economy were swept aside recklessly in order to clear the path for the great spending Departments. For that reason he was more bitterly opposed to the Rule after five years experience of it than he was when it was first introduced, and he ventured to prophesy that some day or other—he did not know whether he would not be in the House to see it—the Rule would be used by a Radical Government to apply automatic closure to Bills, and the Tories would then not be quite as happy over it as they were at present.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether the House will permit me to say a few words on this Amendment, on which I think I have already said something at an earlier stage. I recognise that this may be regarded as a central position as to the number of days to be given to Supply, and I trust when we have dealt with this Amendment that we will proceed rather more rapidly with the main portion of the Rule, which, in all its principal parts, has been introduced session after session since 1896. I differ from almost every pro position which has been laid down by the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat. The hon. Gentleman says that since this Rule was introduced, expenditure has greatly increased, and he infers from that that, because this Ride was introduced, the consequences which he deplores, and which, in a measure, we all deplore, have come upon us. Is there a single hon. Member so young in his experience of the House, so blind in his perception, as to believe that discussions in Supply, either under this Rule or before it came into operation, have any serious effect on the total amount of the Estimates? The hon. Gentleman associated himself with the hon. Member for South Tyrone in lamenting the small amount of time given to Irish
1296
Supply. Is there a single Irish Member, including the hon. Gentleman, who has ever suggested that a less amount should be spent on the Irish Estimates.? [Mr. LOUGH, Yes, on the Constabulary Vote] Yes, reductions have been moved to the Constabulary Vote, but were they for the purposes of economy? I do not think that any Irish Member has any desire that the sum paid by the Saxon taxpayer for the Irish Estimates should be reduced. The smallest consideration of the matter quite conclusively proves that it has not been due to any change in our system of taking Supply that the Estimates have increased. Some of these increases have been due to alterations in the law, such as the aid of voluntary schools, relief to the ratepayers, and so forth. That is one great branch. The other great branch includes Navy and Army expenditure; and, as the right hon. Baronet told us earlier in the debate, the Navy and Army Estimates have not only had as much time given to them as in former days, but I think it can be shown by statistics that even more time has been devoted to their discussion. I do not say it is not an ingenious point to make in debate, but no one acquainted with the method by which the House of Commons does its business would really suggest that discussion in Supply or the limitation of that discussion, has the smallest connection with the growth of expenditure. If it is any consolation to the hon. Gentleman, I may state that I am informed—I have not personally verified the facts—that in 1894, which was the last complete year before the Rule came into operation, in the three days following the 5th of August, 118 Votes, involving twenty-five millions of money, were disposed of by the House of Commons. [Sir CHARLES DILKE: There was an opportunity given for discussion.] Yes, if the right hon. Baronet calls five o'clock in the morning an opportunity for discussion, no doubt there was. It is perfectly well understood that there are two forms of closure by which Supply is got. Before the Rule came into operation there was a form of closure, not less effective not less destructive of discussion, but which had also the effect of destroying the comfort and even the health of Members;

1297
and in no sense, I venture to say, did it lead to a proper debate on the Estimates or to the dignity of the House. A special complaint has been made—I mention it now because it may perhaps save us from debate on a later Amendment—of the amount of time given to Irish Supply. The average has been three or four days, more often four days, and it is asserted by the hon. Member for South Tyrone that last year the Local Government Board required to be discussed, and yet no opportunity for discussing it arose. [Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I said it was discussed on the last day.] I would remind my hon. friend that it was discussed on an earlier day—not indeed, in Committee of Supply, but on the Consolidation Bill, I think in March. If the hon. Gentleman will consider the amount of time available in this House, and the manifold calls upon it, I think he will admit that two days to discuss the Irish Local Government Board is as much as this House can afford.
The Leader of the Irish Party made a speech earlier in the evening in which he expressed agreement with the general position I have taken up with regard to the distribution of the time of the House, and drew from it a conclusion, which certainly will not be accepted on this side of the House, that Home Rule, and nothing but Home Rule, or devolution in some form indistinguishable from Home Rule, was the only remedy. I will not argue that point now and I will only say that if, and until, this devolution takes place, the present system of arranging the distribution of Supply is the only effective one. I would remind Irish Members that it rests with themselves as to how the three or four days, as the case may lie, given to Irish Supply should be distributed. I do not think that they will deny that if they had been anxious to compress their criticisms of the Irish Executive into three days it would be in their power to do so. A great deal of abuse can be crammed into three days. I really do think that if they devoted themselves to the task, no single Irish official, from the Lord Lieutenant down to the humblest constable in any county in Ireland need escape their all-searching criticism had they desired to make the most of their opportunities. Now let me come to a remark of the right hon. Gentleman
1298
opposite. I stated what I thought was universally admitted—that discussion in Supply, though it may occasionally tend to extravagance, has never yet during the last generation tended to economy. Then, says the right hon. Gentleman, what is the use of it? The use of it is to criticise, constantly to criticise, and to keep tinder the constant and incessant criticism of the House the action of the Executive Government. That this has been effectively done under the new Rules of Supply, as regards the larger votes, has, I think, been admitted by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. [Sir CHARLES DILKE: As regards the principal questions raised on larger Votes.] Quite so. The right hon. Gentleman admits, so far as large issues are concerned, that the result has been that the Executive of the day is taken to task at a more convenient period of the session. I agree with him that there are a certain number of the smaller Votes which escape discussion, and that the smaller questions on the bigger Votes also escape discussion; but I think the result will be mitigated by the new Rules in this respect, that there will be two sittings in each day instead of one. The difficulty of arranging Supply under the old Friday Rule was that if a Vote were begun at six or seven o'clock in the evening it might drag on though it ceased to be of interest or utility to the House, to the exclusion of other questions which might have been discussed in its place. There are many things for which the Government are supposed to be responsible. One is that the Minister in charge in the House has not been sufficiently seductive in manner and has not been able to act the part of Orpheus with his lute. I hope the present Front Bench are not more wanting in good manners than their predecessors, but even the most painstaking and sympathetic Secretary to the Treasury cannot induce certain hon. Members to agree with him.
Another charge brought against the Government is that they do not closure often enough, but when we do use the closure we are very often greatly abused. By moving the closure in Supply we should expend perhaps half an hour or twenty-five minutes upon two divisions, and we should very likely irritate some irritable

1299
susceptibilities of hon. Members, and probably the House would not get any quicker to the discussion of those small matters which hon. Gentlemen desire to discuss than if you had waited until mere fatigue brought oratory on that particular question to an end. I hope that there will be some remedy applied to this by the system of devolution which has been proposed. Probably then smaller questions will have a better chance than under the old system. I have never claimed for these Rules more than they can accomplish have never pretended that they will hasten business or will enable 670 Gentlemen to discuss in detail every Estimate. No scheme can possibly accomplish it, unless we mean to devote twelve months to the operation. It all comes back to the simple, fundamental arithmetical problem which I have already propounded to the House, and to which no reply has been given, as to the number of hours we can devote to legislation.
As I have pointed out before, at the present time you only give 276 hours in a session of 120 days terminating at 12 o'clock at night to legislation, out of a session of 9G0 hours. I do not think that is too big a proportion—in fact, in my view, I think it is too small. In the present session it is quite evident that nobody can say the legislative programme of the Government is an inflated or unduly ambitious one, but it is already perfectly evident that we shall have to have an Autumn session. [Opposition cries of "Hear, hear!" and "Oh, oh."] Everybody knows that. We shall have to have an Autumn session and also sit more than six months this year. I think it is perfectly preposterous for us to devote more than twenty-six days to the criticism of business in Committee of Supply. It is for these reasons that I beg the House most earnestly not to give up a Rule which I am convinced conduces not merely to the dignity of the House, but to the convenience of discussion and to the certainty of debate at times most convenient to Members. I beg the House not to recur to the old barbarous system under which Supply came on at the most inconvenient period of the year and most inconvenient hours of the clay, and was concluded, not because the subjects were exhausted, but because hon. Members who took
1300
part in those debates had reached the limit of endurance. That is neither a rational nor a humane principle, and I trust the House will never revert to it.
MR. BRYCEsaid that, although he had been almost struck dumb by the announcement in April of an Autumn session after an arduous session begun in the month of January, he wished to add a few remarks on a question which he admitted to be one of great difficulty. He would try to inform the right hon. Gentleman why this system which was now proposed was not satisfactory. He agreed that the old system was bad, and it was perfectly true that at present the discussion of the Estimates did not conduce to economy. There was a time when those discussions did conduce to economy, and it was not so long ago as the First Lord of the Treasury appeared to suppose. They all desired that the discussion of the Estimates should tend to economy, and they would all be glad to see a system adopted under which the advocates of economy would have a better chance. The opportunities they desired were withdrawn when discussion was separated from the particular Vote. General discussions were neither satisfactory as discussions on economy or on policy. When this system was introduced six years ago it brought in the automatic closure as the ultima ratio, but the idea was that the Estimates should be voted after discussion. They all realised what the expenditure of the country was, and how much more valuable their discussions were, if, after discussing an Estimate, they afterwards proceeded to vote upon it.
His second point was that, although, discussions in Supply had ceased to conduce to economy, and had become discussions simply upon policy, they were, unsatisfactory even in that respect. It was quite true that the largest issues in connection with the Army and Navy, the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office, were discussed in Committee of Supply. If they had a very large question like British policy in China or South Africa or Venezuela without difficulty, they could, readily secure discussion upon those questions. There were, however, many questions of secondary importance, such as those which occurred in the Civil Service

1301
Estimates. It constantly happened that, in Committee on the Civil Service Estimates, a small grievance occupied the House for a whole night, to the exclusion of a far more important subject, the Minister not unwilling that a more troublesome question should be deferred, to be possibly disposed of in the final closure. Discussions were not always hostile towards a Minister, and there were many occasions on which they were extremely useful as affording the opportunity for explaining a policy and Strengthening the action of a Department. He supposed that there was hardly anybody who had been at the head of a Department in this country who had not felt that to enable him to carry out some reform or other he would very much have liked to have had a discussion in the House. Every now and then it happened that a Minister was obliged to put pressure upon some persons in regard to the administration of the law. He could instance from his own experience at the Board of Trade where it was very often necessary to put pressure upon railway companies and persons connected with shipping. Discussions in this House were very useful for that purpose, and a Minister was very much better able to accomplish his object if he had the pressure of the House of Commons behind him in regard to his position, for this enabled him to judge what the country thought of his policy. Therefore, Ministers would make a great mistake if they thought there was anything to be gained by not taking the House of Commons fully into their confidence.
His case was that under the new Rule that result was not attained, but under the old Rule a subject in which interest was taken would come on for discussion at some time, though perhaps very late in a session and sitting. This was a loss of the present system, and it was not a satisfactory thing for the future to make this a permanent Rule. The right hon. Gentleman last year said it was absurd to lay the same stress now upon the control of the House over finance, because political conditions had entirely changed since the seventeenth century. He said that the instrument whereby the House asserted its power over finance in the seventeenth century had become obsolete in modern times. It was true that things
1302
were somewhat different, but the financial centre of gravity had not shifted, and finance was still one of the most important duties for which the House was constituted. He thought the House was in great danger of forgetting that the country looked to it to guard finance, to see that money was applied to proper objects, and that expenditure was not suffered to grow extravagant. His complaint against this Rule was that it seemed to recognise as permanent and necessary the evil of extravagance and of insufficient scrutiny which had grown up of late years and which had deprived reformers of the opportunities which they ought to enjoy. In those discussions the noted with regret an undercurrent of pessimism in the mind and in the views of the First Lord of the Treasury which was often found in company with a devotion to philosophic doubt, and it was a pity that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to recognise the evils that at present existed as incurable. He was not yet so despondent, and he hoped that they might get back into a clearer air in which there would be a stronger plea for economy. In spite of the evils of the old system, he wished to say in conclusion that he was reluctant even now to make permanent the Rule which they were at present considering.
MR. STUART WORTLEYhoped the Government would hold fast to this Rule. The complaint seemed to be that the new system separated the voting from the discussion. So it did in form, but hon. Gentlemen should concentrate their attention more on the substance and less on the form. An Opposition which was prepared to negative entire Votes was prepared to refuse Supply, and an Opposition prepared to refuse Supply would never find any difficulty in challenging the conduct of the Executive Government. Upon one condition only, however, would they always find that opportunity, and that was that they should be prepared to act in some coherent and organised manner among themselves. This Rule was devised mainly for the comfort of the House as a whole, and in a large measure it had succeeded in attaining that end. It had also the object of.

1303
securing effective and organised discussion on the Estimates, and the one thing that made it unforgivable to the Opposition was that it threw upon them a new responsibility of a most terrifying nature, viz., that of acting otherwise than in the gelatinous, invertebrate, and totally unorganised manner which had brought them into their present impotent and humiliating condition. The hon. Member for Dundee had declared that the present system stood self-condemned, because a large number of Votes had to be closured at the end of the session. He was not sure that that was the quarter in which the condemnation ought to lie. He had had some experience of appealing to the country against proposals to limit discussions initiated by private Members, and that experience had shown him that such appeals generally fell on deaf ears. Let hon. Members go and tell the country that they, the responsible, organised Opposition, prepared to take the places of His Majesty's present advisers, could not get through the discussion of the Estimates in thirty-six days. They would be laughed at from one end of the country to the other, and be told to go back and manage their business better. The real matter of offence in the Rule was that, in season and out of season, whichever side of the House supplied His Majesty's advisers, it tended to secure that in due time the King's Government should be carried on; and to say that the King's Government should be carried on was the same thing as to say that the government of the great majority of the free and enlightened people of these islands should be carried on as the people wished it to be carried on.
MR. M'KENNAreferring to the previous speaker's remarkson the want of organised
1304
action and unity on the part of the Opposition said that if the hon. Member had been in the House earlier in the afternoon he would have seen all the young talent of the Unionist Party acting in anything but organised unity with the Treasury Bench. The debate had been carried on, and properly so, from the point of view of the inadequacy of the number of days given to the discussion of Irish Estimates. But there was another side of the question, and that was that twenty days were not sufficient for the discussion of English Estimates. The First Lord had argued that if the debates were legitimately conducted, twenty days would be fully sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman could not have been present at the discussion on the previous Friday. An object lesson was then provided as to why twenty days were not sufficient. If time was not wasted by Members on the Government side of the House, with the deliberate intention of preventing a division being taken, twenty days might be sufficient. On the occasion to which he referred, at a certain point in the debate, a message was brought to the Minister in charge of the Vote, which it was easy to interpret as an intimation that Members had not returned from dinner and that it was necessary to continue the discussion in order to secure a majority. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury then turned round and spoke to the hon. Member for Peckham—
MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was entitled to say that discussions were sometimes, in his view, unduly prolonged by Members on the Government side but he was not entitled to go into elaborate details of a particular scene.
MR. McKENNAthought he had said enough to illustrate his point. The moment any limit to the number of days was fixed the Government, were enabled to advise their supporters to waste time in order to get Votes through without real criticism. The First Lord had argued that all Members were asked to do was to pass a Rule which for five years had had the sanction of the House But it was because they had had five years experience of the Rule that they were bound to discuss it and expose its weaknesses. He should certainly vote against it, because it enabled the Government, by putting down uncontroversial Votes or getting their supporters to waste time, to prevent the Opposition having legitimate opportunity of criticising their conduct.
MR. GIBSON BOWLEStrusted the announcement of the Leader of the House for boded peace in about a month, the prorogation of Parliament after the Coronation, and an Autumn session in which there would be time to consider matters which were somewhat in arrear. By this time, in his inner mind, the right hon. Gentleman must, he thought regret his refusal to submit these Rules to a Committee.
Mr. SPEAKER: These general questions cannot now be discussed.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought he would be in order in following his hon. friend in regard to the number of hours in a session. The First Lord was mistaken in reckoning 960 hours to a session; of 120 days. Last session extended over only 118 days, but the number of hours was 1,072.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That includes the hours after midnight.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that that was just the point. Even under the new Rules the House would sit many hours after midnight, because there were several matters it would be possible then to discuss. But that was merely a small correction in passing. The Amendment under discussion had been considered in a very business-like manner. Many Members had treated the matter as if it were a question of making permanent the Supply Rule at present existing. That, however, was not the case. The proposal was to make into a Standing Order the Supply Rule, but with most important alterations. At ten o'clock on the two fatal nights the Votes would be lumped together in classes, and the Government would get the whole of their Supply. When he first came into Parliament he studied Parliamentary procedure under the President of the Board of Agriculture, and they then used Supply as an instrument for bargaining with the Government. That was what constantly happened. They used to make bargains behind the Chair and across the floor of the House, and they obtained great concessions in that way, because they had it in their power to prolong business, and consequently they brought the Government to reasonable terms. He need not add that the terms they offered were always reasonable. This Rule of 1896 governing Supply was introduced by his right hon. friend, he was sure, with the best intentions, for he said there had been great scandals in Supply in previous years. He admitted the scandals, for they were in the habit of saying to the

1307
Government that if they did not come to terms they were bound to have those scandals in Supply, and the Government were generally so shocked that they came to terms.
There were some very serious defects in this new Rule. In the first place, it made the number of days allotted to Supply absolutely hard and fast. He thought that was a very dangerous thing to do. It was dangerous to do this in a sessional Order, but it was extremely dangerous to embody this Rule in the form of a Standing Order. How could the Government tell what number of days might be required for Supply one year or two years hence? The business of Supply might grow in greater proportion in the future than legislation, and might require more time. He thought Supply was far more important than legislation, because it gave hon. Members opportunities for criticising the conduct of the Government and endeavouring to secure some; little remnant of economy in the administration. If they laid down this Rule in is present form they would be interfering with the conduct of business in future times. He also wished to point out that at the very time this limitation of the number of days in Committee of Supply was being proposed, the demand had arisen not for fewer but for a larger number of days.
His hon. friend behind him had said that this House, in trying to deal with Supply, was endeavouring to carry a load which it could not bear. He was not quite so sure of that, for he was in-inclined to believe that if they made a proper arrangement with regard to allocation of days in Supply the House could adequately bear the burden. It was, of course, impossible for the House in any single year to discuss all the Votes in
1308
Supply, but he thought the time might be so allocated that in successive years certain Votes might be taken, and ultimately they would get the whole of them considered by the House. Under the present system they went on discussing the same Votes year after year, and the consequence was that some Votes never got discussed at all. He did not agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo that the Estimates could be dealt with by a Committee, for that was altogether out of the question. He thought, however, that some allocation of time to certain Votes might be made week by week by the Public Accounts Committee. If this could be managed, it would relieve the First Lord of the Treasury of a great deal of responsibility and trouble. [Ministerial cries of "Divide, divide!"] The new Rule, as he had said before, was brought in by the First Lord of the Treasury with the view of preventing certain scandals, but those scandals had been not fewer, but greater, since the Rule was adopted than they were before. [Ministerial interruptions.] Last session between £60,000,000 and £70,000,000 was voted in one sitting, without any discussion at all. [Ministerial cries of "Divide, divide!"] He did not propose to continue this discussion any further beyond stating that he did not think the adoption of this Rule as a Standing Order instead of a sessional Order would conduce to a more adequate discussion in Committee of Supply, and it would most certainly not tend to economy.
(11.48.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 237; Noes, 140. (Division List No. 132.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Darning-Lawrence. Sir Edwin

Majendie, James A. H.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Faber, Edmund Lt Hants., W.)

Malcolm, Ian

Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Manners, Lord. Cecil

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Finch, George H.

Massey-Mainwarnig, Hn. W. F.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

Bagot, Capt. Joseeline FitzRoy

Fisher, William Hayes

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Bain, Colonel James Robert

FitzGerald Sir Robert Penrose

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Baird, John George Alexander

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Mitchell, William

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

Foster, Philip S Warwick S. W.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Galloway, William Johnson

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Gardner, Ernest

Morgan, David J. (W'ith mstow

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Morrell, George Herbert

Banbury, Frederick George

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

Morrison, James Archibald

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

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

Morton, Arthur II. A. (Deptford

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Gore, Hon. S. E. Ormsby (Line.)

Mount, William Arthur

Beckett, Ernest William

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Bignold, Arthur

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Muntz, Philip A.

Bigwood, James

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Murrray, Rt. Hn. A. Gr'h'm (Bute

Bill, Charles

Graham, Henry Robert

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bend, Edward

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

Nicol, Donal Ninian

Bowles, Cape. H. F. (Middlesex)

Gretton, John

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Brcokfield, Colonel Montagu

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Parkes, Ebenezer

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hall, Edward Marshall

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Bull, William James

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G (Midd'x

Penn, John

Butcher, John George

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

Percy, Earl

Carlile, William Walter

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Pierpoint, Robert

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Cautley, Henry Strother

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

Plummer, Walter R.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Helder, Augustus

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Henderson, Alexander

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Chamberelain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Hogg, Lindsay

Purvis, Robert

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Hope, J. F. (Sheflield, Brightside

Randles, John S.

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Rankin, Sir James

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Chapman, Edward

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Charrington, Spencer

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir. John H.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Renwick, George

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

Keswick, William

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Robinson, Brooke

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Law, Andrew Bonar

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Round, James

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lawson, John Grant

Rutherford, John

Corbett T. L. (Down, North)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Cranborne, Viscount

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

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Davenport, William Bromley

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Smith, H. C (N'rth'm K Tyneside

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

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

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Macdona, John Cumming

Spear, John Ward

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

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

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Doxtord, Sir William Theodore

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

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Duke, Henry Edward

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

1310

1311

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

Wylie, Alexander

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Thornton, Percy M.

Willough by de Eresby, Lord

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Valentia, Viscount

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Malley, William

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale.

O'Mara, James

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ambrose, Robert

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Asher, Alexander

Holland, William Henry

Partington, Oswald

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Pirie, Duncan Y.

Bell, Richard

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Blake, Edward

Joicey, Sir James

Price, Robert John

Boland, John

Jones, William (C'rnarvonshire

Rea, Russell

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Joyce, Michael

Reddy, M.

Broadhurst, Henry

Kennedy, Patrick James

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Labouchere, Henry

Rigg, Richard

Caldwell, James

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Roberts, John Bryn (Eiffon)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Leng, Sir John

Roche, John

Causton, Richard Knight

Lundon, W.

Rnnciman, Walter

Cawley, Frederick

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Russell, T. W.

Channing, Francis Allston

NacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Clancy, John Joseph

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

M'Cann, James

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Condon, Thomas Joseph

M'Crae, George

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Craig, Robert Hunter

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Crean, Eugene

M'Kean, John

Soares, Ernest J.

Cremer, William Randal

M'Kenna, Reginald

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Delany, William

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Sullivan, Donal

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, F.)

Dillon, John

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Donelan, Captain A.

Mooney, John J.

Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

Doogan, P. C.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Moss, Samuel

Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N

Elibank, Master of

Murphy, John

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

Emmott, Alfred

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Tomkinson, James

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

F'enwick, Charles

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Ffrench, Peter

Norman, Henry

White, George (Norfolk)

Field, William

Nussey, Thomas Willans

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Flynn, James Christopher

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Brien, K'ndal (Tipperary Mid

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Williams Osmond (Merioneth)

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

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

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf 'd

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Young, Samuel

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Donnell T. (Kerry, W.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Dowd, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lough and Mr. George Whiteley.

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Main Question again proposed.
Debate arising.
It being after midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

POULETT PEERAGE.
Petition of William Turnour Thomas Poulett, claiming to be Viscount Hinton of Hinton Saint George and Earl Poulett, both in the Peerage of England, to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to be graciously pleased to direct a writ to be issued to summon the petitioner to the present Parliament by the title of Viscount Hinton of Hinton Saint George and Earl Poulett, together with His Majesty's reference thereof to this House, and the Report of the Attorney. General thereon thereunto annexed-Presented (by command), read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges to consider and report.
BARON DUFFERIN AND CLANDEBOYE.
Ordered, That the report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords on the 21st day of April last, that the right of Baron Dufferin and Clandeboye to vote at the elections of representative peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

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 Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
Imperial Institute—(Petition for Bill).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

IMPERIAL INSTITUTE—(PETITION FOR BILL).
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATER BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
MANCHESTER DISTRICT TELEPHONE BOARD BILL [H.L.],
  NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY (MANCHESTER AREA) BILL [H.L.]
  Committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  BRADFORD-ON-AYON GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 24th of February, and Friday last, discharged; and Bill committed.
BARKING GAS BILL,
  OMAGH URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL,
    GRAND JUNCTION WATER BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed.
    MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
    TICEHURST WATER BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed.
CHIGWELL, LOUGHTON, AND WOODFORD GAS ILL [H.L.]
  WATERFORD AND BISHOP FOY ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL [H.L.]
    DONEGAL RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
KENT WATER BILL.
  SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAMROAD BILL.
    LONDON SCHOOL BOARD (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Northern Division of Scotland, for the year 1901.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 10 (1902).
  Agreement between the United Kingdom and France respecting commercial relations between France and Zanzibar. Signed at London, 27th June, 1901. Ratifications exchanged at London, 22nd February, 1902.

  TRADE REPORTS.
  1. Miscellaneous Series. No. 576 Mineral Resources of Greece.
  2. Annual Series.
  No. 2770. United States (Texas).
  No. 2771. Spain (Corunna).
  No. 2772. Venezuela (Cuidad Bolivar).

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887.
  Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 31st March, 1902.

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  1. Report of the Committee of Inquiry, 1901.
  2. Evidence taken before the Committee of Inquiry, 1901 (with Appendix).

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  1. Report of the Committee of Inquiry, 1901.
  2. Evidence taken before the Committee of Inquiry, 1901 (with Appendix).

  SOUTH AFRICA.
  1. Despatch by General Lord Kitchener, dated 8th March, 1902, relative to Military operations in South Africa (in continuation of [Cd. 965.]).
  2. Return of farm buildings, etc, in Cape Colony and Natal destroyed by the Boers.

  INDIA (LAND REVENUE).
  Papers regarding the land revenue system of British India.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NATIONAL DEBT (ANNUITIES).
  Account of the gross amount of all bank annuities and any annuities for terms of years transferred, and of all sums of money pain, to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; and the gross amount of annuities for lives and for terms of years which have been granted for the same, and
  1148
  contracts for payments on death which have been made within the year ended 5th January, 1902. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITIONS.
  VIVISECTION.
  Petition for legislation for suppression of the practice of; of meeting at Swiss Cottage; read and ordered to lie on the Table.

MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to-order).
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TUE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW): The object of the Amendment to Clause I, which stands in my name is to restrict the operation of the Bill to the United Kingdom. As at present drafted, it would apply to the Colonies, the objections to which I explained at the Committee stage.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 1, page 1, Sub-section (8), line 10, to leave out into any part of His Majesty's dominions.'"—(The End of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONKSWELL: Clause 1 provides that, if any person commits any of the offences mentioned, he shall be liable to penalties not exceeding £50. I desire to reduce that sum to £20, which is the highest amount that can be recovered summarily in Scotland, and it is desirable that the penalties should be the same in both countries.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 19, to leave out fifty 'and to insert' twenty."'—(Lord Monkswell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a tomorrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 50.)

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—MARTIAL LAW IN CAPE COLONY.
LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask His Majesty's Government the Questions standing in my name—viz.: Whether at any time during the war military operations have taken place, either in the Cape Peninsular, or in the districts of Port Elizabeth or East London, or within an area of fifty miles from the coast at any point for upward of 600 miles between Cape Town and the border of Natal; if so, at what point or points, what forces were engaged, and what casualties, if any, resulted; whether at any time since March, 1901, the Supreme Court has not held its sittings without any interruption both at Cape Town and Grahamstown; and whether, with the exception of the towns on the Northern Circuit, the judges of assize have not held Courts in most of the twenty other circuit towns; and whether any difficulty has been found in executing the process of these Courts in the districts subject to their jurisdiction; and, if so, when and where, on what occasions, and in what towns. I do not wish to raise again the contentions which were urged on this side of the House in the last discussion on the subject of the application of martial law.† I said on that occasion that in certain large districts in Cape Colony the state of things existed which I indicate in my Questions. The noble and learned Earl the Lord Chancellor challenged my statement, though I do not think he contradicted it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I asked upon what authority the noble Lord made that statement, but I received no reply.
LORD COLERIDGE: The noble and learned Earl is quite right. He challenged my statement, but he did not contradict it. I now place on the Paper the districts to which I alluded; I specify them and define them; and I urge, with regard to those districts, that to impose martial law without Parliamentary sanction and by the mere fiat of the Executive was an illegal act. The noble and learned Earl, in combating the arguments addressed from this side of the House and in justifying the imposition of martial law in such
†See preceding volume, p. 123.
1150
districts, even if they were in the state which I allege, set forth a certain doctrine which was new and surprising to myself, and which, pushed to its logical extremity, would seem to go the length of saying that, if we were at war somewhere, the Executive, without Parliamentary sanction, might impose martial law anywhere. That is a doctrine in which, if I may say so with all modesty, I cannot concur; and I have in my favour the opinion of Lord Davey—a high legal authority—who stated emphatically the other evening that he could not assent to any such doctrine. I also alluded to certain Regulations with regard to the application of martial law which bore the sanction of two successive Secretaries of State for the Colonies and the Law Officers of the Crown, and I said that those Regulations had been sent to all the Colonial Governors as the final mind of the Government of the day upon the application of martial law.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): Has the noble Lord the document in which the statement was included that the Regulations represented the final mind of the British Government?
LORD COLERIDGE: The heading of the Rules which I hold in my hand is as follows: "Proposed Rules to be introduced on the subject of martial law into the Colonial Regulations." I understand that they were so introduced, and I think they may, therefore, be correctly described as representing the mind of the Government of the day. Those Regulations lay down the principle that the Governor should not proclaim martial law unless he is satisfied that there are men in armed resistance to the authority of the Crown; that such armed resistance cannot be dealt with by the Military acting merely in aid of the civil power in the ordinary manner; that such armed resistance cannot be promptly and effectually suppressed otherwise than, by subjecting the inhabitants of the disturbed district to direct military control, and by inflicting summary punishments; on offenders against the peace. It would appear, although I cannot state it as a; fact, that those Regulations, containing the stipulations which I have read to the

1151
House, were, in fact, conveyed to Lord Milner, and that in the year 1900 he expressed his concurrence in them. There is an allusion in a letter by Mr. Schreiner, the then Cape Prime Minister, to a certain Circular Despatch from the Colonial Office, which I interpret to mean the Despatch containing the words I have quoted. If I am wrong, I can easily be contradicted. If that be the case, these Colonial Regulations in regard to martial law were before the Ministers at the Cape, were approved of by them, and were further approved of in the year 1900 by Lord Milner. More than that, on November 28th, 1899, Mr. Schreiner, in a Minute to Lord Milner, said:—
"Ministers beg specially to draw the attention of his Excellency to the great importance, from the legal and other points of view, of handing over prisoners arrested by the military authorities to the civil authorities, to be dealt with by the ordinary procedure in conformity with law."
In a Report, dated November 25th, 1899, which was transmitted to Lord Milner, Sir Richard Solomon (Attorney General at the Cape) said—
"I think it right to point out the grave complications which may arise if, in districts where martial law has been proclaimed, persons charged with the commission of serious crimes should be tried before courts-martial while the Civil Courts are still open. Martial law has been proclaimed on grounds of necessity. I have very little doubt, however, that such a proclamation cannot be justified on legal grounds. There is no statute authorising such proclamation, and the prerogative of the Crown, under which it may probably be proclaimed when necessity requires it, has not been delegated to the Governor in his commission. It is because I have such serious doubts as to the legality of the proclamation of martial law in this colony that I am exceedingly anxious that nothing should be done by the military authorities, under cloak of such a proclamation, which will provoke an application to the Supreme Court, whereby such proclamation might be declared null and void. It may often be absolutely necessary for the safety of the country and for the suppression of rebellion to arrest persons suspected of crimes without the authority of a warrant obtained in the usual way. This is one of the reasons for the proclamation of martial law. I do strongly hold, however, that persons so arrested should be handed over to the civil authorities to be dealt with by them by the ordinary civil procedure. The object of martial law is not to obtain convictions against persons on mere suspicion or on "violence which would not be recognised as sufficient in Civil Courts of Justice. It is therefore, highly desirable that as long as the Civil Courts are open all persons arrested by
1152
the military for the commission of crimes against the laws of the land should be handed over to the magistrates to be dealt with by them."
Again, on November 27th, 1899, dealing with some instructions issued by General Buller to the magistrates with regard to martial law, Sir Richard Solomon stated that—
"The establishment of special Courts for the trial of civilians for the offences specified in General Bullet's instructions would be contrary to the law of the land, and the sentences of such Courts would, strictly, be illegal, and would have to be legalised by an Act of Indemnity. Paramount necessity may require the establishment of such Courts when the Civil Courts are closed, and the safety of the country demands the prompt trial and punishment of persons arrested for offences, and in such cases it is right that such Courts should be established. Where, however, the Civil Courts are open for the trial of offenders, I must again point out how necessary it is that persons arrested by the military authorities should be tried in the ordinary way by duly constituted Courts. The fact that the sentences of courts-martial established on the grounds of paramount necessity are illegal is an additional reason for my earnest desire to have all peasons, where possible, tried by legally established Courts."
I apologise for the length of the extracts I have read, but they are quotations hardly one word of which could be omitted. Sir Richard Solomon, who put this forward as his interpretation of the law, is a person of no mean importance. Since writing this declaration he has been appointed to a high office in the newly-annexed territories, and he is at present the legal adviser to Lord Milner. Now, I have two or three very simple questions to ask the Government. Were Lord Carnarvon's Regulations brought to the attention of Lord Milner? Did Lord Milner and the constitutional legal advisers at that time approve of them? If they approved of them, why have they not been observed? Further, I should like to know whether the Government do or do not agree with the law as expounded by 'Sir Richard Solomon, their own legal adviser to their own constituted authority. I submit that the opinion of Sir Richard Solomon is worthy of high regard, and that it is being daily and hourly violated in the territories defined in my Question. I think, therefore, that I am justified on all grounds in calling the attention of the House to this state of things, with a view,

1153
if possible, to its being altered or mitigated. I am well aware that it may be said that this is an inopportune moment to bring forward this question. If I thought that the ventilation of a matter of this supreme importance could militate in the smallest degree against the success of the negotiations for peace, I should be the last to allude to it. I cannot see myself how the application of martial law to territory far removed from the seat of war can possibly affect any negotiations that may be passing between the combatants; but, on the other hand, I believe that martial law applied in this way constitutes a very real and solid obstacle to the success of the peace negotiations. The application of martial law—martial law as it is now applied—is leading every day to the steady manufacture of recruits for the enemy, and I am not without hope that the discussion of the subject may induce the Government to cease to impose martial law in those districts—and I am not alluding to any other districts—where it can come into conflict with the ordinary law. To my mind, the truest advocate for peace is the man who would urge the Government to mitigate, if not to remove, that which is, in my judgment, both illegal and disastrous to the welfare of the colony.
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, since I have had the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House, I have intervened but very rarely in your debates. If this were an ordinary political question, or a subject connected with party politics, holding my present office, I should abstain from intervention in this debate; but after careful reflection on the earlier speech made by the noble and learned Lord, the report of which I have read, and having regard to what he has said today, I ask permission to say a few words with reference to the matter. The question raised is a vital one, and it is closely connected with some of the most important interests of the Empire and the duties of the Executive. I had the privilege for twelve years to be the adviser of Her late Majesty's Government in the position of Attorney General, and during that time it was my duty to make myself acquainted with this question, not merely by reading a few passages from text-books or from speeches, but by endeavouring to get to the bottom of the matter and its principle. It is
1154
because I think the observations of my noble and learned friend on the last occasion and today would lead to serious misunderstandings of what the true and proper view of martial law is, and what are the true principles which the Executive should consider in relation to it, that I feel impelled to address your Lordships.
Let me go back to the principle of this matter. My complaint of the speech made by my noble and learned friend on the last occasion is that he overlooks altogether as many persons who speak on this subject have overlooked, the fundamental distinction in the difference between military law and martial law. On the last occasion I noticed that my noble and learned friend quoted Coke, who said that when the Courts were open martial law cannot be executed. If any one takes the trouble to read carefully the discussion which took place at the time these words were used, he will find that Hale, Comyn, Coke, and others cited by the noble lord were speaking of military law as applied to soldiers, and of the attempt of the Crown to enforce military law in time of peace on civilians. At no stage in the discussions in Parliament on the Petition of Right did any question arise as to the duty of the Executive when there was a state of war, or when the kingdom was in danger. The fundamental objection I take to my noble friend's question and the arguments he used is that his statements and arguments are only consistent and reconcilable with the position that he was speaking, or should have been speaking, of military law as distinguished from martial law. At the time of the discussions on the Petition of Light, as many writers have pointed out, no question of martial law properly so called arose. The martial law which had then to be discussed was the old law of the "marshall," and had nothing to do with martial law properly so called, although the two names have often been confused. All those who were then striving to protect the interests of the people were protesting against the Crown in times of peace trying civilians by a military tribunal as distinguished from the ordinary Civil Courts; and it was from that point of view Hale and Coke spoke.
Side by side with this military law now embodied in the Mutiny Acts, by which

1155
soldiers are governed in times of peace and war by the military codes, there was martial law as we are dealing with it today, and as recognised by Hale and Coke, and by the great writers who have written on the subject. What is that? That is the law by which it is the paramount duty of the Executive to do what is necessary to defend the Commonwealth against the King's enemies. That is the root and foundation of martial law. The martial law founded on necessity arises solely from the duty of the Executive and the Government of the day to protect His Majesty's dominions. Vice-Chancellor Kent says—
"Martial law is quite different from ordinary military law; it is justified by paramount necessity and proclaimed by a military chief."
I could quote many other passages which show how clearly he appreciated the distinction. The acts must be acts done by necessity for the defence of the Commonwealth where there is war within the realm. These are the justifications of martial law—the safety of British possessions and the security of British lives and property. The whole question is—Is there such a state of war or rebellion that it cannot be put down by the civil authority, or by the military authorities acting under the orders of the civil authorities? I should not detain your Lordships on this part of the subject, but for the extraordinary arguments used on former occasions and repeated on the present occasion. The distinction has been pointed out by the great American writers; it was explained by Lord Brougham in the great Demarara debates, it has been written on by Professor Dicey, by Finlason, and by one of the most philosophic lawyers of the present day, Sir Frederick Pollock; and therefore I submit that, unless my noble and learned friend is able to show that his demands are consistent with martial law as I have ventured to explain it, great mischief lurks in his question. I am speaking, of course, of martial law in the sense to which I have referred—namely, that law which it is the duty of the Executive to establish for the protection of the kingdom. What does my noble and learned friend say? He says that because in
1156
some parts of a territory, however large, the Courts may be open, there cannot be martial law in the sense I have indicated. He endeavours to drive those who hold my view into maintaining the position that if there is war somewhere, there might be martial law anywhere. There cannot be a greater travesty of the arguments I am supporting; because the foundation of martial law is necessity, and the limits of what the Executive may do under Martial Law is limited by that necessity. They have not the abstract or absolute right of suddenly saying that the Courts shall not sit. But at the same time they are bound to do everything in their power to maintain the safety of the Empire, and to protect the whole Empire against the King's enemies. This is no duty of the Government different from the duty of private individuals, except in degree. The mayors of towns and other responsible authorities, if riot and rebellion take place, have the duty to enforce a kind of martial law; and there is only a greater and paramount duty on the Government not to hesitate or falter in the matter, but, if the necessity demands it to declare martial law and put it in force.
My noble and learned friend suggested that, because the Courts are open in some places, there can be no martial law within the jurisdiction of these Courts. There is the highest authority for saying that for many years those who have had the responsibility of advising the Crown have taken a different view. I would appeal to the opinion of Sir Robert Henley and the hon. Charles Yorke, Attorney General and Solicitor General—no mean authorities—and I refer to them only because the opinion was delivered 150 years ago. In 1757, in dealing with this question, they used these words, directly negativing the main proposition of my noble and learned friend—
"By proclamation of martial law the ordinary course of law and justice is not suspended or stopped any farther than is absolutely necessary to answer the then military service of the public and the exigencies of the province."
I am expressing my own opinion, formed as the result of the study of many writings and speeches on this subject; and I say that if the Executive, when they proclaim martial law, unnecessarily put an end to the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, they are exceeding their authority. The

1157
mere fact of the sitting of a Court in this or that district cannot have any bearing on the question under discussion. We are not in the same position in the point of view of communications as we were 250 years ago. Have telegraphs and railways made no difference? Such an area as the noble and learned Lord referred to must comprise many thousands of square miles. May there not be going on in that district action aimed at the Government and British dominion, even though the Court may be sitting in the very town where that action is going on? To limit, or attempt to limit, the authority, duty, and responsibility of the Executive, and to enable the Executive to shift that responsibility on to the shoulders of the Civil Courts, would be to invite them to abandon their responsibility and to decline their duties.
What is the real necessity for martial law? It is the presence of the King's enemies, public or secret. You may have enemies working effectively against you, although there is no armed force within 200 miles. A military commander may get information which it is quite impossible for him to publish, and his paramount duty may be to take action in consequence is he to go to the Courts and ask for an injunction or a mandamus, when the man is at that moment sending information to the enemy or taking action which may in a few days develop into a crisis? Is the military authority to wait, and not to act until the Civil Court has given authority? The result of that would be that the responsibility which now rests with the Executive under martial law would not rest with them, but with the civil tribunals. Therefore, my noble and learned friend; whose opinion I value, by asking whether the Courts are sitting here and there, and by endeavouring to show that the Government have been guilty of illegal acts, and that the Executive have had no right to proclaim martial law is approaching the question in the wrong way. Let him, if he can, argue that there has been no necessity for martial law at all. But I protest against its being stated by lawyers that the Government are powerless to take the necessary steps to protect the Empire and any part of the dominions of the King because in this or that part,
1158
linked though the parts are by telegraph and the present means of communication, there may be a Court sitting. The Executive are bound to do what is necessary. The action of officers in proclaiming martial law may afterwards be tried in the Civil Courts, and, unless it can be shown that the officers acted bona fide, they may be and have been mulcted in damages. I will not discuss the difficult question as to how far the necessity of the act could be inquired into, but it is perfectly plain that on the question of bona fides, the act may be challenged. The justification of what is done under martial law does not rest on the fact that the acts, illegal in themselves, will afterwards be justified by an act of indemnity. The justification rests on the necessity of the action, and that is judged by circumstances which can generally only be known to the Government of the day if, in such a discussion as this, the idea is to be supported that Governors of colonies and others can only act with the permission of the Civil Courts, there is an end to anything like responsibility or effective action on the part of the Executive. I do not know in the least what the answer of the Government may be; but if as was stated in one of the discussions, these Courts were sitting at the request of the Executive, it is in accordance with procedent. If the Commander-in-Chief has, in cases in which it was considered desirable, craved in aid the Civil Courts, the state of things would be exactly the same as has been found in a great many cases in which martial law has been established without question.
I hope I have at any rate made my own opinion plain. My view is that, keeping clear of all questions of military law, keeping clear of all questions as to what might be done in times of peace, there is a paramount and existing duty and authority of the Executive to put in force martial law as we understand it for the protection of the colony; and if on consideration my noble and learned friend feels that I have at any rate pointed out to him some grounds for thinking that the distinction that he has drawn is not well-founded, and that he could only use the argument he used in your Lordships' House some five weeks ago by for the moment forgetting the point of view from which the learned writers to whom he referred were speaking—if, as I have said, there exists

1159
this duty and this responsibility, will it not also occur to him that very great harm may be done to those who are responsible by such debates as these? Here are men acting 7,000 miles away; they ought not to wish to act under the direct instruction of anybody at home; if they do they neglect their duty. The responsibility is theirs; we ought not to increase the burden of their responsibility; and I do respectfully submit to your Lordships that if the state of things in the Cape Colony was such as I have no doubt it was, although I have no information beyond what I have seen; in the public papers, that proclamation of martial law was justified. If for the safety of the Empire and the safety of the colony it was necessary that martial law should be enforced, that arrests should take place, that houses should be entered without legal authority, then I do respectfully submit to my noble and learned friend that the fact that a Court was sitting in this place or that place and discharging its duty is immaterial, and to raise the suggestion that there cannot be martial law because Courts are sitting is to lose sight of the principles upon which alone martial law is justified, and to put responsibility upon the shoulders of those who ought not to bear it.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My Lords, as Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, and East London have been from the commencement of the War bases of the British Army in South Africa, they have been continually the scenes of military operations since war was declared.
LORD COLERIDGE: By military operations I do not mean merely the moving of troops from place to place, but military operations of an active character which might possibly have involved casualties.
LORD RAGLAN: It would entail much reference to Lord Kitchener and much work on the Staff in South Africa to draw up a detailed and full Report of all the collisions with the enemy which have taken place within the area of 30,000 square miles as to which the noble Lord asks for information. No general action of magnitude has taken place within
1160
that area, but it may be said that there has been a large amount of fighting over the greater proportion of it. In most cases this fighting has consisted chiefly of collisions between hostile patrols, and it would be extremely difficult to give exact numbers as to the force engaged on either side or the actual casualties. Six hundred miles of coast line could not be adequately protected from constant importation of arms and ammunition without the application of military force, and as a matter of fact it was found that large amounts, both of arms and ammunition, were being landed and supplied to the King's enemies. Supposing it was true that no conflicts whatever had taken place within that area of 30,000 square miles, it would only prove that His Majesty's forces were sufficient to prevent any such supplies being given to the enemy; and the Return moved for by the noble and learned Lord would be entirely misleading if the inference were drawn from it that there was, therefore, no occasion whatever for the imposition of martial law in these districts. My answer will cover the noble and learned Lord's last question, and I merely give that answer in illustration of the difficulty of replying to questions at such a distance, put by those who are not acquainted with the military situation.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My noble friend has explained the difficulties which exist in making a Return, and I wish in a few words to state the somewhat broader grounds of objection to this Motion entertained by His Majesty's Government. I hope I may ask my noble and learned friend in what sense he has moved this Motion. If it is academic, it is useless; if it is practical, it is dangerous and mischievous. His Majesty's Government are unwilling that those who are absent should suppose that the Government at home are not mindful of the necessity of protecting them from attack, I am not for one moment about to throw responsibility upon those who constitutionally represent the Government of the Cape Colony. It is unnecessary to do so, and that is what I wish to avoid. I know not against whom my noble and learned friend makes this attack. I hope he

1161
makes it against His Majesty is Government only and it is sufficient for me now to say that the Government believe that the steps which have been taken were necessary, legal, and wisely taken, and desire to accept the full responsibility for what has occurred. That being so, let me point out to my noble and learned friend that the position he has taken up in regard to the imposition of this law is not quite accurate in point of fact. He asked—
"Have you sent out to the Cape Colony the instructions which Lord Carnarvon gave twenty-five years ago in relation to martial law?"
His Majesty's Government have not sent them out, and if they had, I think they would have been guilty of a serious act of unconstitional interference. Those instructions were sent out to Crown colonies. Why should we tell the Government of the Cape Colony how they should act under constitutional government? They have there a Ministry representing the rights of the people in that colony as much as His Majesty's Government represent the rights of the people here, and, as a fact, they were most watchful of the interests of the civilian population, and jealous of any unconstitutional dealing with them in the exercise of martial law.
My noble friend has quoted proceedings which took place in 1899. Soon after the outbreak of the war the Attorney General of the Cape Colony pointed out that the exercise of martial law would interfere with civil rights. He was acting then as the defender of the civilian population. But time went on, and unfortunately the Cape Colony became honeycombed with treason and treachery. There was a state of things existing there which rendered it impossible for His Majesty's soldiers to control the war without the assistance of martial law. Lord Kitchener made that representation. He said he was paralysed in his action by traitors and rebels there, and it was necessary that martial law should be proclaimed. He had to deal with a condition of things which probably no soldier has had to deal with before. There were rebels all round him, not armed forces with distinctive uniforms so that he might know they were hostile forces, but men at the plough
1162
one hour and in a few hours with weapons in their hands fighting against us. There were men who passed through the country contraband of war, and there were ships delivering contraband of war on the coasts. What is the noble and learned Lord's suggestion? His suggestion is that Lord Kitchener should have sent to some Court which was sitting for a warrant to enter a farmer's house and search for arms; that he should lay an information before one of the Courts in order to seize contraband of war landed on the coast. The noble and learned Lord contends, as the Lord Chief Justice pointed out, that because at some distant spot a Court was sitting the efforts of our military forces were to be paralysed, and that there was nothing to be done to stop the state of things existing. Lord Kitchener acted as a soldier was bound to act. Nothing was arbitrarily done. When these representations were made, Sir Gordon Sprigg, who had shown himself to be a most constitutional Minister, went to Pretoria. He had an interview with Lord Kitchener, and arrangements were made as to the terms upon which martial law should be proclaimed. Those terms involved the protection of the civil population, and those terms having been effected, martial law was proclaimed. It was not an arbitrary proclamation, but one taken charge of by Sir W. Hely-Hutchinson, the Governor of the Cape Colony. The proclamation was countersigned by his Excellency the Governor and by Sir J. Gordon Sprigg the Prime Minister. He had consented, who had been fighting the battle against martial law as long as the civilian view could prevail. And now the noble Lord says, "Have you sent out Lord Carnarvon's instructions given twenty-five years ago?" There is proof that the civilian element, the Constitutional element, acted with care, inasmuch as they demanded that a Board should be appointed with civilians upon it to hear the complaint of any human being injured by martial law, and to make full compensation to any such person out of the revenues of the colony; and there was a proclamation to that effect by Major-General Kelly.
I am sorry to have detained the House so long, but His Majesty's

1163
Government feel strongly on this question. I really am not desirous to come into conflict with my noble friend, but I can assure him that these Motions do no good, and can do, and are doing, a great deal of harm. Are we to tell loyal subjects who have never asked him to represent them that we care not for their protection by martial law, or to tell their enemies that there are people in this country who condemn His Majesty's Government? No doubt the speech of the noble Lord will read better than it has sounded to us. It will sound well in Dutch. It will be read in every camp where our enemies are. They will hope, and believe, that there are friends and allies in this country who are willing to condemn everything done by the British Government, and haw nothing but words of encouragement to give to the enemies of their country.
LORD COLERIDGE: I understand that I have no right of reply; but I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord if he can tell me what the Colonial Office Despatch was which Lord Milner gave to his Ministers on January 4th, 1900, if it was not Lord Carnavon's circular. May I also ask whether it is not the fact that in the year 1878, that circular was submitted by Sir M. Hicks Beach to the then Governor of Cape Colony, which was not a Crown Colony?
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The circular may have been submitted to him for his information; but no instructions have ever been given to a Constitutional Governor as to the way in which he should administer a Constitutional Colony.

INDIA—IMPERIAL CADE CORPS— EQUIPMENT.
THE MARQUESS OF AILESBURY: My Lords, L beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Viceroy of India's attention has been drawn to the public statement that part of the equipment of the new Imperial Cadet Corps is to consist of a saddle cloth of the skin of the snow leopard, and whether in view of the
1164
fact that this animal is not only rare but practically harmless, instructions will be given to His Excellency to prevent this wanton slaughter and extermination.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of HARD-WICKE): In reply to the first part of the noble Marquess's Question, the equipment of this corps is entirely in the hands of the Viceroy. As to the further Question. I am afraid I cannot give my noble friend any assurance that the Secretary of State will interfere with the Viceroy's discretion in the matter; but I may mention that the Imperial Cadet Corps only consists of twenty officers, that the skins referred to were purchased by the Government, as they heard that this consignment was in the market, and that therefore no snow leopards were killed for the purpose of securing these skins. With regard to the harmless nature of the animal, I think that is an open question.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NAVAL PRIZE BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
DUNDEE CORPORATION LIBRARIES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. (No. 51.)
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. (No. 52),

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL. (No. 53.)
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.