Sitting of 16 January 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
Message to attend His Majesty.
The House went, and returned.

WRITS ISSUED DURING RECESS.
Mr. SPEAKER4.30. Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had issued Warrants for New Writs for County of Lanark (North East Division) in the room of John Colville, esquire, deceased; Galway, the hon. Martin Henry Fitzpatrick Morris, called up to the House of Peers.

GALWAY ELECTION—POSITION OF MR. LYNCH.
EARL PERCY: I wish to call attention to certain circum-

59
stances relating to the return of the hon. Member for Galway, and to move, "That the election to serve as Member for the borough of Galway of Mr. Arthur Lynch, who is commonly and notoriously reported, and has himself claimed, to have aided the King's enemies in the war in South Africa, is an insult to the House of Commons, and that a Special Committee be appointed to consider and report what course should be taken by the House in respect of the above matter." I submit that this is a matter of privilege, because it can be shown, as the motion says, that the hon. Member for Galway has publicly claimed to have assisted the King's enemies in the war, and that during the election this claim was notorious, and was specially put forward by the hon. Members for Waterford, North Leitrim, and West Kerry. After the election the Member for Waterford boasted of the return to Parliament of a Boer candidate, and the Member for Galway has himself stated that his being a rebel became the crux of the election. I submit that in view of these circumstances the House of Commons has unquestionably been insulted, that the insult was intended, that the House feels it as such, and that consequently a Committee of Privilege should be appointed.
MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord has been good enough to furnish me with a copy of the resolution, and perhaps he will not be surprised after what has passed between us if I say that I do not think this is a case of privilege. A defamatory reflection upon the character of the House of Commons or upon its conduct and actions, may constitute a claim to raise a question of privilege. There is a great distinction between that and the case the noble Lord puts forward. Assuming the facts to be as stated, the Member elected has boasted that he bore arms against the King's troops and that by so doing he secured his election. That may be offensive to the feelings of a large number of Members of this House, but it is not enough to make it a question of privilege. It must be an attack, as I say, on the character or conduct of the House of Commons itself. The noble Lord must therefore give notice in the ordinary way of any motion for which he thinks he has ground.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Do I understand that you rule, Sir,
60
that the motion of the noble Lord is out of order on the ground that the facts as stated by him do not constitute an insult to the House of Commons?
MR. SPEAKER: I am not going to argue with the hon. Member, or to repeat what I have already said.
MR. HORNER: I beg to give notice that if the gentleman elected for Galway presents himself at the table for the purpose of taking the oath, I shall move that the oath be not administered to him.

NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Hampstead, in the room of Edward Brodie Hoare, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—(Sir William Walrond.)

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887, (IMPRISONMENT OF MR. CONOR O'KELLY).
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had received the following letter relating to proceedings under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, against a Member of this House:—
To the Right Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons,
The Palace of Westminster.
Sir,—I have the honour to inform you that Mr. Conor O'Kelly, Member of Parliament for the Constituency of North Mayo, was convicted on the 18th instant, at Castlebar, county Mayo, before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, formed under the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, on the charge of having taken part in an unlawful assembly at Tully, county of Mayo, on the 1st December, 1901.
He was on conviction sentenced to be imprisoned in His Majesty's Prison at Castlebar for two calendar months without hard labour, and he was committed to prison at Castlebar on the 18th instant.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Robert F. Starkie,
Resident Magistrate,
Westport, county Mayo,
Presiding justice of said Court.
20th December, 1901.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It is a matter of regret that the first announcement made by Mr. Speaker on the first day of the Session to be signalized by the Coronation—
Mr. SPEAKER: Order, Order!
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am raising a question of privilege.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should begin by saying so.
Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL:—I think it is a breach of privilege. I regret that the Speaker's first announcement in the Session to be signalized by the Coronation should be that one of the Members of the House is now immured in a dungeon annexed to the Chief Secretary's Office. The House has always shown itself extremely jealous in regard to the personal liberty of its Members, and has ever been ready to investigate the circumstances under which they are detained. I beg therefore to move, in accordance with precedent, "That the letter of Mr. Starkie, an Irish Resident Magistrate, to Mr. Speaker, informing him of the trial, arrest, and imprisonment of Mr. Conor O'Kelly, a Member of this House, be referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of inquiring into all matters connected with the proceedings therein and reporting whether any of them demand the further attention of this House."
Mr. SPEAKER: As at present advised, I think that it is not a matter of privilege. But I understand the hon. Member to say that he has some authority.
MR. SWIFT MACNEIL: Yes, Sir, my motion is based on one moved by Mr. Gray on February 7th, 1882, after consultation with the Speaker of the day, concerning the arrest of Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, O'Kelly, and Sexton. I have also another precedent dated the 15th February, 1882. In regard to the former case, when the Chief Secretary wrote informing the House of the arrest of the hon. Members a Select Committee was at once appointed for the purpose of considering the Report. I submit that the cases are exactly analogous.
Mr. SPEAKER: This is not such a case of privilege. This is a case of conviction by a Court of law in accordance with the laws of the country, in respect of which no privilege can arise.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I can show, as I will if you permit me, that there are exceptional circumstances in this case, and that the law has been strained against a Member of the House. I do not wish to discuss the policy of the adminstration, but this is a case which we must go into.
Mr. SPEAKER: I am quite clear it is not a question of privilege I have decided and I have no doubt upon the matter. If the hon. Member thinks I am wrong he should take the usual method of asking the House to correct me.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I say Sir, with great respect, I do think that in this case you are wrong.
Mr. SPEAKER: That may be so, but as the hon. Member knows, it is not regular or respectful to the Chair to express that opinion now.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I meant no personal disrespect, but I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury to give me a day for discussion of a motion on the subject.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is quite another matter, and does not arise now. The hon. Member must put down a question in the ordinary way.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It is of no use doing that.

RESIGNATION OF THE CLERK OF THEHOUSE.
Mr. SPEAKER: I will read to the House a letter I have received from Mr. Archibald Milman, whom I am sorry to call the late Clerk of the House. The letter is in these terms:
Speaker's Court,
Palace of Westminster,
16th January, 1902.
Sir,
I have the honour to acquaint you that I find myself compelled by prolonged illness to tender my resignation of the Office of Clerk of the House of Commons, which I hold, by Patent, from Her late Majesty.
I am advised that my strength is quite unequal to the proper discharge of my duties through a laborious Session.
I have been in the service of the House forty-five years, during the last thirty-one of which I have been at the Table.

63
It is with the deepest reluctance and regret that I am compelled to withdraw from this honourable service. It has formed the chief interest and greatest pleasure of my life. At the close of my long connection with the Table, I trust I may be permitted to express my grateful sense of the uniform support I have received from you, Sir, and your three predecessors in the Chair, and of the consideration accorded me by the honourable Members of the House through many Parliaments.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient humble Servant,
Archibald J. S. Milman.
The Right Honourable,
The Speaker of the House of Commons.
This letter will, in accordance with the usual practice, be entered on the journals of the House.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I beg to give notice that, in accordance with ordinary practice under such circumstances, I shall on Monday move a vote of thanks to Mr. Archibald Milman, late Clerk of this House.
A Member took and subscribed the Oath.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Edmund Beckett Faber, esquire, for County of Hants (Western or Andover Division).
Sir William Henry Rattigan, knight, K.C., County of Lanark (North Eastern Division).

ELECTIONS.
Ordered, That all Members who are returned for two or more places in any part of the United Kingdom do make their Election for which of the places they will serve, within one week after it shall appear that there is no question upon the Return for that place; and if anything
shall come in question touching the Return or Election of any Member, he is to withdraw during the time the matter is in debate; and that all Members returned upon double Returns do withdraw till their returns are determined.
Resolved, That no Peer of the Realm, except such Peers of Ireland as shall for the time being be actually elected, and shall not have declined to serve, for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, hath any right to give his vote in the Election of any Member to serve in Parliament.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Ireland, at such Elections in Great Britain respectively where such Peer shall appear as a candidate, or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected; or for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the Election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour).
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "Kingdom," in line 3, to the word "for," in line 9.—(Mr. James Lowther).
(4.40.) Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 341; Noes 86. (Division List No. 1).

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Boland, John

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Allan, William (Gateshead)

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

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Brassey, Albert

Allsopp, Hon. George

Banbury, Frederick George

Brigg, John

Ambrose, Robert

Barlow, John Emmott

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Beach Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Brown, Alexander H. (Shrops.)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Atherly-Jones, L.

Bell, Richard

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Black, Alexander William

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Bull, William James

Bullard, Sir Harry

Fison, Frederick William

Lees, Sir Elliott, (Birkenhead)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Burt, Thomas

Flower, Ernest

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Caine, William Sproston

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

Leng, Sir John

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Gardner, Ernest

Levy, Maurice

Carlile, William Walter

Garfit, William

Lewis, John Herbert

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Causton, Richard Knight

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Cautley, Henry Strother

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

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

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

Gordon Maj. Evans-(T'rH'mlets

Lowe, Francis William

Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Cawley, Frederick

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Cecil, Evelyn (Ashton Manor)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lundon, W.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Chamberlain,J.Austen(Worc'r

Green Walford D. (Wednesbury

Macdona, John Cumming

Channing, Francis Allston

Grenfell, William Henry

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gretton, John

Machonochie, A. W.

Chapman, Edward

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

M'Crae, George

Charrington, Spencer

Groves, James Grimble

M'Govern, T.

Clancy, John Joseph

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hain, Edward

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

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

Hall, Edward Marshall

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Coddington, Sir William

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

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

Cogan, Denis J.

Hambro, Charles Eric

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Middx

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Milton, Viscount

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Minch, Matthew

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Mitchell, William

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Craig, Robert Hunter

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morgan, David J. (W'thamstow

Cranborne, Viscount

Hayden, John Patrick

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Moulton, John Fletcher

Crossley, Sir Savile

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Mowbray Sir Robert Gray, C.

Cullinan, J.

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Helder, Augustus

Newnes, Sir George

Davenport, William Bromley-

Helme, Norval Watson

Nicholson, William Graham

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hempthill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

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

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Delany, William

Higginbottom, S. W.

Norman, Henry

Denny, Colonel

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset E.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

Hogg, Lindsay

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Holland, William Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Horner, Frederick William

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

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Donelan, Captain A.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

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

Doogan, P. C.

Hoult, Joseph

O'Dowd, John

Doughty, George

Houston, Robert Paterson

O'Malley, William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Howard, John (Kent Faversham

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Howard, J. (Midd,Tottenham)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Duke, Henry Edward

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Duncan, J. Hastings

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Paulton, James Mellor

Dunn, Sir William

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Philipps, John Wynford

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir WilliamHart

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pickard, Benjamin

Edwards, Frank

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U

Plummer, Walter R.

Emmott, Alfred

Kearley, Hudson, E.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T (enbigh)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Faber Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Kimber, Henry

Price, Robert John

Fardell, Sir T. George

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Knowles, Lees

Purvis, Robert

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Langley, Batty

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

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

Law, Andrew Bonar

Randles, John S.

Ffrench, Peter

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Rankin, Sir James

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lawson, John Grant

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rea, Russell

Fisher, William Hayes

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Reddy, M.

66

67

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Smith, H C. (North'mb Tyneside

Walker, Col. William Hall

Redmond, William (Clare)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Wallace, Robert

Reid, James (Greenock)

Spear, John Ward

Walton, Jn. Lawson (Leeds, S.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'rth'nts

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Renwick, George

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Rickett, J. Compton

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

Webb, Colonel William George

Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen

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

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Stevenson, Francis S.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Strachey, Edward

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Stroyan, John

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Round, James

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

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

Rutherford, John

Tennant, Harold John

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Wilson, J. W (Worcestersh, N.

Schwann, Charles E.

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

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

Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln)

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

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

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Thornton, Percy N.

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

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Tomkinson, James

Wylie, Alexander

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Yoxall, James Henry

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Valentia, Viscount

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Percy, Earl

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bartley, George C. T.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bigwood, James

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

Pym, C. Guy

Blake, Edward

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Bond, Edward

Remnant, James Farquharson

Boulnois, Edmund

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Brymer, William Ernest

Jacoby, James Alfred

Roche, John

Burns, John

Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

Russell, T. W.

Cameron, Robert

Kitson, Sir James

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Labouchere, Henry

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Lambert, George

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Seton-Karr, Henry

Crombie, John William

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Soares, Ernest J.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Stock, James Henry

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Dillon, John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sullivan, Donal

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Ellis, John Edward

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

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

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Farrell, James Patrick

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

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

Fenwick, Charles

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm.

White, George (Norfolk)

Field, William

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

Flynn, James (Christopher

Morton, Arth. H. A. (Deptford

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Murphy, John

Galleway, William Johnson

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Goulding, Edward Alfred

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Mr. James Lowther and Mr. Wharton.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

O'Mara, James

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileged of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer or Pre-
68
late, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for and county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any

69
Peer of Ireland, at such Elections in Great Britain respectively where such Peer shall appear as a candidate, or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected; or for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament.
Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been elected or returned a Member of this House, or endeavoured so to be, by Bribery, or any other corrupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such Bribery or other corrupt practices.

WITNESSES.
Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been tampering with any Witness, in respect of his evidence to be given to this House, or any Committee thereof, or directly or indirectly hath endeavoured to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, the same is declared to be a high crime or misdemeanor; and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.
Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath given false evidence in any case before this House, or any Committee thereof, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.

METROPOLITAN POLICE.
Ordered, That the Commissioners of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that, during the Session of Parliament, the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in Westminster Hall, or in the passages leading to this House, during the Sitting of Parliament, and that there be no annoyance therein or thereabouts; and that the Serjeant at Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioners aforesaid.

VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS.
Ordered, That the Votes and Proceedings of this House be printed being
70
first perused by Mr. Speaker; and that he do appoint the printing thereof; and that no person but such as he shall appoint do presume to print the same.

Ordered, That a Committee of Privileges be appointed.
OUTLAWRIES BILL.
"For the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," read the first time; to be read a second time.

JOURNAL.
Ordered, That the Journal of this House, from the end of the last Session to the end of the present Session, with an Index thereto, be printed.
Ordered, That 500 Copies of the said Journal and Index be printed by the appointment and under the direction of the Clerk of this House.
Ordered, That the said Journal and Index be printed by such person as shall be licensed by Mr. SPEAKER, and that no other person do presume to print the same.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS).
The following Papers, presented by Royal Command during the Recess, were delivered to the Librarian of the House of Commons during the Recess, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 14th August 1896:—

1. Prisons (England and Wales).—Copy of Report of the Commissioners of Prisons and Directors of Convict Prisons, with Appendices, for the year ended 31st March 1901.

2. Inebriates Acts (Inspectors' Report).—Copy of Twenty-first Report of the Inspectors of Retreats, and the Second Report of the Inspector of Certified Reformatories, under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1899, for the year 1900.

3. Workmen's Compensation.—Copy of Statistics of Proceedings under The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, and The Employers' Liability Act, 1880, during the year 1900.

71

4. Mines and Quarries.—Copy of General Report and Statistics for the year 1900, Part III., Output; General Report and Statistics relating to the Output and Value of the Minerals raised in the United Kingdom, the amount and value of the metals produced, and the exports and imports of Minerals.

5. University Education in Ireland (Royal Commission).—Copy of First Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the present condition of the Higher, General, and Technical Education available in Ireland outside Trinity College, Dublin (Vol. I., Report; Vol. II., Appendix, with Minutes of Evidence).

6. Factories and Workshops.—Copy of Supplement to the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector for 1900 (Fourth and Fifth Annual Returns of Persons employed in Factories).

7. Reformatory and Industrial Schools (Great Britain).—Copy of Forty-fourth Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools for 1900. Part II. General Report and Appendices III. to XI.

8. Employment of School Children.—Copy of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the question of the Employment of Children during school age.

9. Mines (Accident at Donibristle Colliery, Fifeshire).—Copy of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by J. B. Atkinson, Esq., one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, on the circumstances attending the Accident which occurred at the Donibristle Colliery, Fifeshire, on the 26th August 1901.

10. Explosions (Firework Factory at Longlands, near Ossett).—Copy of Report by Captain A. P. H. Desborough, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the circumstances attending an Explosion which occurred during the operation of forming coloured stars at the Factory of Mr. Mark Ellis Riley, at Long-lands, near Ossett, on the 26th September 1901.

11. Mines (Explosion at Llanbradach Colliery, near Cardiff).—Copy of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Joseph S. Martin, Esq., one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, on the circumstances attending an Ex-
72
plosion which occurred at Llanbradach Colliery, near Cardiff, on the 10th September 1901.

12. Mines (Explosion at Talk-o'-th'-Hill Colliery, Staffordshire).—Copy of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by W. N. Atkinson, Esq., one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, on the circumstances attending the Accident which occurred at Talk-o'-th'-Hill Colliery, Staffordshire, on the 27th May 1901.

13. Explosion (Elterwater Gunpowder Factory, near Ambleside).—Copy of Report by Captain M. B. Lloyd, R.A., His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the circumstances attending an Explosion which occurred during repairs to the corning house at the Factory of the Elterwater Gunpowder Company, Limited, Elterwater, near Ambleside, on the 23rd October 1901.

14. Police (Metropolis).—Copy of Report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for 1900.

15. Employment of School Children.—Copy of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Inter-Departmental Committee, appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to inquire into the question of the Employment of School Children, with Appendices and Index.

16. University Education in Ireland (Royal Commission).—Copy of Second Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the present condition of the Higher, General, and Technical Education available in Ireland outside Trinity College, Dublin, together with Appendix (Minutes of Evidence taken in November and December 1901).

17. East India (Statistical Abstract).—Copy of Statistical Abstract relating to British India from 1890–91 to 1899–1900. Thirty-fifth Number.

18. East India (Trade).—Copy of Review of Trade in India for 1900–1901.

19. East India (Royal Indian Engineering College).—Copy of Further Papers in regard to the Royal Indian Engineering College.

20. East India (Sanitary Measures).—Copy of Report on Sanitary Measures in India in 1899–1900, Volume XXXIII.

21. East India (Famine).—Copy of Report of the Indian Famine Commission, 1901, and Papers relating thereto.

73

22. Indian Plague Commission, 1898–9.—Copy of Indices to the Evidence taken by the Indian Plague Commission, also Glossary, Maps, and Summary of the Report and Appendices, Volume IV.

23. Indian Plague Commission, 1898–9.—Copy of Report of the Indian Plague Commission, with Appendices and Summary, Volume V.

24. East India (China Expedition, 1900–1901).—Copy of Correspondence relating to the Evacuation of the Summer Palace at Peking by the British Troops.

25. South Africa.—Copy of Further Return of numbers of Persons in the Refugee Camps in South Africa, August 1901.

26. Army (Military Prisons).—Copy of Report on the Discipline and Management of Military Prisons, 1900.

27. Army (Re-organisation of Medical Services).—Copy of Report of Committee appointed by the Secretary of State to consider the Re-organisation of the Army Medical Services.

28. Army (Re-organisation of the Army and Indian Nursing Service).—Copy of Report of Committee appointed by the Secretary of State to consider the Re-organisation of the Army and Indian Nursing Service.

29. South Africa.—Copy of Return of numbers of Persons in the Concentration Camps in South Africa, September 1901.

30. Army.—Copy of Order in Council defining the Duties of the Principal Officers of the War Department.

31. South Africa.—Copy of Reports, &c., on the working of the Refugee Camps in the Transvaal, Orange River Colony, Cape Colony, and Natal.

32. South Africa (Despatches).—Copy of Despatches by General Lord Kitchener, dated 8th August, 8th September, and 8th October 1901, relative to Military Operations in South Africa, including a Supplementary Despatch, dated 18th October, on the Actions at Itala Mount, Fort Prospect, and Moedwill.

33. Army (Imperial Yeomanry).—Copy of Report of the Deputy Adjutant General of the Imperial Yeomanry regarding the Force and its future organisation.

34. South Africa.—Copy of Correspondence relative to the treatment of Natives by the Boers.

74

35. South Africa.—Copy of Further Correspondence relative to the treatment of Natives by the Boers.

36. Agricultural Statistics (Ireland).—Copy of Abstracts showing the Acreage under Crops and the number of Live Stock in each county and province of Ireland, 1900–1901.

37. Banking, Railways, and Shipping Statistics (Ireland).—Copy of Report for the half-year ended 30th June 1901.

38. Irish Land Commission (Proceedings).—Copy of Return of Proceedings of the Commission during the month of March 1901.

39. Irish Land Commission (Proceedings).—Copy of Return of Proceedings of the Commission during the month of April 1901.

40. Irish Land Commission (Proceedings).—Copy of Return of Proceedings of the Commission during the month of May 1901.

41. Agrarian Outrages (Ireland).—Copy of Return for the quarter ended 30th September 1901.

42. Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887 (Eviction Notices).—Copy of Return of Eviction Notices filed during the quarter ended 30th September 1901.

43. Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland).—Copy of First Annual General Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, 1900–1901.

44. Evictions (Ireland).—Copy of Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 30th September 1901.

45. Irish Land Commission (Proceedings).—Copy of Return of Proceedings during the months of June and July 1901.

46. Agricultural Statistics (Ireland) (Migratory Labourers).—Copy of Report and Tables relating to Irish Migratory Agricultural and other Labourers for the year 1901.

47.—Irish Land Commission (Judicial Rents).—Copy of Return of Judicial Rents fixed during the month of January 1901.

48. Census of Ireland, 1901.—Copy of Census of Ireland, 1901. Part I. Vol. I. Province of Leinster (County of Carlow).

49. National Education (Ireland).—Copy of Appendix to the Sixty-seventh

75
Report of the Commissioners, being for the year 1900. Section II.

50. National Education (Ireland).—Copy of Appendix to the Sixty-seventh Report of the Commissioners, being for the year 1900. Section III.

51. Irish Land Commission (Proceedings).—Copy of Return of Proceedings during the month of August 1901.

52. Irish Land Commission (Proceedings).—Copy of Return of Proceedings during the month of September 1901.

53. Irish Land Commission (Judicial Rents.—Copy of Return of Judicial Rents fixed during the month of February 1901.

54. Agricultural Statistics (Ireland).—Copy of Tables showing the extent in statute acres, the produce of Crops for the year 1901, &c.

55. Local Taxation (Ireland).—Copy of Returns for the year 1899–1900.

56. Irish Land Commission (Rules).—Copy of Rules made by the Irish Land Commission under the Land Purchase Acts, dated 17th May 1901.

57. General Prisons (Ireland) Act, 1877.—Copy of Order closing the Prisons at Carrick-on-Shannon, Enniskillen, Mullingar, Omagh, Wicklow, and Drogheda.

58. Scottish Agricultural Prices.—Copy of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture to inquire and report upon the existing methods of collecting and recording the Prices of Agricultural Products in Scotland, with Copy of the Minute appointing the Committee.

59. Scottish Agricultural Prices.—Copy of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture to inquire and report upon the existing methods of collecting and recording the Prices of Agricultural Products in Scotland, with Appendices and Index.

60. Board of Agriculture.—Copy of Annual Report on the Distribution of Grants for Agricultural Education and Research in the year 1900–1901, &c.

61. Board of Education (Special Reports).—Copy of Special Reports on Educational Subjects, Vol. 7. Rural Education in France.

62. —Board of Education (Special Reports).—Copy of Special Reports on
76
Educational Subjects, Vol. 8. Education in Scandinavia, Switzerland, Holland, Hungary, &c.

63. Board of Education (Special Reports).—Copy of Special Reports on Educational Subjects, Vol. 9. Education in Germany.

64. Board of Education (Special Reports).—Copy of Special Reports on Educational Subjects, Vol. 10. Education in the United States of America.

65. Board of Education.—Copy of Reports from University Colleges, 1901.

66. Crofter and Cottar Colonisation Scheme.—Copy of Twelfth Report of the Commissioners appointed to carry out a Scheme of Colonisation in the Dominion of Canada of Crofters and Cottars from the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, with Appendices.

67. Judicial Statistics (Scotland).—Copy of Report on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland for the year 1900.

68. Census of Scotland, 1901—Copy of Return of Population, &c. of Parliamentary Constituencies.

69. Post Office (Parcel Post between the United Kingdom and Uruguay).—Copy of Agreement between the British and Uruguayan Post Offices concerning the Exchange of Parcels by Parcel Post.

70. Peterhead Harbour.—Copy of Reports respecting Peter head Harbour Works.

71. Meteorology.—Copy of Report of the Meteorological Council to the Royal Society for the year ending 31st March 1901.

72. Census of England and Wales, 1901.—Copy of Census of England and Wales, 1901 (County of London).

73. Food Preservatives (Committee).—Copy of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the use of preservatives and colouring matters in the preservation and colouring of Food, together with Minutes of Evidence, Appendices, and Index.

74. Fog Signals.—Copy of Report of Trinity House Fog Signal Committee on Experiments conducted at St. Catherine's Point, Isle of Wight, in 1901.

75. Railways (Continuous Brakes).—Copy of Return by the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom on the progress made in the use of Continuous

77
Brakes, &c., for the six months ending the 30th June 1901.

76. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the city of Wakefield, and the townships of Horbury, Alverthorpe, Sandal Magna and Outwood, in the west riding of the county of York (Wakefield and District Light Railway Order, 1901).

77. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the city of Durham, the parish of Brancepeth, the urban district of Brandon and Byshottles, and the parishes of Bearpark, Neville's Cross, and St. Oswald's, in the county of Durham (Durham and District Light Railways Order, 1901).

78. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Ordermade by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Somerset from Bridgwater to Nether Stowey and Stogursey (Bridgwater, Stowey, and Stogursey Light Railway Order, 1901).

79. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the county of Somerset, in the city and county borough of Bath, and in the rural district of Bath (Bath and District Light Railways Order, 1901).

80. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk from Bury St. Edmunds to Stanton, Walsham-le-Willows, South Lopham, and Diss, (Bury and Diss Light Railway Order, 1901).

81. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the county of Derby from Derby to Ashbourne (Derby and Ashbourne Light Railway Order, 1901).

78

82. Light Railways Act, 1896.—copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Welshpool and Llanfair Light Railway Order, 1899 (Welshpool and Llanfair Light Railway Amendment Order, 1901.

83. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Hadlow Light Railway Order, 1897 (Hadlow Light Railway Amendment Order, 1901).

84. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Essex, to join the proposed Elsenham: Thaxted, and Bardfield Light Railway with the Colne Valley and Halstead Railway (Bardfield and Sible Hedingham Light Railway Order, 1901).

85. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the parish of Mitcham, in the rural district of Croydon, in the county of Surrey (Mitcham Light Railway Order, 1901).

86. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending The Amesbury and Military Camp Light Railway Order, 1898 (Amesbury and Military Camp Light Railway Amendment Order, 1901).

87. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the rural district of Halesowen, in the county of Worcester (Halesowen Light Railway Order, 1901).

88. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the urban districts of Rishton, Clayton-le-Moors, Great Harwood, and Padiham, the rural districts of Clitherhoe and Burnley, and the parishes or townships of Read, Simonstone, and Whalley, and (under certain conditions) in the county

79
borough of Blackburn, all in the County Palatine of Lancaster (Blackburn, Whalley, and Padiham Light Railways Order, 1901).

89. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the boroughs of Kidderminster and Bewdley, and in the parish of Kidderminster Foreign, in the rural district of Kidderminster, in the county of Worcester (Kidderminster and Bewdley Light Railways Order, 1901).

90. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Tanat Valley Light Railway Order, 1898 (Tanat Valley Light Railway Amendment Order, 1901).

91. Straits Settlements (Federated Malay States).—Copy of Reports on the Federated Malay States for 1900.

92. Court of Colonial Appeal.—Copy of Correspondence relating to the Proposed Establishment of a Final Court of Colonial Appeal.

93. South Africa.—Copy of Further Papers relating to Legislation in the Transvaal affecting Natives.

94. South Africa.—Copy of Further Correspondence relating to Affairs in South Africa.

95. South Africa.—Copy of Further Papers relating to the Working of the Refugee Camps in the Transvaal, Orange River Colony, Cape Colony, and Natal.

96. South Africa.—Copy of Further Papers relating to the Working of the Refugee Camps in South Africa.

97. Colonial Reports (Miscellaneous).—Copy of Report, No. 18 (Hong Kong, Report on Operations in the New Territory during 1900).

98. Colonial Reports (Miscellaneous).—Copy of Report, No. 17 (Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Report for 1896–1900).

99. Colonial Reports (Annual).—Copies of Reports, Nos. 330 (Straits Settlements, Annual Report for 1900), 331 (Fiji, Annual Report for 1900), 332 (St. Lucia, Annual Report for 1900), 333 (Seychelles, Annual Report for 1900), 334 (Falkland Islands, Annual Report for 1900), 335 (Mauritius and Rodrigues, Annual Report
80
for 1900), 336 (British New Guinea, Report for 1899–1900), 337 (Leeward Islands, Annual Report for 1900), 338 (Trinidad and Tobago, Annual Report for 1900), 339 (British Honduras, Annual Report for 1900), 340 (Hong Kong, Annual Report for 1900), 341 (Ceylon, Annual Report for 1900), 342 (Gibraltar, Annual Report for 1900), 343 (Basutoland, Report for 1900–1901), 344 (Gold Coast, Annual Report for 1900), 345 (Grenada, Annual Report for 1900).

100. Treaty Series (No. 7, 1901).—Copy of Convention between the United Kingdom and Denmark for the Exchange of Press Telegrams at reduced rates. Signed at Copenhagen, 15th August 1901.

101.—Egypt (No. 3, 1901).—Copy of Correspondence respecting an assault on British Officers near Cairo.

102. Treaty Series (No. 9, 1901).—Copy of International Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Signed at the Hague, 29th July, 1899. With an Appendix containing Certificates of Exchange of such Ratifications of Powers parties to the Convention as had been deposited at the Hague down to 15th July 1901.

103. Treaty Series (No. 11, 1901).—Copy of International Convention with respect to the Laws and Customs of War by Land. Signed at the Hague, 29th July 1899. With an Appendix containing Certificates of Exchange of such Ratifications of Powers parties to the Convention as had been deposited at the Hague down to 15th July 1901.

104. Treaty Series (No. 10, 1901).—Copy of International Convention for adapting to Maritime Warfare the principles of the Geneva Convention of 22nd August 1864. Signed at the Hague, 29th July 1899. With an Appendix containing certificates of Exchange of such Ratifications of Powers parties to the Convention as had been deposited at the Hague down to 15th July 1901.

105. Treaty Series (No. 8, 1901).—Copy of Treaty between the United Kingdom and Servia for the Mutual Surrender of Fugitive Criminals. Signed at Belgrade, 6th December | 23rd November 1900. Ratifications exchanged at Belgrade, 13th March | 28th February 1901.

106. United States (No. 1, 1902).—Copy of Correspondence respecting the

81
Treaty signed at Washington, 18th November 1901, relative to the establishment of a communication by Ship Canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

107. Trade Reports (Annual Series).—Copies of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2696 to 2738.

108. Trade Reports (Miscellaneous Series).—Copies of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, Nos. 564 to 571.

Ordered, that the said Papers do lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  GENERAL LIGHTHOUSE FUND.
  Account presented, of the General Lighthouse Fund showing the Income and Expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 1.]
  EAST INDIA (PETITIONS OFOFFICERS OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT).
  Return presented, relative to [Address 15th March, 1901; Mr. Kimber]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA)
  Copy presented, of Return of all Loans raised in India, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ending on the 30th September 1901, &c. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 2.]
  EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN ENGLAND.)
  Copy presented, of Return of all Loans raised in England, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ending on the 30th September 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 3.]
  REVENUES OF CYPRUS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 16th August 1901; Mr. Peirpoint]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 4.]
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
  Account presented, of the Receipts and Expenditure of the Paymaster General on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, in respect of the Funds of Suitors of the Court, in the year ended 28th February 1901; also Account of the National Debt Commissioners for the same period in respect of Funds held by them on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 5.]
  BANK OF ENGLAND.
  Copy presented, of Return of the amount of Notes issued more than 40 years which have not been presented for payment, and which have been written off on the 14th November 1901, from the total amount of Notes issued from the Issue Department of the Bank of England [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHELSEA HOSPITAL.
  Account presented, for the year ended 31st March 1901, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 6.]
  TREASURY CHEST.
  Account presented, for the year 1900–1901, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 7.]
  SUPERANNUATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 5th October 1901, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Director of Engineering and Architectural Works under the Board of Admiralty professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired on the Public Service are required [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  SUPERANNUATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute dated 26th November 1901, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Instructor in Antique Life Drawing and Anatomy at the Royal College of Art professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily

  83
  to be acquired on the Public Service are required [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 18th October 1901 declaring that John Thomas Staines, Artificer, Royal Small Arms Factory, War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head, of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 11th November 1901, declaring that Michael Fitzpatrick, Rural Postman, Post Office, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 20th November 1901, declaring that Richard Pearce Nott, Second Class Sorting Clerk, Post Office, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 31st May 1900, granting a retired allowance to Mr. Walter Innes Pocock, Higher Division Clerk, Local Government Board, Ireland, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 18th November 1901, granting a retired allowance to Mr. William Henry Joyce, Resident Magistrate, Ireland, under the Act [by Act] to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
  Copy presented, of Statutes made by the Governing Body of Peterhouse, or St. Peter's College, Cambridge, on 16th March 1901, in substitution for Statute XXIX. of the Statutes of that College [by Act];to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 8.]
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACTS, 1865 AND 1869.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 26th September 1901, authorizing the payment to non-Pensioners of certain allowances from the funds of the Green which Hospital [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 26th September 1901, applying the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 238 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (Merchant Seamen Deserters) in the case of the Republic of Honduras [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  DOCKYARD PORTS REGULATION ACT, 1865.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 26th September 1901, defining the the limits of the Dockyard Port of Berehaven [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACTS, 1865 to 1872.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 4th November 1901, authorizing the grant of a pension of £130 a year from the Funds of Greenwich Hospital to the late Medical Officer at the Royal Hospital School [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTS, 1878 AND 1889, AND WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) ACT, 1897.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 4th November 1901, fixing Fees to be paid on the verification and stamping of Weights, Measures, and Weighing Instruments of the metric system [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 4th November 1901, confirming pilotage bye-laws made by the Trinity House of Kingston-upon-Hull [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1897.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 10th December 1901, further postponing the operation of the Order in Council of 18th July 1898, as regards the City of London, until the first March 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXTRADITION ACT, 1870.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council, of 26th September 1901, entitled The Straits Settlements Extradition Order, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 26th September 1901, entitled The Ashanti Order, in Council, 1901, [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 26th September 1901, revoking the Order in Council of 29th December 1887 relating to British Jurisdiction in divers Countries on the West Coast of Africa near or adjacent to the Gold Coast Colony [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 26th September 1901, entitled The Gold Coast Order in Council, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 26th September 1901, entitled The Northern Territories (Gold Coast) Order in Council, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1858.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 10th December 1901, approving a statement of proposed new and revised appointments and alterations of salaries in the establishment of the Secretary of State for India in Council [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  WINTER ASSIZES ACT, 1876.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 10th December 1901, amending the Order in Council of 28th July 1893, with respect to the Winter and Summer Assizes on the North and South Wales Circuits [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA (DESPATCHES).
  Copy presented, of Despatch by General Lord Kitchener, dated 8th of November 1901, relative to Military Operations in South Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  SOUTH AFRICA (DESPATCHES).
  Copy presented, of Despatch by General
  86
  Lord Kitchener, dated 8th December 1901, relative to Military Operations in South Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board,—Accounts of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board for the year ending 1st July 1901 [by Act].
  2. Lunacy,—Copy of Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, the number of patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the visitors of lunatics between 1st April 1901 and 30th September 1901 [by Act];
  3. Supreme Court (Rules),—Copy of Rules of the Supreme Court, dated 13th December 1901 [by Act].
  4. Supreme Court Funds Rule,—Copy of Supreme Court Funds Rule 17a, dated 27th December 1901 [by Act].
  5. Margate Pier and Harbour,—Copy of Report and Statement of Accounts for the year ending 5th April 1901 [by Act].

  ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  [FIRST DAY'S DEBATE.]
  COL. HARRY MCCALMONT: In rising to discharge the responsible but honourable task that has this day been allotted to me, I must first crave that indulgence which has always been accorded by this House to the Mover of the Address, especially when he is one who, as in my case, has never previously trespassed upon the patience of Members. His Majesty, in the gracious speech he has just now delivered to us, as is most natural, touches in the first place, on the safe home-coming of their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales, after a long but memorable voyage, in the course of which they have visited every country and dependency of this great Empire. It is indeed most gratifying for the country to be able to look back on that voyage, and reflect that for upwards of six months their Royal Highnesses were travelling round the world, during which period they never set foot on territory over which the British flag did not fly, and throughout the whole of which time they were not in any place where the English language was not spoken, and, in the words of the Address,

  87
  "they had everywhere been received with demonstrations of the liveliest affection." I am sure the voyage has done very much to cement the component parts of this Empire, and that the loyal feelings throughout the Colonies have been increased and accentuated by that royal progress which came to such a happy conclusion in the month of November last.
  His Majesty next deals with his friendly relations with other Powers. I am sure the country is to be congratulated on the existing state of affairs, especially with regard to our present cordial relations with the United States of America, when one thinks that the clouds have disappeared entirely from that part of the political horizon which loomed so darkly there not so long ago when differences of opinion arose on the Venezuelan question; differences which threatened to plunge us into a struggle with those we look upon as kinsfolk across the Atlantic; a struggle which would have been more disastrous than one with any other country to which we were not so bound by blood, language, and tradition. I am glad to learn that in place of those differences these friendly relations exist, and I hope that the treaty just concluded, and whatever other negotiations may be entered into between the two great English-speaking countries of the world may be conducted with that spirit of mutual regard and respect which now happily prevail, and that such measures may be of benefit, not only for those countries themselves, but also for the prosperity of the trade and commerce of the whole of the civilised world.
  I think I am justified in touching for a moment upon the paragraph of the Speech which refers to the succession to the throne of the New Ruler of Afghanistan. The affairs of that country have in the past caused grave and serious complications on our Indian frontier, and that country itself has been more than once the scene of military operations of no small character. I think we could not, therefore, be indifferent to anything which tends to the peace and internal quiet of the great neighbouring State on the North Western boundary of the Indian Empire. It was with feelings of grave apprehension that the country learnt of the death, last autumn, of the late Ameer, who had always proved himself to be a true friend of Great Britain, and it was feared that internal complications might ensue in
  88
  determining the succession to the Throne, but thanks to the sagacious, firm rule of the late Ameer and the steps he had taken to insure the undisputed succession, the change of sovereignty was assumed under circumstances which gave fair indications of a peaceful and prosperous reign.
  If I pass over the topics of domestic legislation referred to us for consideration, it is not because I in any way wish to disparage their importance, but it is because there is one other question which is at present engaging, if not monopolising, the attention of all His Majesty's subjects, both in this country and throughout the world. I refer, of course, to those paragraphs in the most gracious message from the throne, which deal with the conflict still unhappily raging, but, I am glad to say, with steadily diminishing resistance, in those parts of the King's dominions situated in South Africa. There is no attempt in the passages of the Speech devoted to this subject to minimise the difficulties which confront us. The situation, fortunate or unfortunate as it may be deemed by those who hold conflicting opinions, is honestly laid before us, and the only possible policy to pursue in the existing circumstances—and to them I shall revert later—is forcibly brought to the notice, not only of this House, but also of the country and the Empire.
  We are told that the war in South Africa has not yet been concluded, though the course of operations has been favourable to our arms; that the area of the war has been largely reduced, and that industries are being resumed in the new Colonies; that the soldiers have throughout displayed a cheerfulness in endurance, and have shown a humanity in the treatment of the enemy deserving of the highest praise; that the necessity of relieving those troops who have felt the long strain of the campaign, has again afforded His Majesty an opportunity of accepting those loyal and patriotic offers made by New Zealand, the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of Canada. It is easy, Sir, to read in these lines and between these lines the trend of events, and to note the estimate formed by those most capable of arriving at an accurate judgment of the progress made towards a settlement, which we know to be inevitable, which we trust may be speedy, and which

  89
  when once arrived at we feel may be permanent.
  The obligations of duty and honour imposed upon the British Nation by the insolent ultimatum sent, upwards of two years ago, by the then Presidents of what were known as the South African Republic and the Orange Free State, were recognised at that time not only by Members on both sides of this House, but also by every section of the community outside these walls, and last, but not least, by all those peoples of the self-governing Colonies beyond the seas, who have proved their allegiance to the Sovereign of this Realm and have shewn their devotion to the Empire to which they belong by a voluntary participation in the struggle into which we were then plunged. When things looked blackest in the early part of the war, they rallied to our assistance, and they have continued since then to send their sons to stand shoulder to shoulder with the men of the Mother-country, and even now, after two years of war, when they know full well the hardships and privations of a long-drawn-out campaign, when they know there is no prospect of any decisive and exciting battle, yet we still witness their hearty response to the call of Imperial duty, we find them still ready and anxious to take their share of the burden, and to stand fast by the land from which they have sprung.
  Well, Sir, the obligations thus imposed upon us and thus recognised on all sides have not lost but rather increased in gravity with the course of the past two years. Briefly summarised, they behove us to adopt every precaution and every safeguard to prevent a recurrence of those evils which have disturbed the peace of South Africa for upwards of a generation, and which have culminated in this struggle, with its deplorable loss of valuable treasure, and its still more deplorable loss of invaluable lives. The one great safeguard—annexation, or, as some may prefer it, incorporation—of the territories of the two Republics, has, I believe, been challenged by no responsible statesmen in this country. Whatever differences there may be—and I am aware there are differences—are not with regard to the end in view, but rather with regard to the steps to be taken to gain that end. I am aware that in some quarters there is an expressed desire for opening or re-opening negoti-
  90
  ations, either with the self-exiled Boer Executive now in Europe, or with the leaders of those commandoes still in the field against us in South Africa. Now, Sir, the very essence of negotiation is to have a basis whereon to negotiate. If between two parties there is an essential principle upon which neither side will give way, then negotiation is futile. Such a principle, I maintain, exists in what we call annexation, or, if you like it, incorporation, and what the Boers, from their point of view, call absolute independence. I beg hon. Members not to be deceived upon this point. It has been my fortunate lot, and an honour which I would not have foregone, to have served with the Army sent to that country two years ago, and in the course of my duties, extending over more than a year, I was brought into contact with various individuals, official and otherwise, members of those communities with whom we are at ware, and the one thing that they appear to care for, and for which they are struggling with a persistency we cannot but respect, while we deplore its consequences, is their absolute independence, not only of British rule, but also of British ideas. That is the gulf which divides us. The question, as the High Commissioner pointed out long before the war, is not one of flags or political institutions, but of opposite and irreconcilable systems. The differences which led to the struggle in which we are engaged do not date from the Bloemfontein Conference, nor from the deplorable Jameson Raid, nor even from the Convention signed after the disaster at Majuba. They date from the first occupation by the British of the Cape of Good Hope, and are similar in character to that difference which De Tocqueville foresaw would produce, and which did produce, the desperate duel between the Northern and Southern States of America. It is the radical difference of the view taken respectively by Dutch and British of the place assigned to the coloured races in the scheme of creation. It was this irreconcilable antagonism which led to the battle of Slagter's Nek within a year of Waterloo, and which prompted the great Trek, an incident which severed politically the Dutch in South Africa, but yet left them the same stand point of common nationality in their attitude towards the native races. The Boers know as well as we

  91
  know that any grant of autonomy, however liberal and however nearly approximating to complete internal independence, will be coupled with a fixed resolve in the mind of the Imperial Government (from whichever party it may be selected) that British, not Dutch ideas, as to the treatment of natives shall henceforth be paramount and immutable. And in this reference to the cardinal difference of ideas between British and Dutch as to the treatment of the native population, I am not considering the question of political rights or the share of the natives in any future political representation. That is a subject which lies far beyond the scope of my remarks. Rather, what I have in mind is a fair dealing with the lower types of civilization, and the rightful claim they have upon a superior race to be treated according to the principles of humanity and justice as established by Great Britain in all her dealings with the native races throughout all her dependencies.
  It is against this substitution of the British system for the Dutch system that the Boers are still engaged in their stubborn and relentless resistance, and on this point neither His Majesty's Government nor his subjects throughout the world will ever agree to a compromise. My own conviction, based upon personal observation, is that conciliation and clemency, after the Boers have accepted our light and easy yoke, may and will work wonders towards acquiescence, but that any trifling with those principles which, to the eternal credit of the British race, have always governed our dealings with natives, though it might for the moment secure a sham and artificial peace, would certainly, in a future not very remote, be productive of evils greater and more formidable than those with which we now have to cope.
  Now, Sir, one word as to the manner in which this war has been conducted. The true history of the war may not be written and published for many years, and a new generation may, in the course of time, have at their disposal facts, and the fulfilment of facts, which we at this moment do not possess. Yet one fact will assuredly stand out prominently, and be handed down as a record of impartial history—that this war has been conducted with a degree of humanity
  92
  and forbearance unknown in the annals of armed conflicts. The British soldier, of whatever grade, be he Regular or Militiaman, Yeoman or Volunteer, whether town-bred, country-bred, or Colonial, will be found to have proved himself throughout this long and trying time to have behaved, even to his detriment, as humanely and as kindly in his dealings with a civil population abandoned by their own protectors to his charge, as he has always been cheerful under privations and heroic in action. The calumnies heaped upon him by irresponsible individuals, 6,000 miles from the scene of action, have been more than refuted by the testimony of those who accompanied him in the field. And the very fact that our enemies, headed by their own aged President, did not hesitate to leave in his hands all those nearest and dearest to them, proves that they regarded the British soldier as worthy of the character he has always borne—namely, that of a hero and a gentleman.
  I must apologise, Sir, for having detained the House so long, and so exclusively on the few passages in the gracious Speech from the Throne which I have quoted, but my excuse must be the deep anxiety I have in the final settlement of South Africa, and my interest in maintaining and upholding the unblemished reputation which our army has in the mind of every one who has taken any part, however humble, in this great struggle. I beg to move the Resolution.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: I rise to second the Address which has been proposed in such vigorous terms by the hon. Member for the New market Division. In doing so, I am profoundly sensible of the honour conferred upon the ancient City which I represent, and I am no less sensible of my inability to discharge the duty assigned to me without a large measure of that indulgence and leniency which the House is accustomed to accord to those who attempt this honourable and difficult task. I had willingly seen it confided to one who, by the opportunities of his career, had enjoyed more frequent occasions of addressing public assemblies. Honourable Members who, like myself, have spent a great part of their life either in foreign lands or in one of the great Dependencies of our Empire, and who

  93
  have been engaged there in a life of action or of administration, stand hardly on an equality with those—their more fortunate colleagues—whose Parliamentary apprenticeship commenced immediately they quitted the public school or the University.
  Sir, this session has already been marked by an auspicious event. The opening of Parliament by His Majesty in person is regarded with deep satisfaction by both Houses, and the people of this country have availed themselves with enthusiasm of the opportunity to display their loyalty and affection towards His Majesty in this the year of his coronation.
  In perusing the clauses of His Majesty's most gracious message, it will be observed that no mention is made of procedure, although important changes in it have been announced on high authority. This omission is in accordance with the precedent of 1882, and is based upon the view that a modification of our method of debate is the exclusive concern of this House. The First Lord of the Treasury, speaking on this subject the other day, stated that one of the chief difficulties arose from the fact that this House contains more than 600 members who are able and anxious to take part in its discussions. I recognise the ability, but, judging from my own feelings, I am somewhat sceptical about the burning anxiety to speak. What, however, we are all anxiousto do, within the limits of our respective capacities, is to make some personal contribution of work to the accomplishment of the great task which devolves upon this Assembly. And it is rather to facilitate this, either through Committees or some other form of devolution, than to greater facilities for oratory, that I trust the modifications of procedure will tend.
  Sir, I shall not detain the House by a discussion of the paragraph relating to the war in South Africa. That has been already dealt with by one who has the fullest right to speak, having devoted two years of voluntary and distinguished service to the campaign. I turn willingly from the means to the end, from the lurid and desolate picture of the war to the era of peace and prosperity which is slowly dawning over that much-tried land. Perhaps the greatest task before the House and the country is the re-settlement, the regeneration, of South
  94
  Africa, and it is largely by success or failure in that duty that the place in history of this Parliament will be determined. I agree with those who have said that—once peace is made—we must be generous and magnanimous to the Boers, that we must offer them every inducement to become loyal subjects of the British Crown. But, Sir, while I advocate this policy, I would not have the Government forget that racial differences are at the root of the problem in South Africa, as they are at the root of many other problems, and that it would be the height of folly to imagine that race prejudice can be quickly eradicated by generosity, however lavish. We have had enough of the doctrine that every man can be bought. If there is one clear lesson which can be learnt from recent history, it is that our sheet anchor in South Africa must be men of our own race. The great hope of abiding peace in the country, the true guarantee of stability, must bederived from a large increase of men of British blood established on the land there, men ready at call to assert their own freedom and the rights of this Empire. And I believe that there is no use to which the public funds of this country can be applied with greater benefit, there is no act of administration more truly economical in its ultimate effect, than liberal aid to new colonists of suitable character and of suitable training. The stream of emigration which flows from these shores may become, if properly directed, a potent influence of tranquillity and strength. And, Sir, I believe that we have in the Colonial Secretary a statesman who will know how to utilise in the best manner this powerful instrument of pacification.
  There are many precedents for such a policy. The greatest colonising power of antiquity, the only rival in the art whose claims Great Britain need acknowledge, owed much of its strength to quasi-military colonies. The second precedent which I will adduce is of more recent date. In 1820 small colonies of English and Scotch were established by His Majesty's Government on the eastern border of Cape Colony. About 5,000 men, women and children were assisted in their passage to the Cape, and in their establishment on the land there. The total cost to this country did not exceed £70,000. Eight years later,

  95
  in 1900, in the darkest days for the Imperial cause, the descendants of those 5,000 colonists played a prominent—I may say a decisive—part in maintaining British authority. I think that is an example which may be followed with advantage.
  I turn now to a question nearer home. An early and honourable place in the legislative programme of the present session was promised last year to the question of national education. His Majesty's Speech shows that the Government have the firm intention of redeeming their pledge at the earliest date. And, Sir, had there been no pledge and no promise, the time has come, by the consent of all, when the legislation of 1870 must be remodelled and adapted to modern conditions. This is a vital problem for the nation. I will not follow a distinguished teacher who stated the other day that the main object of education was to give men pure and salutary occupation for their leisure. That appears to me to be a limited and paltry view. I prefer to regard education as means to enable the intelligence of the country to be applied to the work of life to best advantage, and I should regard any scheme of education as defective which did not render its followers better able to help themselves and better able to serve their country. In education, as in architecture, the worst style is the ornate. This question of education has become so technical that it is perhaps rash in a mere layman to approach the discussion of it. I trust I shall not evoke dissent from any section of the House, if I express the conviction that the scheme of education which this country requires is not to be found in the schoolrooms of the Continent, but must be elaborated by independent and original English thought, guided by particular acquaintance with national characteristics and national idiosyncrasies. No observer can have seen Britons side by side with men of the different countries of Continental Europe without arriving at the conclusion that—whether we are better or worse—we are certainly different; and this difference is so profound that many nations have experienced difficulty of late in appreciating our peculiar charm and merit. The truth is, we are islanders, and as such we have an invincible prejudice against any plan or system which has been elaborated on the mainland. We must solve our own problems.
  96
  Sir, there is no more important paragraph in the King's Speech than that which refers to India. We may all rejoice at the improvement in the material condition of that country, at the diminution of the famine, and at the existence of a large surplus. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the present Viceroy. By a rare combination of temperament and intellect, he has been able to gratify at once the Oriental taste for splendour and the English passion for common sense and hard work.
  In conclusion, the House will perhaps allow me to say a few words upon the paragraph relating to finance. I approach the subject with some hesitation, lest the strong views which I hold upon many points connected with our financial administration should tempt me to controversy, and to exceed the bounds which custom assigns to discussion on an occasion like the present. It is, however, an agreeable task to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the manner in which the revenue of this country has kept up, notwithstanding a slight slackening of trade, notwithstanding the inevitable strain of war. I have no knowledge of his estimates of revenue and expenditure for the coming year. But I feel every confidence that the situation will be faced upon those orthodox lines to which I profess an unswerving allegiance. Speaking for myself, my earnest desire is to see the control of this House over expenditure rendered more practical and more effective, and I urge hon. Members to establish clearly in their own minds the distinction between that control over expenditure before the event which prevents extravagance, and control after the event, and which merely aims at regularity and order. The Committee of Public Accounts performs efficient service to the State as regards the latter, but the supervision of the House in respect of possible extravagance is, in my judgment, far from satisfactory. The problem is to provide for a careful revision of our expenditure without trenching upon the functions of the whole House, which is alone competent to discuss "Policy," and without infringing the wholesome rule of Ministerial responsibility. The object I seek to attain is not a blind reduction of Estimates, but their careful, business-like discussion; still less is it to curtail the authority or privileges

  97
  of the Chancellor. On the contrary, I would give him in this House that support and that backing without which it appears to be impossible that any Minister, however able, can successfully resist the powerful influences constantly battling against true economy. And without economy there can be no efficiency.
  I have now—I am afraid in a very imperfect manner—completed the task entrusted to me. In seconding the Address, I would thank hon. members for their courtesy, and for the generous manner in which they have permitted me to trespass upon the time of the House.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
  "Most Gracious Sovereign,
  "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Colonel Harry M'Calmont.)
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:Sir, I am not bold enough, and I doubt if there is any one sanguine enough, to anticipate for the House of Commons in the circumstances in which we live a calm and harmonious session of Parliament, but it is at least a pleasing thing that in the very earliest incident of our debates we should be able to find ourselves all of one accord, and I am sure that in no part of the House can there be any difference of opinion as to the admirable manner in which the mover and seconder of the Address have discharged the duty assigned to them. The hon. and gallant gentleman who moved the Address informed us that he has never addressed the House before, and this is only a fresh proof of what more than once on a similar occasion before I have directed attention to, the great reserve which the House of Commons possesses in the body of Members who are classed as silent Members. When they are called upon to take part in our discussions they may not display eloquence in its more ambitious forms, but that is an accomplishment which does not find very great
  98
  favour among us. But they always show that they can speak with directness, clearness, and force, and the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman confirms me in the idea that sometimes passed through my mind—that the proceedings of the House might gain something in variety, in elasticity, and in effectiveness, if some of those who are expected for one reason or another to take a large part in our debates, or who imagine that they are expected to take a large part in our debates, were periodically under some regulative rotation to change rôles with the silent Members, and I believe it would be found greatly to the advantage of either category. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Address, on the other hand, has frequently spoken to us, and we have always welcomed his interference. We know how well he can fulfil any part assigned to him, and his knowledge of affairs, especially his acquaintance with the facts and theories of finance upon which he dilated in his speech, make him already an authority among us. I am sure that I sincerely congratulate both the hon. Members on the way they have discharged the duties imposed upon them.
  Sir, I am sure that we shall all unite in offering our congratulations to their Majesties on the most successful voyage of the Prince and Princess of Wales and their visits to the various colonies, where their presence evoked a kindly feeling and interest going far beyond the ordinary and formal conventional loyalty. This is what we all wish to see maintained and therefore we warmly recognise the service to the country which their Royal Highnesses rendered. The other topics of public interest to which the Speech refers are not very numerous. I am glad to see in its usual prominent place in the Speech the old, familiar and long-established reference to foreign relations, because I remember that on the last occasion, or that immediately preceding, this reference was by some strange accident omitted, and although it may be little better than a form, still, it is always a satisfactory thing for us to see that His Majesty is on good terms with all the other Powers, and I hope this passage may long continue to appear in the Speech from the Throne. As to the treaty which has been formed with the United States with regard to the inter-oceanic Canal, I feel satisfied that

  99
  there will be no difference of opinion among us. The news of this treaty has been received with the strongest approval of the country, and this on two grounds as it seems to me. First of all, we all share the desire not only for the best relations between Government and Government, but for the best of feeling between the two peoples, and therefore we are glad to see anything which by any chance could constitute a ground of offence or difference taken away. But besides that, I think we ought to rejoice that there is a prospect of another means of communication being established between the two oceans. We have seen ourselves what great results have followed from the Suez Canal; there are no messengers of peace so effective as the trade, commerce, transit and intercourse of nations, so that anything that conduces to the extension of easy communication, must necessarily be a good thing for the world. Now, I think it would not be right, in speaking of this subject, to omit some reference to the services of Lord Pauncefote, who not only has succeeded in accomplishing this great work for his country, but who through many previous years has done a great deal to knit the two peoples together in those bonds of amity which we wish to see maintained. There is in the last paragraph a reference to which the hon. and gallant Member has already spoken—to the change of ruler in Afghanistan, and it is a satisfaction to everybody to know that the new Ameer inherits the traditional policy and disposition of his father towards this country.
  Now, Sir, I come to the great question of the war in South Africa. Last year the Speech from the Throne spoke of that war as approaching its termination. This year, with a wisdom which we cannot but appreciate, the right hon. Gentlemen opposite have not advised the King to speak of any termination of the war at all. Let me say to begin with, before I enter upon this subject, that I do not intend to speak on it in any exhaustive manner just now, because an amendment to the Address will be moved by an hon. friend of mine, with the authority of myself and of my hon. friends around me, which will give an ample opportunity for entering upon the whole question. Parliament was dismissed in August last under the happy influence of certain estimates and
  100
  anticipations. But these estimates and anticipations have proved, as has been so often the case before, entirely illusory. The right hon. Gentleman, the Colonial Secretary, spoke of the success of the system of blockhouses. He said:—
  "This policy has succeeded so well that the Government, with the full approval of the Commander-in-Chief and of Lord Kitchener, believe that it will be possible to bring home a very considerable number of troops at the end of the winter campaign."
  We all know that the 15th of September was laid down as being the date on which, for all practical purposes, the war would cease. Why has the expectation expressed in those words not been realised? There can be no surprise sprung upon the Government. In the beginning of the war we can understand their having some difficulty in measuring the task before them, but in the month of August last they were acquainted with all the circumstances, and they had the complete means of apprehending the nature of the war and the probable course of it. I do not know that the war has taken any course very different from what they might have anticipated. Has there been any failure on the part of our troops? No, Sir. As a purely civilian critic I can see no evidence whatever that any part of the failure to realise the anticipations of the Government is due to any lack of quality, or indisposition, or power, on the part of the troops. On the contrary, there has been considerable proof that they are increasing in skill, that they are getting, if I may use a homely word, the knack of such a war as has to be conducted in South Africa to an extent they did not possess before. I think it is rather surprising that it should be so, because troops scattered in small bodies in block-houses are exposed to a mode of life which is very wearisome, monotonous and depressing, and which, I should think, is not very conducive to ordinary military discipline, but we see no sign whatever of any falling off on the part of the troops. Therefore it cannot be due to that. There is no sign of deterioration whatever. The only doubtful element in the case appears to be in the matter of horses, because there are complaints of a lack of mobility, and on one or two occasions the failure to effect complete success was because the horses were

  101
  overdone. But we know no reason of that sort why this very explicit expectation held out to the country in August has not been fulfilled long ere this. This is not the last indication we have received of what was expected. On the 9th of November there was the ordinary Guildhall banquet, and there the Prime Minister made a speech, intended, I suppose, to re-establish the confidence of the country, which was beginning to fail in consequence of the war. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] I only meant that the country was beginning to be a little—you will object to the word impatient also, but there was an unexpected delay in the accomplishment of what was intended. The Prime Minister said this—
  "It would be a discouragement if we had any ground for believing that we were making no progress or no sufficient progress, but there lies our difficulty. We cannot lay before you the whole circumstances of the case. We cannot tell you publicly all that is going on. We should be grossly neglecting our duty if we did so, and yet it is only by a revelation of that kind that we can give you full and entire satisfaction."
  So he endeavours, not, like the celebrated character in fiction, to make our flesh creep, but, on the contrary, to soothe our nerves, by announcing that there is something that if he could say it—if he dared say it—would soothe our feelings and calm our minds. And what is this something which he could say if he dared say, which would at once have relieved our feelings and calmed our minds? We are waiting to know now, this being the 16th January, and this announcement being made on the 9th November, what are the circumstances which Lord Salisbury found so consoling and which he was not able to impart to his friends. It is surely quite safe after ten weeks to let it be known. What was it? The Secretary of State for War, four days afterwards, made a speech, in the City also, in which he gave certain hopeful particulars and forecasts. That, of course, could not have been a "revelation" or a "gross neglect of duty"—that could not have been the revelation that Lord Salisbury was talking of. What was it, there fore? I expect to-night that we shall be told what this thing was—this thing which was kept back which would have filled all our hearts with hope and sent us away rejoicing, if only Lord Salisbury had been at liberty to disclose it. Surely we shall not be left under the
  102
  impression that there was nothing after all to tell! I expect then, if that be so, the audience he was addressing at the Guildhall, the British public and the world at large, were grossly and unnecessarily deceived. No, Sir, there must have been something, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will inform us of it to-night. I make the complaint in regard to the whole matter that we are supplied with such exceeding scanty and spasmodic information, even with regard to the military events. Does not every hon. Member, who hears me, agree with me in the recollection that one action will take place in which the most elaborate details are given, comments upon what has happened, reasons for certain courses that have been taken, minute descriptions of the results; and then the following week another action of exactly the same kind only receives the barest mention. Sir, this is not dealing fairly with the country, and above all, not dealing fairly with those who are the relatives and friends of the men who are risking their lives in these actions. On some occasions when I and others have complained of the lack of information from which we suffer, the Government have said, "What do you complain of? We tell you of all that we know. We know no more than you. Everything is told." I am afraid they do not better their case with that, because they have no business to be contented themselves, who have the responsibility, with such scanty information. If what we have received is all that they have received, I say they have neglected their duty in not insisting on being better informed.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Can you give us particular instances of what you have stated?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot relate any particular case, but every week, I should say, it happens. And all this applies with equal force, but with much more deadly importance, to another side of the question—not to military operations, as to which after all some reticence may be necessary—in many cases certainly—but to the civil administration and to the way in which the lives and liberties of our fellow subjects are being dealt with. A military

  103
  success, or a military failure, or a military blunder is an event which occurs and has its immediate effect, and it may leave no ultimate trace of any great importance; but when we find the civil administration dealing in a reckless or injurious way with the rights and interests of our fellow citizens, then I think that is a much more serious matter, because the results remain. And we want to know with regard to the civil administration—by which I mean the protection which the Imperial Government ought to throw over the rights of our fellow-subjects. The right hon. Gentleman tosses his head with some degree of disagreement with what I said.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No; I do not know what you are going to say.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is disagreement with what I have said, not with what I am going to say. Are these things which are done out there at the Cape, done under the authority of the Government? And if not, under whose authority? That is the question, and we want an answer from the persons responsible, who are the Government of the day.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: To what things does the right hon. Gentleman refer?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I will come to them. The right hon. Gentleman who has just asked me to what things I refer, said on the 1st July, in this House, that it was not yet possible to fix a date for the assembly of the Cape Parliament, but that Ministers hoped that it would be early in October. The reason, he said, why the Cape Parliament could not immediately meet was that travelling was unsafe. But travelling is no longer unsafe, because the blockhouses have made it safe. Next, he said, that a number of the Members were in Europe. But they have probably returned, or is it that they are waiting here because they are not quite sure that they will be allowed to land at the Cape when they go there? Again, he said, other Members are fighting invaders; but there are now no invaders in the Cape. [Hon. Members, Oh!]. It is the boast that there are none. Then it was said that there were some seats
  104
  vacant. Why has this illegality been permitted by which the Cape Parliament has not been summoned together when it ought to have been summoned in October? Undoubtedly that is a direct breach of the law and constitution which has been committed. The right hon. Gentleman once or twice, when I have inquired into these things, has sheltered himself behind the plea that this is a self-governing Colony. Yes it is a self-governing Colony, but the constitution of this so-called self-governing Colony has been suspended, and these very acts of which I am speaking—the continued prorogation of the Cape Parliament without being summoned at the proper time—must have received the assent of the Imperial Government, and the right hon. Gentleman is the man who must justify the proceeding, and I hope I shall find that he is able to do it.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN:—Hear, hear.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think we may ask the Government also to furnish us with the particulars we do not possess at all with regard to the whole administration of martial law. We are not going to be put off by being informed that when martial law is proclaimed the whole thing passes into the hands of the military authorities. At any rate, we wish to know the particulars. The Government will, no doubt, be ready now to give us those particulars which we wish—to give us a Return of the instances in which capital punishment has been inflicted under martial law, with the nature of the offence and the evidence by which it was proved; a Return of the occasions on which neighbours have been compelled to witness the executions; a Return of other sentences, with the heads of the offences charged, and the number under arrest against whom no charge has been formulated. These have occurred to me as several of the headings under which information is demanded. I will mention other particulars of this kind, and when we have these we shall be able to form a judgment of what has occurred. Stories come home—accounts in a number of newspapers—of certain things occurring in South Africa. I decline to take them as authentic in the present condition of the press in South Africa, and of the communications between the two coun-

  105
  tries. Remove your censorship and we shall, no doubt, get abundance of information—not always of the most accurate kind. What I ask for, and what the Government would have to produce in order to counteract any error that false information might give, is a Return of what has been done under the several heads I have stated, and then we should know where we are. There are other subjects. Farm burning was, in consequence of a debate in this House in December, more than twelve months ago, discontinued. But has it really been stopped, or is it still going on? Are we not to receive any information on the subject? I might go into another question upon which we are entirely in the dark—namely, as to what is being done now with regard to the concentration camps. What is the condition of things now? We know what the right hon. Gentleman has directed to be done, but we want to know how far it is being carried out; what steps have been taken; and what is the condition now as compared with two or three months ago. The House having met, the Government, no doubt, is prepared to give information on all these points, and until we have this information we cannot fully realise what may have happened. At present, with a strict press censorship, with a silenced press, and with the Government holding in their grasp both ends of the lines of communication between the Colony and this country, we have no certainty as to any occurrence at the Cape, while our fellow-citizens at the Cape only receive such news of opinion at home as it may please the Executive to send. We are left in the dark as to things affecting the lives and liberties of our fellow subjects, things which are being done in our name—in the name of this country, this England, the home of Constitutional liberty, the model to all the world of free government! These are the relations which, in this year of 1902, are maintained between England, the home of freedom, and one of the greatest of so-called self-administrating Colonies. We shall hear a good deal more of this before these debates are finished. I am merely putting some preliminary questions in order to obtain from the Government some declaration of what is going on, and some proofs and facts. The urgent question with regard to the war in South Africa is, of course, the possi-
  106
  bility of peace, and the policy most likely to lead to future security and prosperity.
  Now, broadly, we believe in the necessity of establishing unmistakably our military superiority, and this has been and is being done. I do not doubt for a moment that we have the military force, if you like, to beat the Boers down to the ground, but what I do not believe in is the expediency of the policy of subjugation. Putting aside questions of humanity or of sentiment—and after all there is something in sentiment—but putting that aside altogether, I hold that it is not desirable in our own interests and in the interest of a solid and stable settlement in South Africa, which, after all, is the object we all have in view, to pursue relentlessly the course of conquest, to go on (as we are told by the latest version of the policy of the Government given authoritatively in South Africa) "squeezing the Boers and not fidgetting about negotiations."[Ministerial cheers.] That spirit and that policy are approved by being opposite. For my part, I object to such a policy. I protest against it, I abjure it in spirit and in substance. Whether we make overtures to the Boers, ["Oh, oh!"], or whether we let the Boers know that we will receive their overtures if they make them; whether we offer terms ["No!"]—I am only putting the case—or join in negotiating terms—these are questions of detail and of subordinate importance. I have said publicly before, and I say now, that on the questions on which I have spoken there is a good deal to be said on both sides, but the essential thing is to let the settlement, when you come to it, be by assent and not by force. That is the policy which we, on this side of the House, insist upon, and approve of by our actions and by our words, and that is where apparently there is a cardinal difference, as far as we are informed, between the Government and ourselves. We expect now to have an explicit statement of the policy of the Government in this matter. We have had one explanation given by one Minister and one by another, and sometimes different explanations by the same Minister. We wish these now to be concentrated in a statement of their policy in this matter. How do they propose to end this war? We wish to be clear upon this main point, which transcends all others in importance. Sir, the main object of the Amend-

  107
  ment of which I have spoken, and which will give ample opportunities for discussion, will be to make that aspect of the question plain, and to ascertain from the Government—if they cannot give it to-night—their positive and final decision on the question and the mode of finishing the war.
  Well, Sir, that is all I am going to say on the subject of South Africa, with the anticipation that I have referred to. The other subjects referred to in the King's Speech need not detain me long. The Estimates for the service of the year, it is said, will be laid before us. We are looking to those Estimates with great interest, because the financial position of the country is really one of the greatest seriousness, and I listened with great pleasure and a good deal of sympathy to the remarks of the seconder of the Address upon the subject.
  As to the matters which we may call, broadly, legislation, the first is the procedure of the House of Commons. The procedure of the House of Commons is not mentioned in the Speech, as the Hon. Member very properly pointed out, because it does not require the authority or approval of anyone outside the House itself, and therefore it would not find its proper place in the King's Speech. Now, if the Government is going to make extensive changes in the procedure of the House of Commons, I hope, in the first place, they will not make them turn too much on the convenience of Members. We are often apt, at all events, to speak, even if we do not act in these matters as if the question to be considered was the personal convenience of Members. I am perfectly sure that Members would accommodate themselves and their social arrangements to any hours and conditions which were the most favourable to the despatch of business. The next thing we have to keep in view is the effectiveness of our business rules. For my part, I am, as I have always been, perfectly ready to alter antiquated methods, to maintain, improve, and strengthen orderly procedure, and to assert in any way that is necessary the dignity of the House. But there is one class of alteration which ought to be most jealously scrutinised, and that is any proposal which will diminish the freedom and the rights of the House at large, or unduly exalt the
  108
  power of the Executive Government of the day.
  The Education Bill which the Speech announces, will no doubt furnish ample material for lengthy debates and warm discussions. We know what the subject of education is. We have had a good deal of experience of it in the House during recent years. I hope the Lord President of the Council has by this time been able to master the technicalities of his Department, so that he may be able to guide his Department aright. I hope also that the Vice-President has been able to continue his cordial and confidential relations with all his colleagues, so that he may be able to authoritatively inform the House as to their views. There is nothing upon which the country is more united, and, indeed, more enthusiastic, at the present moment than this question of education. We all see how we have fallen behind in education, and we all realise the immense importance of having a better system than we have now. I hope that whatever the Government do they will introduce an effective system on broad democratic lines, maintaining popular control, and furnishing a real opportunity of higher learning to all in the land who have the capacity for receiving it.
  The measure dealing with the London Water Supply will, I hope, take into account the views of those who are qualified to speak for the community. There is a very extraordinary phrase used with regard to the Water Bill. The Speech says that a measure will be introduced "for amending the administration of the water supply in the area at present controlled by the London Water Companies." Now there may be some truth in it, but what we want is that the area should control the Water Companies, not that the Water Companies should control the area. I do not understand how His Majesty has been induced to give his authority to such an extraordinary statement as that under the present state of things the area is controlled by the London Water Companies.
  The last subject to which I shall refer is the question of Ireland. I am curious to see what the Government will definitely propose on the question of Irish land. Sir, the state of Ireland appears to me to be serious in the highest degree from every point of view. It is evident that the policy of killing a certain undesirable

  109
  thing by kindness has not succeeded. The revival of coercion is the gravest domestic event of the year, and it is not a favourable accompaniment to a Land Bill. We shall hear what the Government have to say in justification of their Irish policy. But I would say this—that the contemplation of the Government, after all that they have tried and done, after floundering in the old familiar and traditional ways between concession and coercion, is calculated to confirm us in our conviction of the wisdom of the policy towards Ireland and the government of Ireland which has been and is the remedy approved by the Liberal Party.
  The legislative programme of the year is a modest, but I feel certain a quite sufficient programme. I do not know what estimate the Government have formed of the difficulty of passing some of these measures, but they are among the most thorny subjects with which any Government could deal. I fear, however, that all serious efforts in the direction of beneficial legislation will be hampered so long as the question of South Africa transcends all others, and occupies the minds of the people. That is the question of supreme urgency, and I only wish that I saw in the policy of the Government a better prospect of a safe and permanent solution of it.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Before entering upon the more controversial part of the task which falls to me to-night, and before expressing the differences I shall have to express with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, let me, first of all, express my hearty agreement with the opening words of his speech. I associate myself with everything he said with regard to the admirable manner in which both the mover and the seconder of the Address have fulfilled their difficult and, in many respects, ungrateful task. My hon. friend, the mover of the Address, devoted, and, I think, wisely devoted, the greater part of a very interesting speech to certain aspects of the South African question; and everybody must have listened with the greatest attention to the views which he has formed, not merely here in England, reading the vast controversial literature which has now grown up around that subject, but actually on the spot, from personal experience and from meeting
  110
  those who are brought daily face to face with all the difficulties of the South African problem. The seconder of the motion began his speech by asking our indulgence on the ground that he was less fortunately circumstanced than many other Members of this House, in that much of his life had been spent away from these shores, not in the current of ordinary English public life, but in the management of affairs in far-distant parts of the world. It is true that my hon. friend is not a very old Member of this House, but every one who heard his speech will, I am sure, agree with me that there is nobody who less requires that long apprenticeship and education in the style of speech which this House likes than my hon. friend. If he has not acquired it by training and education, he is the fortunate possessor of a natural manner which I am sure this House will always admire and appreciate.
  The right hon. Gentleman, having paid in very graceful terms the appropriate compliment to the mover and seconder, went on to deal with some of the questions at issue between the two parties in the House and with some of the points raised in His Majesty's Speech from the Throne. In the latter part of his speech the right hon. gentleman made some observations about procedure, naturally and properly of a somewhat superficial character. But I gathered from him that he desires two things with regard to the new rules which it will very shortly, I hope, be my duty to propose to the House. The first was that the Government would not pay much attention in their proposals to the comfort of Members of the House. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think it is of the first importance, not on selfish but on public grounds, that we should try to arrange the business of the House to suit the comfort of those Members who are asked to partake in our deliberations; and I certainly will not yield one inch to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that, in trying to modify our rules to suit that convenience 'we are sacrificing public interests to private convenience, the interests of the country to the interests of the country's representatives. That is, I believe, not the case. I believe the two causes are bound up intimately together, and if you want our legislative work to be well done you must do something to consult

  111
  the convenience of those who help to conduct it. The other observation of the right hon. Gentleman was that, while he was no defender of antiquated and worn-out forms, he would strenuously oppose anything which interfered with debate.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No; I did not say that.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say so. I may have been mistaken.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I forget the phrase I used, but I think what I said was, anything that would interfere seriously with the rights and privileges, of the House at large and exalt the power of the Executive Government.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think on that head the right hon. Gentleman may rest easy. The Executive Government of this country are, and must always remain, the servants of the majority of this House. No alteration that could be proposed by this or any other Government can exalt the Ministers of the Crown above the will of the representatives of the people. By their favour we stand; when that favour is withdrawn we fall; and the right hon. Gentleman need be under no apprehension that anything we can propose will alter that, the very foundation of our public business.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say a word about education. He said the people of this country were united and enthusiastic in desiring a reform of our existing system of education. They may be enthusiastic, but I see no signs of their being united. Fortunate, indeed, will this House be if it should prove, when the Government introduce their Bill, that not only are we blessed with an enthusiastic Assembly to deal with, but that that Assembly is also united in its desire, and agreed as to the solution which is to be provided for our present educational shortcomings.
  The last important observation that fell from the right hon. Gentleman, outside South Africa, which I will come to directly, was that in which he made a public reprofession of faith in the cause of Home Rule. I observe that in that respect, at all events, the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to wipe the slate. He has again told us that the party of which, if he is not the
  112
  leader, he is at all events the leader in this House—I never quite understood the right hon. Gentleman's position outside this House—believe Home Rule as the only way of dealing with the Irish question. I am very glad to have that public and authoritative announcement. I have observed for some years past that not the right hon. Gentleman alone, but many others of those who sit in his neighbourhood have fought very shy [some Opposition cries of "No"], yes, very shy of that question. Many of them have explained that there was not and could not be any close alliance with the Irish party except for temporary purposes. Even stronger language, I think, has been used by some of them with regard to recent utterances from the Irish benches; but I do not believe that any statesmen in the first rank on the other side have distinctly stated that the solution, in their view, of the Irish question, which, of course, no Government can escape, is Home Rule and Home Rule alone. It is an interesting and an important announcement, made, I presume, after due deliberation and after consultation with all the various sections of that party which the right hon. Gentleman is privileged to lead. As such it will be received with the utmost attention and interest in the country, and I am glad to think—or sorry to think, perhaps I should say—that my own previsions as to the position of the Home Rule question are not erroneous, and that it is absolutely impossible for right hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether they desire it or whether they do not desire it, to escape from that damnosa hereditas which has been left them by the unfortunate events of 1885.
  Well, Sir, I turn from these—you cannot call them questions of secondary interest—but from these questions which the right hon. Gentleman only dealt with lightly and superficially, to that yet more important question which occupied the greater part of his speech—I mean South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman, even on South Africa, excused himself, and in my judgment was perfectly entitled to excuse himself, from developing his whole case against the Government, by reason of the fact that he and his friends are apparently agreed upon some form of Amendment, on which they are going into the lobby together, with reference to the South African policy of the Govern-

  113
  ment. I look forward to the terms of that Amendment with the most lively interest. I am a student in drafting. I like seeing dexterity displayed in these statements. We know in the clearest manner that on all the more fundamental points connected with South Africa there is no agreement between hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it will, therefore, be a peculiar delight to me to see the exact form of words which is going to receive the unanimous support of the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on that front bench and of the varied parties who sit on those benches opposite. I reserve comments upon this masterpiece until I see it, and I will devote myself, necessarily, on the present occasion, to a very brief survey of some points which the right hon. Gentleman thought it appropriate to raise before we come to the great battle. The right hon. Gentleman grumbles, not for the first time, at the want of information on military matters supplied to us by Lord Kitchener.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No;supplied by you to the country.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR.—If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that we are in the habit of keeping back items of military news of general interest he is entirely mistaken. There is no such mass of withheld information in the possession of the Government or of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War. I do not believe there ever has been so frank a repetition to the country of the information we get from the seat of war; and when the right hon. Gentleman complains of the information, as, of course, he does complain, sent from South Africa to us here, I must ask the House to remember that the responsibilities thrown on our commanders in South Africa, the weight of their labours, and the scope of their operations are so great that we will not be parties to throwing any undue burden upon them for the mere purpose of satisfying a curiosity—which is, I admit, perfectly legitimate, I and which we are satisfying as far as we can, but which must be satisfied within reasonable measures, considering the work thrown on those who have to supply it. I should imagine there are not at this moment more hardly-worked men than Lord Kitchener and his staff, and to
  114
  increase the work they would have to do, and must do, if we asked them for report after report, minute after minute, would really destroy that "efficiency" about which we hear so much, and which certainly would not be increased by turning the headquarter staff in South Africa into a mere supplementary news agency. But I may satisfy the right hon. Gentleman in one respect. He complains that in respect of the civil administration very little information has been given to the House. I believe a Blue-book has been circulated to-day bringing the information we have up to the latest date. That Blue-book, if it is not in the right hon. Gentleman's hands already, will be, I presume, in the course of a few hours. Then the right hon. Gentleman turned from the ordinary questions of administration to certain questions connected with the non-meeting of the Cape Parliament, and martial law. The right hon. Gentleman asked us who was responsible for the Cape Parliament's not meeting. Sir, the persons responsible for the Cape Parliament's not meeting are the Cape Ministers; but we entirely approve of the course which the Cape Ministers have taken. We think—at least, I think—that it is pure pedantry to grumble at this temporary suspension of the Cape Constitution, considering that South Africa is now the theatre of these great military operations. You cannot separate the colony through which all the supplies go, which is the base of operations—you cannot separate that from the general theatre of war; and I believe that the Cape Ministers were most well advised in the course which they have taken; but it was upon their responsibility that it was taken and not upon ours.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Is it not the Governor who prorogues Parliament?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the advice of Ministers, yes.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: But it is the Governor.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Governor on the advice of Ministers. As the right hon. Gentlemen is so particular about the phraseology, perhaps he will permit me slightly to alter the statement I made just now. I will not say, then, that the

  115
  Constitution has been suspended by the Cape Ministers; I will say that it has been suspended by the Governor on the advice of the Cape Ministers; and if either he or his friends can derive any advantage from that change in phraseology they are welcome to it. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has recently reminded himself of what the Constitution of a self-governing colony is, or he would know that in this matter the Governor acts on the advice of his Ministers. It is only fair, I think, to say that we entirely endorse and approve the course which the Cape Ministers have taken in this matter.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman asked for information about the administration of martial law. I believe my right hon. friend the Secretary for War has asked for some information with regard to the number of cases of executions, and otherwise, that have taken place under that law, and when he obtains the information, which I hope he will do soon, it will be entirely at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman. Then the right hon. Gentleman asks me is farm-burning given up. As we understand the matter, farm-burning is not given up in those cases where farm-burning is a military necessity. [Cheers.] I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen who cheer that statement ironically suppose that a different view of the rights of belligerents is taken by the Boers from what is taken by us in this particular. [Some Hon. Members, "Yes"] Well, it is not. The Boers are perfectly alive to the fact, as we are, that by the laws of all civilised warfare there are circumstances which render itexpedient, right, and even necessary to use the penalty of farm-burning. And when those circumstances arise I hope and believe that our Generals will not shrink even from that necessity, painful as it must necessarily be. The right, hon. Gentleman went on to complain that the laws were so enforced that we did not get that constant "stream of facts" which an hon. Gentleman sitting opposite was so anxious to obtain a few months ago, and that even our proceedings in this House and in this country were not allowed free entry into South Africa.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN dissented.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understood that was one of the complaints
  116
  of the right hon. Gentleman. Well' if my information is at all correct, the right hon. Gentleman's speeches have a circulation in South Africa which they can hardly have here; they are read with delight and approval, or some of them, by those who are in arms against us; and, rightly or wrongly, the Boers suppose that in the right hon. Gentleman they have one who is likely, had he his way, to do deliberately or unintentionally a great deal that they would very much approve of. I do not know how far that is so, but the large consensus of opinion I get from South Africa is, that even military events in South Africa sink into insignificance in the Boer mind compared with the public utterances and discussions of public men in this country—that they know so little of our country, and are so ignorant of our ways, that they utterly misinterpret, as I hope and believe, the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman and some of his friends, and they think that were there a change of Government they would not only obtain much better terms than even they hope for from the party in power, but that they would be able to retain their independence, which I am quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman has told us over and over again that he thinks they ought not to have.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: "Hear, hear."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Quite so. But the right hon. Gentleman indicated that the point on which an attack was chiefly going to be made on the Government was in regard to the future policy connected with the settlement or the termination of the war, and he announced himself in the strongest fashion as an enemy to the policy of subjugation. I cannot, for the life of me, understand what the right hon. Gentleman's position is, and it is a sentence like that which gives colour to the Boers, belief which I have just referred to. According to the right hon. Gentleman the Boers are to be annexed and incorporated, but they are not to be subjugated. Well, what does that policy mean? If you look at one half of it it is no doubt the policy of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. If you look at the other half of it it is the policy of De Wet. But those two halves refuse to

  117
  coalesce. There may be a sentence at the beginning in favour of one policy, and at the end in favour of the other, but can you conceive a coherent scheme of action in which the Boers shall be incorporated without their being first subjugated? Of course, the right hon. Gentleman may take the view that they are anxious to surrender any hope of further independence, and are desirous of at once terminating the war and becoming willing subjects of His Majesty. But there is not the slightest indication that that is the case. If anybody will impartially survey the negotiations which took place in the early part of last year with Lord Kitchener, if they will impartially read the utterances which have since been made by Boer leaders, they can come to no other conclusion than this—that the real difficulty about terminating the war, in the opinion of the Boer leaders, is that they are not prepared to surrender their independence and we are not prepared to finish the war until they do surrender their independence. Then what is this talk about subjugation? We do mean to subjugate the Boers—subjugation means conquering; we do mean to conquer them. We do mean to annex them, we do mean to incorporate them within this Empire; and I understand the right hon. Gentleman to agree to that. Well, then, how can he object to the use of the word subjugation. [Sir W. Harcourt: "Unconditional surrender."] I really do not know how that point arises. The Boers say, as far as we know, "We are not going to surrender our independence." We say, "You are going to," and there the matter stands. And until one of those parties is subjugated the war is to go on, and we do not mean to be the party that is to be subjugated.
  I do trust, and this is the last observation I think I need make on the right hon. Gentleman's speech before I sit down, I do earnestly trust that the result of the Amendment which is promised us to-night may, at all events, make the position of the Opposition clear. What is it that the gentlemen sitting on that side of the House below the gangway and above the gangway behind the right hon. Gentleman, what is it that they desire in connection with this war and the termination of this war? I am wholly unable to understand, I confess, either the position of the right hon. Gentleman, or the position of
  118
  Lord Rosebery, or the position of others who have spoken on this matter. I know exactly what the right, hon. Gentleman's Irish allies desire. [AN IRISH MEMBER: "We have no allies."] They do not desire subjugation like the right hon. Gentleman, but then they do not desire annexation. They are consistent. They have a coherent and intelligible view; and nothing is really more important for the country, for the rapid termination of the war, for the clearing of the situation at home and the cessation of hostilities abroad, than that hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite should really tell us clearly what it is they do mean, and how they think it ought to be attained, with regard to this question of our relations with the forces now in the field. I reserve, until I hear their case—perhaps I had better say I reserve until I understand their opinions—any commentary, hostile or friendly; and, in the meanwhile, it is not necessary for me to do more than to say that, as the right hon. Gentleman to-night has reverted to a very old, and, I think, the very good Parliamentary practice of reserving the real fight for an Amendment moved by the Opposition on the policy of the Government, it would only be detaining the House if I were to pursue this topic further. I trust that this preliminary stage of the debate on the Address, may, under the circumstances, be shortened as far as possible. What the country wants is to see the Amendment; what the House wants is to debate it; and between now and the time—I think it is the first occasion for many years—when a vote of censure is to be moved upon the Government, with the whole strength of the Opposition behind it, I think, we may be content to curtail the general discussion within the narrowest limits, in order to come to what is, after all, the main business which will occupy us on the Address. The sooner that question comes before us for decision, and the sooner the opposing forces are really brought into battle array, the one against the other, the sooner we are able to get a perfectly clear issue and divide upon it, the better for everybody concerned in this House and out of it, in this country and in South Africa. Therefore, Sir, I hope that the prospect which the right hon. Gentleman has held out to us will not be delayed beyond a few hours before it receives its fulfilment.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House can hardly expect the debate to terminate at this stage. With regard to what the Leader of the House has said as to the intention of His Majesty's Government to subjugate the Boers in South Africa, I can only say, that if the policy of subjugation in regard to the Boers does not succeed better than the policy of subjugation put in force with reference to Ireland, the policy had better have been left alone. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House, said that he failed to see any difference between the policy of subjugation and the policy advocated by the Leader of the Opposition and some of his friends. There is, however, the greatest difference in the world between an attempt to subjugate a people by crushing them out of existence, by demanding their absolute surrender, and a policy offering free and large terms of self-government to them. As far as I am concerned, I thoroughly agree with what the Leader of the House has said as to the policy of the Irish Nationalist Members in this matter. There is no doubt as to what their policy is. We do not, as far as I know, concur in the slightest degree with the policy of the enforced annexation of these Republics to the British Empire. We have objected to the war from the first; we object to its continuance; and we predict here to-day that if, against the will of the people of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, you force them to join the British Empire, you will only be perpetuating a feeling of disaffection in South Africa, and you will only be postponing trouble until a future day. Not only this, but you will be rendering it absolutely certain that these people, whom you propose to annex against their will, will take the very first opportunity of throwing off your yoke, and re-establishing the independence which you robbed them of. I would like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury or any member of the Government, if they can point to a single instance in the whole history of the British Empire, where a policy of absolute subjugation has been successfully brought about where people have been incorporated in the British Empire against their will. The British Empire has succeeded in Australia, New Zealand,
  120
  Canada, and other parts of the world, because it has been established in direct opposition to the policy of subjugation, which the First Lord of the Treasury has spoken of. If you had attempted to extend your Empire in Australia, or in the Continent of America, by a policy of absolute subjugation, and forcing the inhabitants of those territories against their will to become joined with you, you would have failed in the policy, and you will fail in it if you try it in South Africa. There is not a single portion of the whole British Empire which has been incorporated by a policy of subjugation. Where you have succeeded, it is because you have proceeded, not upon the lines of subjugation, but upon the broadest lines of granting to the people of those territories the fullest possible rights, and having the most absolute consideration of their national feeling and their free institutions. If, in South Africa, the policy of subjugation is acted upon, so surely as the American Colonies were lost to England, the day will come when South Africa right through will be lost to England, and when a free flag will float over the whole territory, from the Zambesi to Cape Town; and then the policy of the Colonial Secretary will have borne its full fruit.
  With regard to the statement of hon. Members opposite, about the humanity practised by the troops in South Africa, I have only to say that everybody knows that the troops are obliged to carry out their orders. I said last year in this House, and I say it again to-night, that the person who is responsible for many of these deplorable and barbarous things is the Colonial Secretary, and those who he has succeeded in forcing to adopt his policy. We have not yet heard in this debate a single word about the concentration camps, or the horrors which have taken place in them, where 10,000 children in five months were done to death. Whatever may be said as to the conduct of your troops in South Africa, I say that it is a shame and a disgrace upon the name of this country and the name of civilisation, that these unfortunate children should have been murdered in those camps. The Colonial Secretary and the Leader of the House endeavoured to ride off from this subject, and the slaughter which took place in these camps, by pretending that attacks are being made upon the humanity of the troops.

  121
  I do not know what the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition may be in this respect, but it has been charged, and no defence has been given to it, that in these camps, without any necessity whatever, thousands upon thousands of innocent children have been done to death. Until that has been explained and put a stop to, it is useless to expect that there will not be public indignation in this country.
  Now, Sir, the First Lord of the Treasury has declared that he is going in for the subjugation of the Boers and for their absolute surrender, and he says that that is the only alternative to the policy of De Wet. What I say is that the policy of De Wet, in my opinion, is the proper policy and one which I hope will be successful. I venture to say that nine out of every ten of the people living upon the soil of this country to-day, if their country was invaded, if their homes were burned, their women imprisoned and their children done to death by the thousand, their policy would be that of De Wet. As far as the war in South Africa goes, I can only say that I am in the position of being able to state, without fear of contradiction, that when the war commenced in October, 1899, I predicted what would take place. I said then that the war would be a matter of years not months. I said that instead of the war costing tens of millions it would cost hundreds of millions, and tens of thousands of lives. I was laughed at when I made those statements, but I can now repeat what I said then, that it is not within the power of all the forces of this Empire to subjugate the Boers. You may keep them down for a time, but the great majority of the people are Dutch, and you cannot keep them down permanently. We have been told to-night that the solution of the difficulty is emigration, and that a number of English people should be sent there at the Government's expense. Who will deny that these countries, from an agricultural point of view, are absolutely useless to any British population, and when we are told that the countries can be subjugated and peopled afresh by a system of State-aided emigration, everybody who knows South Africa knows that is an idle dream that will never come about. The majority of the people are Dutch, and so they will remain,
  122
  in spite of everything you can do. It is impossible to subjugate the Dutch race there, unless you are prepared to keep an immense army in South Africa for the rest of the history of the world. The Colonial Secretary said this war was not waged for lust of conquest, or gold mines, or territory, repeating what Lord Salisbury had said some time before, but he gave the whole case away when he said that it was being waged for the predominance of the British race in South Africa. I say that the policy of predominance in a country which is equally occupied by two white races is an impossibility, and if you had proceeded in Canada with a policy of the predominance of the British over the French-Canadians, you would have had war there until the present day. It was because you recognised that the French had equal rights in the soil with British subjects that there is peace there at the present time, and until you recognise that there cannot be predominance of the British over the Dutch in South Africa, there will be trouble and turmoil. The only solution is to recognise that the Dutch have as much right there as you have yourselves. I do not deny that so far as I am concerned, I view the progress of the war with feelings of intense satisfaction. There cannot be a lover of human liberty in any part of the world who has not felt his spirit rise and his heart encouraged by the glorious fight made by the Boers. We are told that it is impossible for these men to continue their struggle against the mighty power of the British Empire. They have got liberty on their side, and I believe myself, and it is the most potent belief in Ireland from one end to the other, that Providence is on the side of the Boers, and that nothing but the hand of Providence would have enabled them to make the gallant fight they have made. Any man, be he English or Scotch, who would deny a share of admiration to those men for the gallant way in which they have defended their liberty, is not entitled to liberty himself.
  With regard to farm-burning, we know that it was adopted not as a military necessity, but simply for the purpose of bringing these men under arms to their knees. It was hoped that these men, when they saw their homes broken up, would surrender sooner than that their families should go

  123
  through the hardships they have suffered. We are told that this policy is to be indulged in when necessary. What good has ever come from burning the homes of the people? A hundred years has passed since the rebellion in Ireland. In that part of the country that I come from the rebellion raged most strongly, and this was the policy indulged in. The houses of the people were burned, their churches were burned, their women outraged, and their children were cast out on their own fields. What is the result? There are 83 of us here who have in our hearts, as strongly as our forefathers, the policy which you failed to suppress. As long as this diabolical work proceeds in South Africa, you will only be ensuring that generations of Dutch on the Cape, yet unborn, will live to hate you. If any children do escape from the concentration camps, when they grow to man's estate what will be the history they will read? They will read of the mortality in the camps, of the homes being burned, and of lands laid waste, and every man with Dutch blood in his veins will watch and wait for the time when they will be able to avenge the infamies inflicted on their ancestors in this war. Whoever is responsible for the horrors that have taken place, the Irish people are not responsible. We are told sometimes that we have not served the cause of our country by opposing the methods imposed in South Africa, and that we would have been better advised to have conciliated English opinion by pretending, if we did not approve of the war at least, that we were not opposed to it. I say, speaking for myself, that if I could succeed in winning the freedom of Ireland on condition that I approved of the infamies perpetrated by Great Britain in South Africa, I would refuse to do so. I believe freedom bought in such a way would bring no luck with it. I for one am disappointed that there is not a stronger and more pronounced protest from some section of the Liberal party as to what has taken place in South Africa. I do not know what the Amendment to be proposed by the Opposition will be like, but if it comes from the Liberal Imperial Section, I am certain the Amendment will not be worth the paper it is written on. There ought to be some representative of the Liberal party in the House manly enough to adopt
  124
  the policy adopted by Mr. Gladstone long ago. We are told that the present state of affairs is due to the policy of Mr. Gladstone after Majuba. I say that it is the departure from that policy that led to the war. You talk of insult. I say that the ultimatum of the Boers in the matter of insolence is not to be compared with the British expedition headed by Dr. Jameson. We know that the Raid was the commencement of the trouble, turmoil, and expenditure that has taken place. The first blow was practically struck by England. If you do not agree to terms, I express the hope and the opinion that the Boers will continue the fight as long as a man is left to them. It would be in finitely better for them to be exterminated as a race than to live in subjection under the kind of rule to be put upon them by the Jews and financiers of Pretoria and Johannesburg.
  Of course the war in South Africa elicits our sympathy. Our duty mainly is with regard to our own country. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who has just commenced a period of coercion in Ireland, that the Irish people are quite prepared to meet his coercion as they met it before. The Irish Members are no more to be twined round now than before by threats and imprisonment, and if it is the object of the Government to subjugate the Irish people by coercion, as they are endeavouring to subjugate the Boers by force of arms, I can tell them they will have two wars on their hands. The Irish people, being united and strong, will not allow themselves to be driven out of their privileges and rights. The right hon. Gentleman will find it is not possible for him, by methods of coercion, to break the national spirit of the people of Ireland, or to turn them from the path they are on, which is in the direction of their national rights. The 83 Nationalist Members are united, and all the new rules you can invent in this House to silence the voice of Ireland will be of no avail. We are here, and we will continue steady and relentless evidence of what your rule has been in Ireland. The Chief Secretary made a pronouncement, the other day, on the Irish land question, and with singular want of appropriateness he made that pronouncement, not as one might imagine in a great agricultural centre, but in the city of Belfast, surrounded by the Orangemen of the place,

  125
  and having on his right hand the Marquess of Londonderry. It is quite clear that the Chief Secretary, like his predecessors, has been captured by the Orangemen of Belfast. The Orangemen of Belfast are welcome to their capture. I can assure the Chief Secretary that the farmers in the south of Ireland who are being robbed, and who are joining with the farmers of the North in the demand to be made the owners of the land by the toil they have put into it, are not likely to be deterred by the declaration he has made to the beat of the old Orange drum. The right hon. Gentleman never tires of sneering at the Irish Nationalist Members because they may not be as wealthy as he was himself. I do not know how it may be at the present time, but I have always heard in this House—and I have been here now for a very long time—that it was not at all consistent with one's upholding the character of a gentleman, to sneer at opponents, particularly political opponents, because many of them happened to be poor men. The right hon. Gentleman never makes a speech without referring to the sending of the hat round amongst the Irish people for the support of the Irish party; and in a very late speech he said that everything was abandoned to scratching together £10,000 or £12,000 for the political purposes of the Irish party. Now, the political finances of the Irish party are audited, are public, and are before the eyes of all in their own country. But what about the finances of the right hon. Gentleman's own party? I would like to know very much if Captain Middleton, or whatever his rank might be, would place before the country a full, true, and carefully audited account of what became of the hundreds of thousands of pounds subscribed for Tory political purposes. If the Irish people think it well to have a political body to represent their views and aspirations, why should they be sneered at as a parcel of beggars by this gentleman, who used to boast that he was the descendant of an Irish rebel, and, who, whatever else he was, was at least a gentleman? We do not know all the particulars of the Tory political funds, but we know a little. We know that Mr. Hooley gave a cheque for £10,000, and that the party hung on to the cheque with bull-dog tenacity
  126
  for many months. And yet the representative of the party come to Ireland and sneer at the scratch collections of the Irish Members! I speak of this because I hold that it bears on the administration of Ireland. It shows why the people are discontented when they are governed by men who have shown that they have so little consideration for men's feelings and for common decency. There is not a man in the government of Ireland—whether Marquis, or Earl, or Duke—I care not what his position may be—who does not put his hand and arm elbow-deep into the pockets of the Irish people. The right honourable Gentleman the chief Secretary for Ireland talk of a scratch collection for the common Irish people, in order that they might be represented in this Parliament. But what is his own salary? The right hon. gentleman, and men like him, who sneer at us because our countrymen generously subscribe to be publicly represented in this Parliament, draw thousands upon thousands for salaries, and hundreds of thousands to pay their expenses, travelling and otherwise, from the Lord Lieutenant with his £20,000 a year, and the Chief Secretary with his thousands, down to the poorest under-strapper who cleans their boots. I maintain that it is little short of audacious and insolent that any man in the position of the right hon. gentleman, should taunt and sneer at the Irish people because, though poor, they subscribe generously and liberally in order to maintain those who are fighting for their rights. I dismiss the sneering observations of the right hon. gentleman with this remark, that no matter how injurious he may have considered them to have been to the Irish cause, they have had exactly the opposite effect on the Irish people, and on their representatives; and have made them more resolved, if possible, than ever, to struggle for that day when they will be ruled by the men of their own choosing, and not by whipper-snappers sent over from this country to trample upon the liberties of the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman took his lessons at the feet of the First Lord of the Treasury, who was Chief Secretary for many years. The Irish Members fought him, and he fought them. His hand was heavy upon the Irish Members, and his action was bitterly resented; but I will say

  127
  this in regard to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, that I have no recollection of a time, even when he made his fiercest attacks upon the Irish party, when he so far forgot what ought to be the ordinary bearing and the feelings of a gentleman, as to condescend from his safe place in Dublin Castle, with a large salary at his back, to sneer at his political opponents because they were not all drawing large salaries or receiving large sums of money from the public purse. The right hon. Gentleman, the present Chief Secretary, has, in my opinion, fallen, after his speech at Belfast, lower in the estimate of the masses and the Irish people than any Chief Secretary of Ireland has ever done. He has started coercion and started it meanly. He has not been satisfied with fighting the Irish party fairly, but has condescended to sneer at people in Ireland who are not as wealthy as himself. The Irish Members may have their faults, but there is one thing they can claim. Here they are, whether England likes it or not. Poor they may be, but not all the wealth of the Empire, all the jewels in the King's Crown, or all the gold in South Africa is able to buy a single one of them. The Chief Secretary has visited certain portions of Ireland, among others my own constituency where he promised something which has never been performed. The right hon. Gentleman was courteously received by the people, in a way a gentleman should be received; but I will tell the right hon. Gentleman that the result of his cheap taunts and sneers at the Irish people and their poverty is that if he goes to the same district he will be taught that though the people are poor there are some gentlemen in Ireland, and that the Irish people can appreciate, even in their governors, men who act as gentlemen.
  MR. STEVENSONsaid that, seeing the under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place he took the opportunity of addressing a few questions on matters on which Amendments to the Address were not likely to be proposed, and the noble Lord might be able to remove some fears entertained in regard to the course of affairs in the Far East. He desired to bring before the noble Lord the Member for Rochester four topics which affected the material interests
  128
  of the Empire, and two of which were connected with the obligations which this country had incurred. Was the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in a position to make any statement that night in regard to the position of affairs in the Persian Gulf. He put the question for the reason that the affairs of the Persian Gulf were generally understood to fall within the purview of the Indian Office. No doubt that had been the case in the past, and had been a considerable convenience, because the interests of India were then generally bound up with that quarter. But we had reached a state in which affairs in that part of the world were beginning to be also taken an active interest in by other Powers. Various concessions had been obtained there, for instance by Russia, and the most important project of a railway to Bagdad, which was on the Persian Gulf, was in German hands. Within the last few months there had been a dispute between two Sheikhs, who called themselves Sultans. At first sight it might appear that that was an ignoble dispute; but there was a great deal behind it, and the Government might allay anxiety in regard to the outlook in future in the Persian Gulf if they would make a frank statement in regard to the actual position and the recent course of events.
  The mover of the Address used the word "monopolises" with regard to the extent to which public attention had increased with reference to South African affairs. He ventured to protest against the use of that word if it was intended to convey the notion that the Government had all their attention monopolised on South Africa. There were so many parts of the world in which our interests were jeopardised by what was taking place, that South Africa should not be allowed to monopolise our attention. Another question he wished to address to the noble Lord, was one that he had put in previous sessions, and last of all in the month of June last year. It was a question with regard to the claims which the British merchants had against the Porte for losses which they sustained during the disturbances in 1896. It appeared that the subjects of other Powers had their claims settled directly or indirectly; the noble lord had said that the Turkish Government had not admitted the justice of those claims, but in one way or another, other Powers had succeeded in getting

  129
  the claims of their subjects settled, whilst not a single penny had been received by any British merchant from 1896 to 1902 from the Turkish Government with regard to the losses sustained by them in 1896.
  He also desired to refer to the disturbance which took place in the autumn of last year in the Highlands of Roumania. It occurredin a portion of the country which, on a previous occasion, was the first scene of an outbreak of a similar character, and every hon. Member was aware how very grave were the results of the outbreak. He thought it only right, having regard to the deep obligations this country had incurred under the Berlin Treaty, that some information should be given with regard to that matter.
  The fourth and last question he desired to put related to the position of affairs in European Turkey, and more especially to that part of Northern Macedonia called Old Servia. Great Britain, he was aware, only possessed in regard to that country the same treaty obligations which were possessed by the other Powers who signed the Berlin Treaty, but in view of the disturbance which had taken place, he asked whether any steps were being taken at the present time, or were likely to be taken in the next few months, to enforce article 23 of the Berlin Treaty.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): I will take this opportunity of answering the questions put by the hon. Member very shortly. The hon. Member has said in a portion of his remarks that the Persian Gulf belongs, if I may use such an expression, to that debatable land lying between the India Office and the Foreign Office. That is of course the fact, but I shall be able to state in a few words the position His Majesty's Government takes up in regard to that question. There is no change in the attitude of the present Government from the attitude always maintained by the British Government in the affairs of the Persian Gulf. Our position in the Persian Gulf, both commercially and politically, is one of a very special character, and His Majesty's Government has always considered that the ascendency of Great Britain in the Persian Gulf was the foundation of
  130
  British policy. This is not merely a question of theory; it is a statement of fact. Our trade interests there far exceed those of any other country, with regard to the political situation, being as it is secured entirely by the seas and by the forces on the sea. Our recognized maritime supremacy secures our political ascendency. But my information refers to an incident arising at a place called Koweit on the Persian Gulf. The policy of the Government with regard to Koweit which has been put forward with some insistence, is to maintain the status quo. His Majesty's Government do not deny that the Sultan has a certain position there, very vague and ill-defined, and largely dependent on his religious leadership in the Mahomedan world, but that would not give him the right to disturb the status quo. Although we have no reason to believe that he desires to do so, it has been the duty of the Government to make it clear that they could not submit to any such disturbance. In consequence of the development of the unhappy dispute between two petty Sheikhs, we have been obliged to move a small naval force to Koweit in order to see that the status quo is properly and rigorously maintained. Among other points the hon. Gentleman called attention to the British claims arising out of the Armenian massacres in 1896. He called attention to the fact that the claims were not settled. I have no information on that point. He says other Powers have had their claims settled; the method under which those claims were paid was of a very indirect character.
  MR. STEVENSON: Still they are paid.
  Lord CRANBORNE: I have no definite information that they are paid, but however those merchants were paid. I should be satisfied if British merchants were paid in the same manner. These claims are being continually pressed upon the Porte, but it is impossible to expect anything like break-neck speed in the settlement of financial questions between the Powers and Turkey. The hon. Gentleman then referred to some disturbances in Asia Minor. It is true there were some disturbances in Asia Minor in the autumn of last year in the neighbourhood of Khoosh and Van, but they did not, I am glad to, say amount to very

  131
  much. I can assure the hon. Member we are careful to keep an eye on all these matters, and the moment information reaches our Ambassadors that there are such disturbances, measures are immediately taken to bring the facts to the notice of the Porte. The Turkish authorities are as anxious as the Government are to avoid serious disturbance in these regions. They were perfectly ready to send troops, and did send troops, out to these districts, and the danger was warded off. There was a very limited loss of life—nothing in the nature of a massacre.
  We are bound to recognise the fact that the state of affairs in Macedonia is as bad as it has been for many years past. No concerted action is yet being taken by the Powers or is in contemplation; but it is for the interest of all the Powers that these events should not be allowed to lead to anything like serious disturbance. The Government is always anxious, if attention is drawn to such a state of things, and whenever it has been found to be necessary, to make representations at Constantinople in the hope of persuading the Porte to take measures for their amelioration. More the Government cannot do; more it would not be politic to attempt. The real difficulty arises, not from ill will on the part of the Turkish authorities, but from their weakness; and the best which can be hoped for is that by stimulating and effective remonstrances the Turkish officials may be induced to take as vigorous action as they are capable of doing to stave off the disturbances which threaten in those regions. I do not think, however, that matters have reached a point at which any anxiety need be felt, though I am certainly of opinion that this special condition of unrest in Turkey is a serious matter, and might, if events were to advance, prove of a very dangerous character, not only to Turkey, but to Europe.
  MR. NORMANrose to ask a question arising out of the remarks made by the noble Lord, who, in answer to the hon. Member for Eye, had stated that the status quo was maintained. Would the noble Lord say whether it was the political status quo or the commercial status quo. All students of the question had noticed the approach of the German Railway, and he asked that the Under Secretary would be good
  132
  enough to say whether there was any arrangement between the British and German Governments; and what the position would be when the German Railway got to the port in the Persian Gulf. Hon. Members were aware that the Germans had, in the name of the Sultan, asked for a concession at Koweit; but whether they had obtained it or not nobody knew. It would be opposed by the Government if it were a political Railway; but what was our understanding if the Germans only desired a commercial Railway? We had recently had, in China, experience of how easily a commercial status developed into a political status.
  EARL PERCYalso questioned the noble Lord as to the policy which the Government was prepared to adopt with regard to the Consular establishments at Van and Bitlis. It was impossible, in his opinion, for a gentleman residing at Van to keep an eye on affairs in the Bitlis province, and he desired to know whether the Government had altogether withdrawn our Vice Consul at Bitlis, and whether they had given instructions to our Consul at Van that he should spend a reasonable portion of his time at Bitlis in order that he might make himself acquainted with what was going on in that locality. Konia was the projected starting point of the German Asiatic Railway, and had been for many years, as Turkish towns went, an important centre of industry, in which the Austrians and ourselves had successfully developed a considerable trade. Trade was likely to follow the route of the Railway, and it was, therefore, in the highest degree important that the only commercial hold this country had in Konia should not be relinquished. He desired, therefore, to know whether the post of British Consul there was still vacant, and whether it was intended to remain so.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs might say that having already addressed the House he was unable to answer further questions. Under those circumstances, he desired to impress on the noble Lord the fact that the Papers which he (Sir E. Fitzmaurice) pressed for last year in connection with Asia Minor and this

  133
  German Railway had not been presented. He would not enter into the character or the extent of the pledge given by the noble Lord, because at the time he was rather disappointed at the small amount of information the noble Lord was willing to promise, but even what was promised had not yet been presented; he therefore hoped some information might now be given, if only for the reasons which had been touched upon by previous speakers, or that some opportunity might be given at an early period of raising these questions. Notice had been given of an Amendment which would specifically raise the question of the Persian Gulf, and he expressed the hope that before long the House might have fair and full information as to how all these matters stood.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid he was under the impression that all the Papers which he promised the noble Lord last year had been presented, but the promised to make inquiries. When the spoke a few minutes ago he referred to the political status quo. The commercial status quo was a matter for the British merchants. If they were willing to maintain the ascendency of Great Britain in the Gulf they could do so. The hon. Member said that the company were in treaty with the Porte for a concession for the railway. This did not appear to be a very forward state of things.
  MR. NORMAN: They have the concession.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid there were certain negotiations and arrangements in respect of the railway, but it was a long step from a concession to the completion of an undertaking in Turkey. He could not enter into details at this moment with reference to Asia Minor, and he invited the noble Lord to place a specific question on the Paper referring to the Consular appointments.(8.14.)
  MR. FLYNNsaid the debate during the last hour had been somewhat irregular. Since the First Lord of the Treasury addressed the House questions not exactly of foreign policy, but of small details of foreign policy had been raised which were far more appropriate to the Foreign Estimates or some occasion of that kind, when the
  134
  Under Foreign Secretary could give an answer to the many questions. It was a far cry indeed from the Transvaal to the Persian Gulf. It was not for him to complain that the debate had been irregular in this respect, for one would naturally expect, looking to the matters before the public, that the ordinary course of debate would have followed to some extent the line taken by the leader of the Opposition and the leader of the House. That would give some reality to the debate on the King's Speech. One could not but be struck by some phrases in the Speech from the Throne. The first paragraph that struck one was the expression of regret that the war in South Africa is not yet concluded. Last October twelve months it was stated that the war was over, but, whether the statement was made for electioneering purposes or not, we knew now that that was not the fact. Seven months ago the Commander-in-Chief received a large sum of money and distinction at the hands of this House because the war was over, and yet the war was not yet over. How could the war be over when on Christmas Day one of the greatest disasters of the whole campaign befel the British Army? There was another paragraph in the Speech which he thought every fair-minded man, no matter what party he belonged to, could not help thinking was a sneer at our brave foes. He denied that the contest now in progess could be accurately described as guerilla warfare. The statement was made that the British troops had displayed humanity, often to their own detriment, deserving of the highest praise. He thought one of the most objectionable and melancholy features of the controversy was the taunt levelled against every one opposed to the Colonial Secretary and Lord Milner, that they were charging the troops with inhumanity and cruelty. No such taunt had been made, and the fullest measure of praise had been accorded to the officers and men fighting in the campaign, and if there were charges of barbarity and inhumanity, it was because of the methods of barbarity inspired by the Government. There was a covert innuendo in that paragraph in regard to the inhumanity of the Boer troops themselves. He thought it should be admitted that there had been on both sides bravery, and that although there had been isolated cases of inhuman-

  135
  ity, the officers and men on both sides had shown courage and humanity, and, speaking all round, the men had displayed clemency. It must be remembered that when 1,000 men were on the race-course at Johannesburg, at the mercy of their foes, they were treated with the greatest consideration and clemency and the greatest possible humanity. In connection with the disaster or Christmas Day, Lord Kitchener in his report stated that General De Wet showed every consideration and gave honourable treatment to the men. He regretted very much that again in the course of the debate the First Lord of the Treasury defended the terrible policy of farm burning and concentration camps. Was it not more than probable that the policy of farm burning and the driving of women and children into the concentration camps, more properly called cemetery camps, had driven the Boers to desperation, and that they would never lay down their arms until the last man was driven either to surrender or slaughter? The First Lord of the Treasury, in the course of his speech, which was rather unworthy of his high reputation in this House, justified the policy of farm burning as a military necessity. He (Mr. Flynn) denied that it was a military necessity. There was the authority of the Blue-books that houses were destroyed within a radius often miles of the railway, because trains had been derailed and because telegraph wires had been destroyed, and because of other operations of that kind. The derailing of a train and the cutting of a telegraph wire were legitimate operations of warfare, and it was barbarous to burn houses in a radius of ten miles because of such operations. The reason why the farm houses were burnt was because the men we absent on commando. He was sure that the House, and many people in the country, would regret to hear from the First Lord of the Treasury that the policy of farm burning had not been abandoned. They had been hoping that the sentiments of humanity would have re-asserted their sway over the minds of the Government, and that farm burning would be discontinuėd once and for all. The statement of the First Lord would be received with pain in many quarters, and with amazement and disgust on the Continent of Europe.
  136
  There was another portion of His Majesty's Speech to which he wished to refer, namely, that in which they were told that a measure for land purchase would be introduced in the coming session. It was not for him to indulge in prophesy. They would say what they thought about the Bill when it came before the House; but no one knew better than the Chief Secretary that no measure of land purchase in Ireland could go in the direction of settling the question unless it was a Compulsory Purchase Bill. Every one in Ireland who was not blind knew it, and a vast majority of the people, north and south, east and west, had joined together in their demand for it. The Chief Secretary had indulged in some cheap sneers at a popular movement, based on the people's will, established for the people's good and officered by the people, to bring about compulsory purchase. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Irish people were united on a basis of plunder, and had spoken of the Irish party as being a mere machine for collecting money. Englishmen tested everything by how much they could get out of it. The Irish party had no object in this movement but the reduction of rent. The taunt came very badly from a Bench which enjoyed such a large share of the Civil Service money of this country. The Chief Secretary, who was utterly inexperienced in public life, got £4,450 a year, together with coals and lodging, for mal-administering the affairs of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman went to Ireland and took a trip to the West in a jaunting car, imparting his smiling benediction here, indulging in a few Christianlike platitudes there, and then returned to Westminster to draw his £4,450. If the night hon. Gentleman was so keen on this money question, he saw no reason why he should not let the Chief Secretary's Lodge and add the rent to his salary. The taunt that the Irish party was an organisation for collecting money came very badly from the Chief Secretary, who knew so little of Ireland, and certainly did not do his duty. Such language was never indulged in by a former Chief Secretary, the present First Lord of the Treasury, who had fought the Irish party vigorously, sometimes they thought unfairly, and had thrown hon. Members into prison as common felons because they were inspired by motives as worthy as his own; but

  137
  he had never sneered at the members of the Irish party for their poverty. When the Chief Secretary was recently in the West of Ireland he must have seen there the condition of chronic misery and destitution of the people, not owing to the operation of nature's laws, or to the poor nature of the soil, but to an artificial and cruel system of laws which had driven those poor people from the good and fertile land on to the rocks. The Land League was created to deal with that cruel state of things, and to press on to the Government of the day compulsory purchase in that part of the country. The Congested Districts Board themselves, when the President of the Board of Trade was Chief Secretary, had joined in the recommendation that the operation of the Acts under the Congested Districts Board should be made compulsory. They recognised clearly that without compulsory powers it would be impossible for the Board to undertake any amelioration of the condition of the people. And yet, because these people had combined to jog the elbow of the Board, and to try by self-help to improve the condition of things, coercion had been revived and Members of Parliament sent to prison. As he had ventured to say, speaking to his constituents, where the First Lord of the Treasury had failed, the favourite of the Primrose Dames of Exeter was not going to succeed. Where one whom certain politicians called the strongest politician of modern times failed discreditably, the right hon. Gentleman who represented Dover was not going to make a political success; and he warned the right hon. Gentleman that if he persisted in the course of trying to stifle those who represented the people of Ireland in this House he made a great mistake. He little knew the power of resistance, the patience and the courage of the Irish people. They were all agreed that the condition of the people of the west of Ireland had been improved, and it was generally admitted that the landlords would not sell their lands, even at a fair price, to any Board or to the tenants. Therefore they maintained that the Congested Districts Board should arm themselves with compulsory powers which were already granted to Corporations and other urban bodies. There could be no permanent impression of any value on the misery of these people unless
  138
  the Board was armed with compulsory powers.
  The Chief Secretary was trying to extinguish the right of free speech in Ireland. If a dozen men came together to discuss the situation they were batoned by the police, or prosecuted by removable magistrates. The extraordinary thing was that Members of the Government were going about wringing their hands saying "There is no crime, no disorder, and, therefore, Ireland is seething with discontent beneath the surface!" Ten or twelve years ago there was a certain amount of crime in different parts of Ireland, and that was made a pretext of coercion, but to-day the absence of crime was made the basis of coercion. On a baseless pretext the Government sent down their pliant tools, the "removable and promotable" magistrates, to other districts than their own to try politicians, and then asked the country to believe that that was fair play. He warned the Chief Secretary that that course was useless and impotent against the courage and resolution of the people who were determined to have their rights. If the right hon. gentleman was going to fight his political opponents, let him do it fairly and not indulge in cheap sneers, which came badly from an overpaid official. The right hon. Attorney General for Ireland had now appeared in his place, and he would ask the House what they thought of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. At the last December Assizes there were a certain number of cases in the city of Cork. A young woman was charged with the crime, somewhat rare in Ireland, of infanticide. Over a hundred jurors were on the list, and eighty were in the Court House. It must be remembered that these men, who were mustered and pushed about by policemen, had to come there under a penalty of £20. As the jurors came forward one by one they were ordered to stand down to the number of sixty-four, by the direction of the right hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-General. This young woman was charged with larceny. It was an ordinary crime, calling for no special conditions, but in this case, out of seventy jurors in the Court no less than fifty-nine were ordered to "stand by." He could give the House dozens of cases of this kind, but he would confine himself to these two as typical of the manner in which the stream of justice was polluted.

  139
  After the Counsel for the Crown had ordered those fifty-nine jurors to "stand by," thus impugning their honour, there were only three jurors left, and the Court at last had to go back on those fifty-nine to obtain the remaining nine who were required. That was the justice they were getting in Ireland in the twentieth century, and it was the sort of thing that was constantly going on. It would be an enormous tax on one's industry to follow closely all the cases. He had with him at least one dozen such cases, and when all this jury packing was going on, Irish Members were told to come to the House of Commons, and with bated breath listen to the philanthropic deeds of a well-paid Chief Secretary, and Attorney-General for Ireland. Could the House be surprised that under these circumstances in Ireland there existed at the present moment a strong contempt for government carried on in this way?
  MR. POWERsaid the House had just listened to the Speech from the Throne, and, as far as his experience went, he thought there had rarely been a more unsatisfactory Speech from the Throne. The Speech was as remarkable for what it did not say as for what it did say. They would remember that at the commencement of last session people were very much agitated, both in Ireland and in this country, upon the question of the oath that the King took upon his accession. So deep an impression was made upon the public mind, that, after much correspondence, a Committee was appointed to consider this matter, and upon that Committee several experts upon theological law were placed That Committee sat many times, and as a result of their deliberations, I believe some sort of compromise was arrived at, and their recommendations showed at endeavour to remove the objection which Roman Catholics felt upon that question. Naturally, they all expected that some results would come from that report, and they certainly expected that in the Session something would be done to meet the feelings of Roman Catholics in the matter. Looking over the history of Ireland, he was reluctantly compelled to confess that bigotry on the part of British statesmen had had much to do with the present unsatisfactory system of government in Ireland. Any person who studies politics would come to the con-
  140
  clusion that a great deal of the difficulties met with in dealing with Ireland had arisen from the bigotry with which British statesmen had treated the religious question in Ireland.
  Upon the question of a Catholic University they should have had some statement in the Speech from the Throne, holding out some hope to the Irish people. The question of a Catholic University had almost passed the stage of argument, and most people would acknowledge that the Irish people had a distinct grievance upon this subject. He had heard the question debated again and again in the House. He had heard it put forward by the First Lord of the Treasury, and he had heard him ask his supporters what answer they could give to the case. They had heard no answer to the question which was satisfactory or worthy of being called argument. Mention was made in the Speech from the Throne of some Bill dealing with education in this country. Education in Ireland was dislocated, and they had a Board of Education in Ireland which possessed very little confidence on the part of the people, and what little confidence they had, entirely disappeared when the Archbishop of Dublin was compelled to resign his seat upon that Board. He certainly thought that when the Government were introducing legislation for England with regard to education something should be done to popularise to some extent education in Ireland. The first thing they had got to do in Ireland was to bring the Education Board in touch with the people, and until they did that they could not have any satisfactory administration in regard to education.
  One paragraph in the Speech from the Throne dealt with the necessity for land legislation. A Bill on the subject might be introduced, but he doubted very much, in view of the programme which had been put forward, whether the Bill promised on this subject would ever come to the second reading. But even if it did the measure was handicapped by their own action. In Ireland the Government placed a premium upon agitation by refusing to do anything until they agitated, and when agitation got on foot they tried to choke it off by coercion, although they might afterwards adopt the tenets of the agitators. It had been so in the past and it was so in the present. Looking back over the last twenty years

  141
  who could deny that the Land Act was the result of the Land League agitation? The benefits which had been given by the Land Courts were the direct result of the well known "Plan of Campaign," and even Lord Salisbury and others denounced the idea of allowing these owners to apply to the Land Courts.
  There was another consideration which enormously handicapped Ireland, as well as every other part of the kingdom, and that was the present war. The South African war, of which they had heard so much, had affected every class of the community, and it certainly had had an injurious influence on the Land Question in Ireland. Before this wretched war sprang up, a landlord was able to obtain from £110 to £112 for his land stock, but owing to the war, which had dragged on for some years, that same land stock, if placed on the market to-day, would not fetch more that £93. That was a consideration which must effect any landlord who contemplated selling. This voluntary system for the sale of land had proved of no use whatever, and in the North, South, East, and West of Ireland the people had joined together in favour of the demand for compulsory sale. He noticed that in the Speech from the Throne there was no very definite mention of the probable cessation of the war. Last year certain conjectures were made upon this question, but subsequent events proved that they were entirely wrong. The whole thing would have been prevented had we had Statesmen at the head of affairs who would control their tongues and temper for the sake of the country. The country did not know when we went to war what we were going to war for, but it did know that nine-tenths of the differences were settled, and for the other tenth the country had been plunged into a war which would prove one of the most costly wars in which we had ever been engaged. And these people, who were thought to fall such an easy prey, will live in history as having made the most gallant stand that ever people made in defence of their hearth and home. In the previous session he had ventured to speak against the £100,000 grant to Lord Roberts. One of the reasons Lord Roberts gave for annexation was that the war had descended to the guerilla stage, and was no longer carried on in the ordinary way of military operations. He was of opinion that the war was still
  142
  carried on by the Boers by proper military operations, and he thought the annexation by Lord Roberts was not right because by that means he was enabled to employ forces against the Boers he would not have been able to employ against ordinary belligerents. These men were not rebels in the ordinary sense of the term. The telegrams which had appeared in The Times newspaper clearly proved that so far from the war having descended to a guerilla stage, it was being carried on on the principle of regular military manœuvres, and it was a most ungallant thing to make these men rebels who had made so great a stand for their home and country. The people of England had proved they were favourable to the war, but the representatives of Ireland were returned pledged to vote against the expenditure in regard to the war. It might be said that those who sat with him had no right to speak for Ireland, but no one had a greater right to voice the views of Ireland than those elected to represent her, and they would be false to themselves and the people of Ireland if they did not proclaim in the House, as they had done in their own constituencies, that they had opposed this war as being an unjustifiable war, and one which had been waged on behalf of capitalists, stock-brokers, and grabbers of mineral wealth.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL,said he had never befors intervened in the debate upon the Address, and he only intervened on the present occasion in order to direct the attention to the House to the fact that a Member of the House was in prison owing to the action of a Member of the Executive of the House. The Chief Secretary was as responsible for the imprisonment of Mr. O'Conor Kelly as if he had actually arrested him. A great outrage had been perpetrated on the Irish representation by the imprisonment of the Member who, however, was perfectly willing to undergo any hardships for the cause; but by the action of the Executive he had been hindered in attending to his parliamentary duties. Mr. O'Conor Kelly in December last was addressing his constituents on the subject of compulsory land purchase, at a meeting which was absolutely legal, and there being no proclamation by the Government that the meeting should not be held, and he was thereupon prosecuted for illegal assembly. How

  143
  was that done? Under the law of England the first proceeding would be by summons before a magistrate, then by indictment, and finally by trial before a jury, but in Mr. O'Conor Kelly's case the magistrate had been precluded from hearing it. The Chief Secretary sent down the Crown Advocate, who was to prosecute, and removable magistrates, who gave the judgment they were sent down to give; they had simply carried out their orders. These men were, under the power of the right hon. Gentleman, removable without a moment's notice. They were his judical utensils, and he has used them against his own colleague in the House. He appealed to any lawyer in the House whether the question of the meeting being legal or illegal was not one involving most grave considerations in law. The authorities on the matter were exact upon the fact that an assembly in order to be illegal must have used threats of violence or be accompanied by violence, but this meeting was perfectly peaceful. When the Chief Secretary sent these gentlemen down he knew perfectly well what they would do. The removable magistrates were the out-at-elbow retainers of the Irish Executive. He never paid attention to annonymous letters when they came to him, but he remembered receiving one from the Cape, which stated that a resident magistrate, who had been actively engaged in prosecuting Members of Parliament, had been dismissed for gross peculation from a Cape Regiment. If the Government did not know his antecedents when they appointed him, how did they come to appoint him? If they did they were despicably base. He appealed to the Chief Secretary to defend himself against the accusation made against the Government of Ireland that this prosecution of Mr. O'Conor Kelly was evidence of the cowardice of the Government and of the rancour and barbarity of the Chief Secretary himself. He greatly regretted that in the Speech from the Throne there was no mention of any repeal or modification of the Titus Oates declaration put into the mouth of the King. He had raised the question in Committee of Supply as to whether the law officers of the Crown had any knowledge of law or anything at all, except their salaries, in drafting the declaration. He was then told he was out of order, that it was the collective effort of the
  144
  Government. The declaration made by the King on February 14th last was not in accordance with the Bill of Rights; he was wrongly advised. The law officers, who had had no refreshers in the case, said the King could make the declaration. He wished them to tell the King to make it again on the day of his coronation, and he wished the Government then a happy deliverance from the Irish Nation. The hon. Member for North Islington had, in December, 1900, commented on the fact that there were too many relatives in the Government. He had heard that Lord Salisbury was about to resign, and his feelings had been relieved when the chorus of relatives had implored him not to do so. He would tell Lord Salisbury that charity should not begin at home, when that charity was administered out of public funds. He had not intended to make a speech, but "out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaketh." He would ask first of all the Chief Secretary to defend the appointment of a poor relation of his. It was well known that whosoever provided not for his own family was more than an infidel, and that being so his observations might be called scurrillous, therefore he would justify them. He was now able, after 14 years, to quote to the House a begging letter from a family with which the right hon. Gentleman ought to be acquainted. (The hon. Member proceeded to read a letter soliciting, on purely personal grounds, an appointment as stipendiary magistrate for a Mr. Fitz Patrick.) The person alluded to eventually received the appointment. It was true that the letter was dated some time back, but things were as bad now as then, and such individuals were put in a position to consign more respectable gentlemen than themselves to prison cells for political purposes. Similar letters were written by Lord Monk and others; in fact, the resident magistracy was a means for providing out of public funds for the out-at-elbow protegees of the landlord class. It would require all the right honourable Gentleman's powers of "brilliant oration" to answer the indictment brought against him. The hon. Member then referred to the case of a man named M'Gally, 68 years of age, greatly respected in County Sligo, who was sentenced by the "Removables" to a month's imprisonment. The magistrates were asked, but refused, to increase the term by one day, in order to give a right of

  145
  appeal, thus showing they distrusted the decision of the superior Court. In England there was an appeal possible in every case tried at Petty Sessions, but no appeal was allowed in Ireland. When the Coercion Act of 1887 was going through Committee the matter was pointed out, and the present First Lord of the Treasury, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, said it was a mere omission, and pledged himself that there should be an appeal in every case. The exact words of the right hon. Gentleman would be found in Hansard for May 17th, 1887. That pledge had been flagrantly disregarded. If the humblest English Member was treated as Mr. O'Conor Kelly had been the House would consider itself to have been insulted. Unfortunately, however, there was one rule for English and another for Irish Members, and the sooner that was clearly understood the better. Moreover, the Chief Secretary had violated the promise of the First Lord of the Treasury, that under no circumstances would the Coercion Act be put into operation unless first of all there had been a proclamation placing the county under its provisions. No portion of Mayo had been proclaimed, nor could it be, because for two years there had been no case of serious crime in the county. The whole system was an infamous contrivance for hindering the Parliamentary representatives of Ireland from doing their proper work. The Chief Secretary could give no reply as to Fitzpatrick's qualifications, nor as to why he chose two promoted police-constables to try Mr. Kelly on a highly technical offence; he could only maintain his place and pose in the House; but he (the hon. Member) warned the right hon Gentleman that if he attempted any outrage on Irish Members, they would make it very difficult and very unpleasant for him.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: As the Chief Secretary of Ireland does not rise to reply to the indictment of my hon. friend who has just spoken, I desire to call the attention of the House to a matter which I think ought to occupy its attention. I do not propose to go into the South African question generally—that is reserved for the Amendment to be moved subsequently—but I wish to call attention to the present condition of the Cape of Good Hope with regard to the violations of the Constitution which have
  146
  taken place and are taking place there now. To my mind, perhaps the most melancholy thing at the Cape, next to the devastation of the territory as a consequence of the war, is the abolition of all the rights of British subjects in a self-governing colony. Only think what the condition of the Cape was before the war begun! One of the most thriving parts of His Majesty's dominions, where every British subject was free—as free as we are in England; described by Lord Milner at that time as a country distinguished for its loyalty in both races there. It had the eulogium of the First Lord of the Admiralty for its handsome contribution to our Navy, voted, mind you, by a Parliament which consisted not only of British subjects but of Dutch subjects. When we consider that at this moment that territory has no rights, that it has lost all the advantages and privileges which belong to freemen, of which we are so proud and which we say we are going to communicate to the dominions that we have conquered, I think the House of Commons, which ought to be vindicators of the liberities of British subjects all over the world, ought at least to consider what is the situation of British subjects in Cape Colony.
  It is called a self-governing Colony. How is the self-government of the Colony guaranteed by law? Under the Constitution of the Cape there is this provision which is embodied in Article 77 of the document of 1853—I may be mistaken, but I think I am right in saying there has been no alteration in its stipulations:
  "And be it enacted that there shall be a Session of Parliament of the Cape of Good Hope once at least in every year, so that a period of 12 calendar months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the said Parliament in one Session and its first sitting in the next."
  Nothing could be more precise than that. Now, the last sitting of the Cape Parliament was on October 13th, 1900. The consequence was that by the law of the Constitution it was absolutely necessary to call Parliament together at the expiration of 12 months, and any further prorogation was illegal. Therefore a crime against the Constitution of Cape Colony by breaking the law has been committed ever since October 13th last by not calling Parliament together. I was surprised to hear the First Lord

  147
  of the Treasury in concert with the Colonial Secretary say, "Oh, but that was advised by the Ministers of the Crown." What power have the Ministers of the Crown to abolish the Constitution? Is it possible to exhibit more extraordinary ignorance of the first principles of the Constitution of this country or of a self-governing Colony than to say that the Ministers, in collusion with the representative of the Crown, can at their will and pleasure prevent Parliament meeting in accordance with the law? Here is the actual law, which I will quote, if I may be permitted to do so, from the Constitution of the Cape:
  "And be it enacted that there shall be a session of the Parliament of the Cape of Good Hope once at least in every year, so that a period of twelve calendar months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the said Parliament of one session and its first sitting in the next."
  But we are told that the Ministers of the Crown advised the Government to prorogue Parliament contrary to that Act. On the 13th of October last the prorogation of that Parliament was an illegal act. Oh, but it is said, that was done on the advice of the Ministers. That is the doctrine of the Stuarts. That is the way Charles I. and Charles II. and James II. conducted affairs. The Ministers of the Crown advised the Crown not to call Parliament together.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is the right hon. Gentleman quoting what I said? I said the Ministers of the Colony.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Ministers of the Colony advised the Governor, who is the representative of the Crown, to break the law and not to call Parliament together. I say that is a grossly unconstitutional and illegal act I challenge anybody to contradict me. Conceive what the consequence is. Suppose a set of Ministers think they will find Parliament inconvenient and not likely to give them a majority. They recommend the Governor not to call the Parliament together and to prorogue it. If this can be done—and it has now been done for many months—there is nothing to prevent its being done for many years.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman may find it extremely
  148
  convenient not to call the Parliament of the Cape together.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no power.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: You have the power. Who is the man who is responsible for the law being broken? The Governor. The Governor is not bound to take the advice of the Ministers to break the law. If he looks at the records of the Colonial Office he will find that the Government has supported the Governors of the Colonies in preventing laws being passed, and certainly he would have the power to prevent them assenting to an illegal act. If he is so advised he can say: "I have no power to break the law. That is advice I cannot take." It is quite plain that if the right hon. Gentleman is right the Ministers may prevent Parliament ever meeting at all. If the Governor is bound to follow the advice of the Ministers, what you say is this—that it is in the power of the Executive Government to destroy the self-government of a Colony which has been conferred upon it by the Crown and by Parliament. That is the course you are adopting. The Executive has no such power. It cannot be denied that if this practice is to be continued the self-government of the Cape will be perpetually destroyed, as it is at this moment destroyed. There is no self-government at the Cape at this moment. What is the position of these Ministers? The Leader of the House said that Ministers are the creatures of Parliament and its majority, and it may sometimes be a very convenient thing to destroy the Parliament. Who is to call these Ministers to account? By what right are they Ministers, and by what right is Sir Gordon Sprigg a Minister? It is because he is supposed to enjoy the confidence of Parliament, but when Parliament is destroyed what is the position of Sir Gordon Sprigg and whose confidence does he enjoy? It is monstrous to assert that it rests with the temporary Executive to destroy the self-government of a Colony by violating the law which guarantees the existence of its Parliament. That is a constitutional proposition which I defy any man to contradict or refute. It may be necessary that the Parliament should be suspended, and that you should make provision for the suspension of the Consti-

  149
  tution; but how is that to be done? It is to be done as was done in Canada in 1838. If the Colonial Secretary will condescend to read the speech of Lord John Russell on that subject when he introduced the Bill for the temporary Government of Canada, he will find some sound constitutional doctrines which I think he will do well to apply in this case. You cannot abolish the Constitution of a self-governing colony by any other process than by Imperial action, and when the Government of Canada was suspended it was by Act of Parliament. He said that for a Minister of the day to take upon himself to advise the perpetual prorogation, and destroy the Parliament of a self-governing colony, was a monstrous doctrine which I venture to say there is not a British Colony would be found to accept. That is a doctrine of a most mischievous character. What was done in the ease of Jamaica? When the then existing Government of Jamaica was done away with the local Government surrendered its existing Constitution into the hands of the Crown, and then the Crown, with Parliament, made a new settlement and a new Constitution. Where the local Government considered it desirable or necessary to alter the Constitution the proper course would be for the Parliament of the Colony to give its consent to a new Constitution being framed; but to say that it rests with a temporary Minister of the Crown to prevent the Parliament of the Cape of Good Hope meeting is a doctrine altogether subversive of the liberties of the people of the Cape of Good Hope now and hereafter. For what security is there that this Minister, or any other Minister, will not prevent the Parliament meeting? If it is necessary to make a change in the government of the Cape of Good Hope it ought to be done under the authority of the Parliament. It could not be done simply by the act of a single Minister, who in point of fact only derives his authority from the Parliament which practically he abolishes. That is my objection to the course now taken, and I say, if it be necessary to suspend the Parliament of the Cape, it cannot be done by the Executive Government. It ought only to be done by the consent of the local Parliament or by the Imperial Parliament, as in the case of Canada in 1838.
  There is another matter which grievously affects British subjects at the Cape of Good Hope, and that is the question of martial law. On this subject we are
  150
  left in total ignorance. We do not know how it is administered; but it is plain from such information as we have got that there is no man at the Cape at the present time whe is secure of his life, or liberty, or property being dealt with according to the law of the land. What is martial law? There are two things which are sometimes confounded, military law and martial law. Military law is a code for the government of soldiers. It is administered upon definite principles according to the Articles of War, and people know what military law means. It has certain defined proceedings and is contained in a code. But martial law is not law at all. It has been laid down by Lord Hale that it is "a thing which is indulged rather than allowed." Martial law is an illegal exercise of force necessary upon an emergency to preserve the peace. Do hon. Gentlemen, opposite agree with that? Very well but martial law is an emergency law. It occurs in a riot, in a rebellion, and in an invasion. I am apparently stating the law agreeably to hon. Members opposite. I hope they will equally agree with the conclusions I am going to draw from that. It is a great thing to have your premises granted and then one feels pretty easy about one's conclusions. I have said that martial law is essentially an emergency law, as it is, according to all the principles laid down by lawyers and by constitutional statesmen, a law which is justifiable only by necessity, because there is no other law available. When the Courts are open—and I am going to quote some authorities even greater than the First Lord of the Treasury upon this subject—and when the common law can determine a thing, martial law ought not to operate.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdissented.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if I am not wearying the House, I should like just to read an opinion. The able law officers of the Crown of to-day will admit that there never were greater law officers of the Crown, than those who signed the opinion which I am about to read, Campbell and Rolfe. No greater names in questions of this kind could be quoted, and I will read their definition of martial law to the House. This is the opinion which, in the case of Canada, was

  151
  given to the Government of Canada when they proposed to proclaim and maintain martial law in Canada in 1838:—
  "The right of resorting to such an extremity is a right arising from, and limited by, the necessity of the case."
  Now here comes a bit of Latin. I will, according to the old saying, veil the sentiment under the cloak of an ancient language:—
  "Quod necessitas cogit, defendit. For this reason we are of opinion that the prerogative does not extend beyond the case of persons taken in open resistance."
  Do you cheer that?
  "And with whom, by reason of the suspension of the ordinary tribunals, it is impossible to deal according to the regular course of justice."
  That is exactly the definition given by Lord Coke when he says:—"Peace is when the Courts of Justice are open." People must be taken in resistance, and there must be no possibility of trying them by the ordinary law. Everybody knows that in the great rebellions of '15 and '45 traitors were tried by the Courts of Law, and even in the Bloody Assize during the Monmouth rebellion, which made the name of Jeffreys infamous, it was not by martial law that people were tried. Well, the opinion goes on:
  "When the regular Courts are open so that the criminals might be delivered over to them to be dealt with according to law, there is not, as we conceive, any right in the Crown to adopt any other course of proceeding."
  And mark this. This is really my conclusion:
  "Such power can only be conferred by the Legislature, as was done by the Act passed in consequence of the Irish rebellions of 1798 and 1803, and also by this Irish Coercion Act of 1833. From the foregoing observations, your lordships will perceive that the question how far martial law when in force supersedes the ordinary tribunals can never in our view of the case arise. Martial law is stated by Lord Hale to be in truth no law, but something rather indulged than allowed as law, and it can only be tolerated because, by reason of open rebellion, the enforcing of any other law becomes impossible."
  I agree with that altogether.
  "The question is, is it impossible that any other law in a case of this kind is impossible; and it cannot be said in strictness to supersede the ordinary tribunals inasmuch as it only exists by reason of these tribunals having been already practically superseded. It is hardly necessary for us to add that in our view of the case martial law can never be enforced for the ordinary purposes of civil or even criminal justice, except in the latter, so far as the
  152
  necessity arising from actual resistance compels its adoption."
  That I believe to be an absolutely accurate statement of the constitutional law of this country, and it amounts to this—that martial law, if established chronically, must be authorized by Act of Parliament. But this martial law rests only on the authority of the Executive, without any definition of the method or the means by which it is to be executed, and that is contrary to the Constitution of this country. It is contrary to the practice and the traditions of this country. If you want martial law established, you ought to establish it by Act of Parliament.
  If I am not wearying the House I want to establish the proposition, one of the greatest consequence to all of us, that it is not in the power of the Executive to destroy the liberties of the community without the authority of Parliament. Of course, if there was any Parliamentary authority at the Cape, you might establish martial law; but you have destroyed the Parliament which could give the authority and, therefore, the only authority that can be given must be given here. I am now going to quote a great authority, Sir James Mackintosh in the case of Demarara. This is his statement of the case:—
  "The Irish Statue, 39 George III., c. 2, after reciting that martial law had been successfully exercised to the restoration of peace so far as to permit the course of the common law partially to take place, but that the rebellion continues to rage in considerable parts of the kingdom, whereby it has become necessary for Parliament to interpose, goes on to enable the Lord Lieutenant to punish rebels by Courts-martial. This statute is the most positive declaration that where the common law can be exercised in some parts of the country, martial law cannot be established in others, though rebellion actually prevails in these others, without an extraordinary interposition of the supreme legislative authority itself."
  If there be a rebellion raging in one part of the country, and there is another part of the country where the Courts of Law are open and can be applied to, it is before these Courts of Law, and not before military tribunals, that the subject is to be brought. That is the constitutional doctrine, and to depart from it is most mischievous and most dangerous.
  "Thus the matter stands," says Sir James Macintosh, "by the law of nations; but by this law of England it cannot be exercised except where the jurisdiction of Courts of Justice is interrupted by violence."
  [Hear, hear! from Ministerialists] Yes; but is it interrupted at the Cape by violence?

  153
  I am informed that the Courts of Law are sitting all over the Cape, and are administering the law and are fit to try these cases. And, therefore, you have no right to call cases before the military tribunals. I admit there may be circumstances—I have not seen them stated—which might make it necessary to authorise martial law, even although the Courts were sitting; but that can only be done by statute. That has been laid down over and over again, and it is stated expressly in the statutes that martial law may be exercised "though Courts are sitting," this reservation showing that without special statutory authority martial law could not be exercised. There is another thing certain—that where martial law is exercised without the authority of a statute, you are obliged to come for an indemnity. And in all these cases—you may go back, strangely enough, to the time of Wat Tyler's rebellion for the instances—of martial law exercised without special authority there is a statute of indemnity brought in. I should like to call attention to a very remarkable example of this which took place in the island of St. Vincent, where martial law had been exercised and the Government brought in a Bill of indemnity when they had had recourse to martial law. They sent home this Act of Indemnity, and the Act stated that it had been lawfully and necessarily exercised. The Colonial Secretary of those days, the Duke of Newcastle, wrote back and said:—
  "The first clause declares the proclamation of martial law to have been lawfully issued, but this is not the fact and ought not to have been so declared. In proclaiming martial law the executive authority in fact declares it is obliged for the protection of the community to neglect the law, trusting to the Legislature to relieve all who in obedience to the constituted authority may have acted in defiance of the law for the public safety, protecting them from the consequences of acting unlawfully. The proclamation was right and necessary, but it was not strictly lawful, and to declare it so would be to endanger a most important constitutional principle."
  Thus the Colonial Secretary of a free country would not allow martial law to be recited even in an Act of Indemnity as a lawful act. The Act of Indemnity was required because it was an illegal act; and therefore I would confidently state that martial law by the sole authority of the Executive is justi-
  154
  fiable just as certain homicides are justifiable, and that you may defend yourself by killing another man in an emergency, but in the ordinary case you must take your remedy in the Courts of Law. So in regard to martial law. The emergency at the time and the preservation of peace are to be dealt with by the Executive, but if martial law becomes chronic, if it is to exist in a state of society where you have the Courts of Law acting side by side with martial law, then it can be only under the authority of Parliament which regulates the conduct of that martial law. That is what was done in 1833 when the tremendous Coercion Act of Ireland was passed. You should take care to see that precautions are taken in measures of this character. When martial law was enforced in the Act of 1833 care was taken to regulate these Courts-martial. In the first place the authority was placed in the Lord Lieutenant. He was to authorise a field officer to convene a Court-martial. There were not to be less than five nor more than nine men on the Court-martial. I wonder if that is the case at the Cape! I am told that it is only three. If so, it is a distinct violation of the securities which have been given to leave a decision which might involve life or death at the Cape to three men. The security is this, that out of nine men seven have to concur to give the sentence. Is that the case with the Courts-martial at the Cape? I do not know; we have had no information, but this Parliament ought to ask for the information. We ought to have an official statement of the constitution of these Courts-martial, on what principles they are administered, and whether they are regulated as they have been regulated before by this House. With less than nine, five must concur under the Act of 1833, and there is to be no officer upon a Court-martial under the rank of captain. Is that rule observed at the Cape? The parties are to have counsel and attorneys to examine and cross-examine witnesses as in a Court of Law. Is that the case with Courts-martial at the Cape? That is why I say if you are to have martial law, not to be enforced in an emergency but as a regular system going on in administering the law, then it must be based under the authority of the Parliament of the Cape; but you have destroyed the Parliament of the Cape. It is prorogued again, though the

  155
  right hon. Gentleman said last year that it would meet in October.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I reported the statement made by the Prime Minister of Cape Colony; I offered no opinion.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: You approved of it.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Of what?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have no objection to the prorogation if it is within the terms of the Act, but after October 13th it was an absolutely illegal act in regard to every one who took part in it. The right hon. Gentleman was an accessory after the fact. There are penalties even for that.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: If it is a crime.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not know exactly how we are to proceed in the matter, but I would venture to suggest that if this transaction is to take place it ought to be legalized. There may arise occasions where it is necessary to suspend the Parliament. It can be legalized by an Act of the Imperial Legislature. There may be cases where you find a condition of society in which there is need for a continuing chronic state of martial law. That must be legalized by statute, in order that you may have provisions giving security to the subjects that no greater suspension of their liberties may be made than is necessary. By the suspension of the Constitution of the Cape and the administration of martial law you have set the example of violating the law, and you ought to come to Parliament for an Act of Indemnity, and if you want to continue the administration of martial law you ought to get a statute authorizing the suspension of the ordinary law. In that way you would pay respect to the true principle of self-government and follow the traditions of a law-abiding country.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In replying to any speech that may be made from the Benches opposite I have always to bear in mind that it is the earnest desire of every Member there to bring the war to a successful issue. I try to keep that in mind even after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall not impute to him any motive inconsistent with what I suppose to be his intention, though I am bound to say I do not think that the method he has taken is the one most
  156
  likely to carry out his object. The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech to-night in which he has dealt with two subjects, first the postponement of the meeting of the Cape Parliament, contrary to the provisions of the Cape Constitution, and, secondly, he has complained of the institution of martial law in Cape Colony. He did not say a word about the institution of martial law in Natal, where it has existed for two years with the full assent of the population, and where Parliament is still sitting, and no opposition has been manifested.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I suppose Parliament has authorised it.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: But the right hon. Gentleman desires, I understand, to alter the situation in these two respects; he requires the intervention of the Imperial Government to force a meeting of the Cape Parliament against the wishes of the Ministers of a majority of the Cape population. He also desires that by some Act of the Imperial Parliament we should prevent the operation of martial law in a self-governing colony.
  SIR WILLIAM. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I did not say to prevent the operation of martial law. If it is necessary you should authorize, legalize, and regularise it.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: He contends that the Cape Parliament in a self-governing colony has no authority whatever to institute martial law—
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If the Cape Parliament existed it could authorize it.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman wait until I have finished my sentence? Are those Ministers of the majority of the Cape Parliament, in the absence of a session, to have no authority whatever in the government of the Colony to authorise the institution of martial law without a Bill of Indemnity, forsooth, from the Imperial Parliament? I have stated what I believe to be the right hon. Gentleman's object, and there is no doubt whatever he has raised two questions of immense importance, which, if decided in his sense, would undoubtedly provoke an immense amount of comment and of unfavourable criticism in our self-governing colonies. But whilst bringing forward views of this enormous importance the right hon.

  157
  Gentleman confines himself to general statements and does not follow his speech by any Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I want to know what your martial law is. I demand an account of this martial law, and you ride off upon this taunt.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was a lawyer, a constitutional lawyer, and should have thought he knew better than myself what martial law is. I am going to tell him before I sit down; but whatever it may be it does not touch this question in the least, this double question, whether the Imperial Government should interfere in the matter of a meeting of the Cape Parliament, and, secondly, whether we should interfere with the martial law to which the Cape Government has given consent. I say again these are questions involving the relations of the United Kingdom with its colonies of such enormous importance that if the right hon. Gentleman thought proper to bring them forward at all he ought to have concluded with an Amendment and taken a decision of the House upon his views. In my opinion it is monstrous to raise questions of this delicate character, closely affecting the powers of self-governing colonies, without, at all events, having the courage to tak the opinion of the House upon them. Both these questions are questions for a self-governing colony, and I might very easily rest myself there, but I do not choose to do so. I am perfectly ready to give the House the opinion of the Government on this action by the Government of a self-governing colony, and I believe it is entirely right in both instances. I am not responsible for it, but I entirely approve of it. It is not my business to accept responsibility, and it would be an impertinence for me to interfere with the responsibility of the Cape Government. But I thoroughly approve of the decisions which they have taken in both cases. I think they were absolutely right to postpone the meeting of Parliament, and absolutely right to call for the institution of martial law throughout Cape Colony. Having said in the clearest and frankest way that I am in entire agreement with the action of the Cape Colony, I am obliged again to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that his attack is distinctly an attack upon the Ministers of
  158
  a self-governing colony, and that it is entirely inconsistent with all that interest in self-government, which from him, claiming to be a representative of the older Liberalism and taking credit for the institution of self-governing colonies, comes ill. The Ministers of the Colony, he says—for this cannot possibly apply to the Imperial Government—are adopting the doctrines of the Stuarts; they are guilty of grossly illegal and unconstitutional acts. I rather object to adjectives which are unnecessary and offensive; but the words "illegal and unconstitutional" I admit—that is to say, the Ministers of Cape Colony have taken upon themselves to decline to fulfil the conditions of the Constitution and the law. That is an illegal act. The Ministers of this country, although we have not lived in such troublous times and in such circumstances of emergency, have, even in times of perfect peace, done illegal and unconstitutional acts from time to time, and we have had to come to the House of Commons for an indemnity. The Ministers of Cape Colony express their full intention and perfect readiness at the proper time to go to their Parliament and ask them for an indemnity for the act which they believe now, in the interest of the Colony and of the Empire, they are forced to take. That is the position. What is the use of all this legal lore? If it were a question of the Courts I should not presume to stand up against the right hon. Gentleman; but it is a question of common sense, and, if I may use an expression which is sure to be a popular one in the present session, it is a question of "efficiency," in the presence of a great emergency, and of a war which is calling for great sacrifices from the Cape Colony as well as from the mother country.
  Now, Sir, what is the position of the right hon. Gentleman? I have stated the facts. An illegal and unconstitutional act has been committed by the Cape Ministers, who say that they will ask for an indemnity when the exceptional circumstances have come to an end. I quite understand that, when the Government of a self-governing colony does anything which the right hon. Gentleman does not like, his affection for self-government becomes tepid. [Hon. Members: Oh!] But that is not the point. The right hon. Gentleman contends that these Ministers having taken

  159
  this action, the Imperial Government should interfere to prevent them; and he says that the Governor of Cape Colony is our servant, and that the Governor of Cape Colony could, if we chose, refuse to give his assent to the proposals of the Cape Ministry. Yes, that is perfectly true. Theoretically, this Parliament can pass laws for all the colonies. Theoretically, the Governor, under instructions from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, can veto every Bill passed by every Colonial Parliament. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that we should take advantage of that power? Clearly not. I do not attribute such a ridiculous position to him. Then, does he contend that this is such an exceptional circumstance that we are bound to interfere and to set ourselves up against what is not only the decision of the existing Cape Government, which is the only Government that we can recognise, but what is, I believe, the view of the great majority of the population of Cape Colony, whether Dutch or English? Sir, in the first place, as I have frankly stated, we entirely agree with the view which they have taken. But if I disagreed, I cannot conceive it possible that I should venture to advise the House to support me in going against the decision of the Cape Government in such circumstances. There may be occasions in which this right of Imperial veto and control may still have to be exercised; but only in cases in which Imperial interests are concerned—never in cases in which the circumstances are such as to concern the internal affairs of the Colony alone.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This is not the Secretary of State vetoing an Act sent up to him. It is a Ministry violating a law.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman raises another question, with which I will deal when I come to his objection to martial law. But my case is that, whatever the Cape Government has done, we have no right to interfere unless Imperial interests are concerned. I say in this case no Imperial interests are concerned, and therefore I would not interfere even if I disapproved of the action of the Cape Ministry. I do not disapprove of the action of the Cape Ministry, and so long as His Majesty's present Government are in office we will give them all the support we can possibly give them.
  I come now, Sir, to the second
  160
  question which the right hon. Gentleman has raised—the question of martial law. Anybody would think that the right hon. Gentleman was hardly aware that there was any emergency at all. He talks as though we were in times of peace, and he argues as one might argue in a Court of Law. But the whole position of the Cape Government and of this Government is that an emergency has arisen, and in case of an emergency martial law is the abrogation of the ordinary law and the substitution of an arbitrary law. There is no doubt about that. That, again, is common sense, as well as good law. The right hon. Gentleman comes down here and tells us that the ordinary Courts of law are superseded.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said they are sitting.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: But that they are superseded in certain cases by the Courts of martial law. That is perfectly true, and that might cause us to shiver or to be indignant, according as if we were frightened or angry, if we were dealing with ordinary times, with times of peace. But we are dealing with times of emergency. We are dealing with times of war. We are dealing with more than that. We are dealing with times of rebellion; and I do not care a scrap for the legal authorities on one side or the other, which the right hon. Gentleman may quote as decisions which ought to govern the decisions of the Executive Government. I say, if the law is broken, it is to the existing Law Courts that you must go for a decision on that point. I say the Government has only to deal with an emergency which exists, and to take advantage of the universal practice, not of this country, but of all countries in such a case, to abrogate the ordinary law. The right hon. Gentleman tries to make out that there is something exceptional in the fact that martial law exists, and has been operative in Cape Colony at the same time that the ordinary Courts of Law are sitting. I believe he insinuates that that is an illegal position. Very well, let him bring it before the Privy Council. [Opposition cries of "Oh!"] I do not mean a personal appeal. Let it be brought before the Privy Council. The Privy Council still sits in this country and could decide a question of that kind; and, although I fear to tread upon ground with which I am unfamiliar, I believe that the Privy Council has been appealed to in

  161
  precisely that case, and that the Privy Council has given its decision, which happens to be opposite to that which has been expressed to the House of Commons by the right hon. Gentleman. The opinion of the Privy Council is good enough for me. What the right hon. Gentleman wants, is that I should set myself up, not as a lawyer, but arbitrarily as an executive authority, to overrule the judicial opinion and the wishes of the Cape Government, and to establish a law of my own.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: You ought to be made King.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his wishes for my elevation, but that is not my own ambition. Sir, martial law is, undoubtedly, a very disagreeable state of things, an abnormal state of things; what the right hon. Gentleman calls an illegal and unconstitutional state of things. But it is a state of things which every nation has found necessary in the circumstances in which we stand. If we are carrying on a war, and if there is rebellion in part of our own territory, the establishment of martial law has always followed, in past history, that state of things; it has followed that state of things to-day, and it appears to me to be justified. The only justification which I offer is the necessity of the case. The emergency is the justification. Sir, I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to bring this matter to the test of a division in the House of Commons. What form would his Amendment take? What are the questions which the House would have to decide? They would have to decide this. Is, in the present circumstances, martial law necessary? That is the first question. The second question would be, If martial law is to exist, ought it to be made effective? If he will move an amendment negativing these two propositions I am perfectly prepared to take issue with him and to take the sense of the House on the subject. The only effect of the action of the right hon. Gentleman, which is, as I say, inconsistent with the desire which I attribute to him to bring the war to a conclusion—the only effect would be to deprive us of a most important weapon, a weapon which has been found to be important in similar circumstances, which has been used, as I have said, by all belligerents in the same case, but of
  162
  which he, forsooth, wishes to deprive us in this particular struggle, with the certainty, if he did so, that it would prolong the continuance of the struggle. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that he wished to have these illegal proceedings legalized. Well, Sir, I pointed out, so far as martial law is concerned, that if any wrong has been done there is already a tribunal open to those who consider themselves aggrieved, before which they can bring their case, and by which they can have it settled. But, as regards the other point—the question of the postponement of the meeting of the Cape Parliament—that can be legalized, and will be legalized, by an Act of Indemnity. But it is not to this Parliament, at all events in the first instance, to which an appeal will be made to pass an Act of indemnity; it is to the Parliament of the Cape Colony.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: When is it going to meet?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: When is the war going to end?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: By the next general election.
  MR J. CHAMBERLAIN: I can say I can heartily share the hon. Gentleman's hope and expectation. But, clearly, that is the common-sense answer. The state of things to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, with regard to martial law especially, certainly will not end until the emergency ends. The time when the Ministers of the Cape Colony may think that it is right and proper to summon the Cape Parliament is for them to fix and not for me. But this I can say—the reasons which they gave, and which I read out to the House in the last session of Parliament for not calling that Parliament together, remain in full force. There is not one of the reasons they gave which does not exist at the present time, and, in these circumstances, the case is no stronger against postponement than it was then. I say again, with regard to the whole question, that in a war you must take the consequences. We are not now discussing the merits of the war—whether it is just or unjust. It is possible the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman may be more or less influenced by the view he takes of the character and justice of the war; but, at the present moment, that is not the subject of discussion. If you go to war you must take the consequences of war; certainly you must make the sacrifices

  163
  which are demanded in order to carry it to a successful conclusion. In my opinion, it would be the very height of folly either to abandon the power which is given to us by martial law at the present time, or to call together the Cape Parliament in existing circumstances, which would bring about a confusion which would give encouragement to the enemies of the country, which would, I believe, be a serious disadvantage to the Cape Colony, and which the Ministers of the Cape Colony entirely disapprove of.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY: I do not think I would be entirely misinterpreting the spirit of my constituents if I were to say that the legislative programme of the Government will not disappoint them, because they did not expect that His Majesty's Government would introduce any measure of very great importance in view of the war in which we are at present engaged. All of us, when we looked at the legislative programme, must have recognised that it contains many old friends; at any rate, they appear under the same old names. The first, is a measure to provide Londoners' with water, the second, is a measure to deal with the question of education, and the third is a measure dealing with Irish land. These questions, however, are not of deep interest to myself or my constituents, and I am somewhat doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was not quite right when he said that there was not a great deal of enthusiasm in regard to the prospects of an Education Bill. I know that in my constituency there are some who consider that we have spent a great deal too much money on education, and others who consider that money is not spent to the best advantage. We think that the money should have been spent in making for better efficiency. I do not think that any of the measures are likely to create very great interest to the large number of gentlemen who sit on this side of the House. As regards the Water Bill, ever since I have been a Member of this House a Water Bill has been with us. When the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Sleaford Division, was President of the Local Government Board we had frequent Water Bills before us; and even when gentlemen on the other side of the
  164
  House were on this side of the House I can remember several afternoons being spent in discussing the question of London Water supply. I do hope that the Government, if they proceed with this Bill, will attempt to do something final and settle the question. I will not labour the question of the Education Bill. However agreeable it may be to discuss the shortcomings of old friends I do not intend to deal with their Education Bill at any length. Suffice it to say that in 1896 this question was to be dealt with, and that after controversy it was decided that the best course the Government could pursue was to fulfil the promise given at the general election, to provide sufficient funds to make the voluntary schools efficient. Very few sessions have passed in which Irish Land Bills have not occupied a considerable time of the House. I think there are many on this side of the House who share the opinion that these measures are necessary, and we would heartily support the Government in carrying them into law. I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will not take it amiss if I ask him, in dealing with these questions, to look a little ahead and see that they are passed into law. I think my right hon. friend must understand the position of county Members like myself in dealing with matters in which they or their constituents are not particularly interested. Anxious as I am to support the Government and anxious as I believe my constituents are that the Government should have a large and united majority, I cannot help impressing on the First Lord of the Treasury, at this early period of the session, the necessity of as far as possible mapping out the time of the session, so that it should be used not merely for the purposes of idle debate, but rather for the discussion of Bills which are meant to be passed.
  DR. MACNAMARA(11.34).DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.) moved the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand the hon. Gentleman has moved the adjournment of the debate with a view of moving an Amendment to-morrow. I very much hope that we shall get over this preliminary discussion as soon as possible, and therefore I will not resist the motion of the hon. Gentleman.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Twelve o'clock.

THE KING'S SPEECH.
THE KING, being seated on the Throne, and the Commons being at the Bar with their Speaker, His Majesty was pleased to make a most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, and then retired.
His Majesty's Speech was as follows:—
"My Lords and Gentlemen,
"Since the close of the last Session of Parliament I have had the happiness to welcome back the Prince and Princess of Wales on their return from their lengthened voyage to various parts of My Empire. They have everywhere been received with demonstrations of the liveliest affection, and I am convinced that their presence has served to rivet more closely the bonds of mutual regard and loyalty by which the vigour of the Empire is maintained
"My relations with other Powers continue to be of a friendly character.
"I regret that the war in South Africa has not been yet concluded, though the
2
course of the operations has been favourable to our arms.
"The area of the war has been largely reduced, and industries are being resumed in My new Colonies. In spite of the tedious character of the campaign, My soldiers have throughout displayed a cheerfulness in the endurance of the hardships incident to guerilla warfare, and a humanity, even to their own detriment, in the treatment of the enemy, which is deserving of the highest praise.
"The necessity of relieving those of My troops who have most felt the strain of the war has afforded Me an opportunity of again availing myself of the loyal and patriotic offers of My Colonies, and further contingents will shortly reach South Africa from the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, and from New Zealand.
"On the invitation of the King of the Belgians, an International Conference on Sugar Bounties has recently reassembled at Brussels. I trust that its decision may lead to the abandonment of a system by which the sugar-producing Colonies, and the home manufactures of sugar, have been unfairly weighted in the prosecution of this most important industry.
"I have concluded with the President of the United States a Treaty, the provisions of which will facilitate the construction of an interoceanic canal under guarantees that its neutrality will be maintained, and that it will be open to the commerce and shipping of all nations.
"I have concluded a Treaty with the President of the United States of Brazil referring to arbitration questions relative to the frontier between My Colony of British Guiana and Brazil. I have much pleasure in stating that the King of Italy has consented to act as Arbitrator.
"In My Indian Empire the rainfall has been less abundant than was desired, and the continuance of relief measures, though on a less extensive scale than in the past year, will be necessary in certain parts of the Bombay Presidency and of the adjoining Native States. I anticipate a further improvement in the methods and efficiency of famine relief in the future from the labours of the Commission who have recently reported.
"The death of Abdur Rahman, the Ameer of Afghanistan, has been followed by the accession of his son and appointed heir, the Ameer Habibulla, who has expressed his earnest desire to maintain the friendly relations of Afghanistan with my Indian Empire.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"The Estimates for the service of the year will be laid before you. They have been framed as economically as a due regard to efficiency renders possible, in the special circumstances of the present exigency.
"My Lords and Gentlemen,
"Proposals for the co-ordination and improvement of primary and secondary education will be laid before you.
"A measure will be introduced for amending the administration of the water supply in the area at present controlled by the London Water Companies.
"A Bill for facilitating the sale and purchase of Land in Ireland will be submitted for your consideration.
"Measures will be proposed to you for improving the Law of Valuation; for amending the Law relating to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors and for the Regis-
4
tration of Clubs; for amending the Patent Law; and for sundry reforms in the Law of Lunacy.
"I pray that, in the consideration of these important questions, you may have the guidance and blessing of Almighty God."

The Earl of Lytton took the Oath.

SAT FIRST.
The Lord Stewart of Garlies (E. Galloway) sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.
The Earl of Guilford sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Monson sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

INTRODUCED.
Martin Henry, Baron Killanin, was (in the usual manner) introduced by virtue of a patent dated the 15th day of June, 1900, his father, the first baron who was created by such patent, never having taken his seat.
Edward Carr, Lord Bishop of Peterborough, was (in the usual manner) introduced.

ROLL OF THE LORDS.
Norroy King of Arms attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the Third Session of the Twenty-seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom. The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro formâ, read 1a.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, I rise to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for his gracious Speech from the Throne, but before doing so I would ask your Lordships to extend to me that consideration which I understand is always most graciously given to those who, like myself, ask for it, and more especially to those who have the honour and the privilege of addressing this House for the first time. I feel confident that I am expressing the feelings of the whole House in tendering

5
to His Majesty our humble and loyal congratulations upon the safe return of their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales from their extended and historic tour. It was a tour which produced a spontaneous outburst of loyalty and affection from all the younger sons of the Imperial mother; and the expression of that loyalty has been deeply and sincerely appreciated by every section of the community throughout the country. I have myself travelled over the districts which have been so recently visited by their Royal Highnesses, and I can bear testimony to the kindly feeling which prevails throughout our Colonies towards all the subjects of His Majesty in this country. Not the least remarkable event of the tour was the opening of the first Commonwealth Parliament by His Royal Highness—an event which will never be forgotten by the representative assembly which witnessed the imposing ceremony. The return of their Royal Highnesses to this country was also marked by an event of the utmost importance to the Colonies and to us—namely, the announcement of His Majesty's new title of Royalty as King of the British Dominions beyond the Seas. No more fitting or appropriate time could have been chosen for this announcement, and His Majesty's subjects in all parts of the world must have read at the same time with genuine interest the statesmanlike speech delivered by His Royal Highness the Prince at the Guildhall. With so much loyalty genuinely expressed, and practically shown, there is no need for this country to fear any position of isolation, so long as we cordially respond to the enthusiastic spirit which has marked the attitude of our Colonies, especially during the last few years of the nation's trials.
It is no formal expression that His Majesty's Government is on friendly terms with European Powers. When we consider that this country has been occupied in the South African campaign, I think it is a source of congratulation that foreign Governments have not attempted to embarrass us. I venture to think that our interests in all parts of the world, notwithstanding our being so much tied up in South Africa, have not been neglected, and that the prestige of this country to-day is as high as it ever has been. It would have been a source of satisfaction to the country if, in the
6
gracious Speech from the Throne, His Majesty could have announced the termination of the war. There are, however, not wanting signs that it is steadily drawing to a close, and that it will not be long before the arts of war will give place to the arts of industry and to the development of commerce and trade. It is impossible to mention this subject without referring to the noble Earl, Lord Roberts, to whom the country owes a deep debt of gratitude, not only for his more recent services, but for his services in the frontier wars in India; to Lord Milner, whose administrative abilities have been so tactfully displayed, and to Lord Kitchener for his remarkable military genius in gradually restoring the country to a condition of peace, in which already civil life is beginning to reassert itself above the devastations of war. Our thanks are due, not only to those leaders, but to the officers and to the men serving under them; and it must be a source of pride to us to-day that, in spite of many hardships and privations, never has greater valour been shown upon the field, and never has the country come forward more cheerfully to supply the sinews of war and the resources necessary to carry it through. They have paid cheerfully the taxes which have been imposed upon them, knowing as they do that it is not a Government's, that it is not a party's, but that it is a nation's war.
It is, moreover, a source of satisfaction that His Majesty's Government have been able to accept the patriotic offer of the Colonies of further contingents to relieve the strain which has fallen upon our troops in South Africa, and so enable our own regiments in some instances to return to this country after a long and arduous campaign at the front. My Lords, it is not too much to hope that, in view of such self-sacrifice, the Colonies may at the termination of the war be joined with us in council to settle the future of that country. It is premature to discuss the terms at the present moment, but I think the country will insist upon its being a final settlement, and will not permit a weak or vacillating policy.
I notice with pleasure that an international Conference is announced in the King's Speech to take place at Brussels on the question of the Sugar Bounties. It is to be hoped that the result will be the abandonment of a system which so

7
unfairly handicaps not only our home manufactures, but also our sugar-producing Colonies. This is not a question affecting only this country. It is an Imperial question. Your Lordships may remember that Conference after Conference has taken place in London, and that the First Lord of the Treasury has received many deputations on the subject. To my mind the Colonies have a right, in a time of trouble, to appeal to the Mother country, and I would venture to congratulate the Government upon the active steps they have taken in regard to the furtherance of this Conference.
As to the domestic legislation mentioned in His Majesty's gracious Speech, I would congratulate the Government upon the fulfilment of their pledge of last Session to bring in a measure for the co-ordination and improvement of primary and secondary education in this country. This is a measure of the utmost importance, and one of vital interest to the prosperity of the country. The object which the Government will have in view will, I hope, be the introduction of harmony and completeness into our educational system. It is not possible for me, in the short time at my disposal, to enter fully into this measure, more especially as it is not before the House; but I would venture to express the hope that the subject will be approached in a conciliatory spirit by all schools of thought, and that the Voluntary schools will be protected in view of the religious education that they give. I may be forgiven for recalling the fact that my late uncle took in education, and especially in Voluntary schools, a deep interest; but the position to-day is one that should engage the attention of everyone, especially if there is a desire, as I feel sure there is, to preserve the valuable work of the Voluntary schools from gradually disappearing. I think I am right in saying that it is the earnest wish of the Unionist Party to preserve these Schools; nor do I think that amongst all the advanced thinkers on this subject there is a desire to starve out Church and Roman Catholic schools, which, side by side with the Board Schools, have carried on, and are still carrying on, such excellent work for the benefit of the children of the country. There is also to be considered the right of the parents to have their children educated in the
8
faith which they themselves have adopted, or in which they have been brought up. I hope that ample time will be given for the adequate discussion of this important measure, and that it will be marked by an earnest desire to subordinate party feelings and sectarian rivalries in favour of a satisfactory and comprehensive scheme of education. Whatever the educational authority may be, I can only hope that the secondary education will, in their hands, be a means of enabling the coming generation to acquire useful information, to fit them to be capable citizens, and, having knowledge, to grapple with the growing competition of our rivals in trade and commerce throughout the world. The Water Bill mentioned in the King's Speech is a measure which affects London very acutely, and will in consequence receive the very anxious attention of Parliament. The recommendations of the Royal Commission upon this subject will be a valuable contribution to the settlement of the question, receiving, as I believe they have done, the approval of the President of the Local Government Board. There are other matters mentioned in the gracious Speech which my noble friend who is to second the Address will touch upon. It only now remains for me to give place to him, with a grateful sense of your Lordships kindness in listening so patiently to the few remarks which I have ventured to make. I beg to move the motion standing in my name.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I rise to second the Address which has been so ably proposed by the noble Earl who has just sat down, and I do so in accordance with the ancient tradition of your Lordships' House, which allows this privilege even to the youngest and least distinguished of your number. My Lords, I am very sensible of the difficulties of my position, but I am encouraged by the knowledge that many noble Lords, whom I am addressing, have themselves undertaken a similar responsibility in the past. They will therefore remember that the post of honour is fenced around with many terrors, and will, I hope, extend to me to-day a double measure of that indulgence which they themselves received on former occasions.

9
My Lords, we are assured by His Majesty that our relations with other Powers continue to be friendly. Noble Lords are doubtless as familiar with this statement in the gracious Speech from the Throne as with the appeals to the indulgence of the House which form the invariable preface to the speeches of the mover and seconder of the Address, but the repetition of these phrases in the past need not be taken as indicating any want of sincerity on the present occasion. We cannot, at any rate, be blind to the fact that, in view of the hostility which our South African policy has aroused in certain countries of Europe, the conduct of foreign affairs at the present moment is by no means free from anxiety; and the fact that our relations with the Governments of those countries continue to be friendly, is a matter for which we cannot be too thankful—a matter, too, for which we are prepared to give the fullest credit to the noble Marquess who is our Foreign Minister.
There is, moreover, one fact connected with foreign affairs to which I venture to call the special attention of your Lordships. I refer to the very satisfactory announcement that a treaty has been concluded with the President of the United States which will facilitate the construction of an Inter-oceanic Canal through the Isthmus of Central America. This announcement is the more welcome when we remember that the negotiations on this matter have been protracted over a period of several years—a period long enough to give rise, with however little justification, to fears that the differences between those two countries were incapable of adjustment. I need not weary your Lordships with a repetition of the intricate details of the controversy, now happily at an end. I will not disinter from the Blue Books, where they lie buried, discussions over the territorial sovereignty of Nicaragua, or the Mosquito coast, over the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, the draft conventions, and the Amendments and counter Amendments which have been proposed by both sides; but I feel sure that your Lordship will rejoice to think that no legal or diplomatic technicality has been allowed any longer to stand in the way of an undertaking which will benefit the commerce of the whole world. According to the terms of the new treaty the United States have
10
undertaken the construction of the canal and the entire responsibility for the maintenance of its neutrality, and when the canal is completed it will be thrown open, on terms of absolute equality, to the ships of commerce and of war of all nations observing the rules which have been laid down. There are no people for whom we in this country have greater respect, and with whom we are more desirous of maintaining the most intimate and cordial relations, than the great enlightened population of America, and we cannot but hope, therefore, that all future discussions on points of difference between the two countries may be discussed in the same friendly spirit, and may be crowned with an equally satisfactory result.
In the South American Continent we have another example of the way in which we hope before very long the differences between the various nations of the world will come to be settled.
In the boundary dispute between the Republic of Brazil and the colony of British Guiana the King of Italy has graciously consented to become arbitrator. We can confidently expect a wise and just decision from a Monarch who, in the short space of time since his accession to the throne, has given frequent proof of his readiness to accept to the fullest extent the responsibilities of his position, and who has devoted himself with genuine zeal to promoting the welfare of the fair land over which he has been called to rule.
Before I leave altogether the subject of our relations with Foreign Powers, I would venture to refer with thankfulness to the attitude which has been adopted by the new Ameer of Afghanistan. Your Lordships will understand the personal interest with which I approach any matter connected with the welfare of our Indian Empire, and I can conceive of no greater disaster than the rupture of those friendly relations which have existed between the Empire of India and the kingdom of Afghanistan ever since the accession of Abdur Rahman to the throne of Cabul. The late Ameer was a great personality and a strong and wise ruler, and his death has long been dreaded as the possible forerunner of renewed disturbance on the North-Western Frontier of India. That event has happily not been followed by the calamitous results which were expected, and we gladly welcome the desire

11
of the new Ameer to remain on good terms with the Government of India.
I now turn, my Lords, to a matter on which I feel sure there can be but one opinion in this House. Every noble Lord present, as well as every person in this country, must share his Majesty's feelings of rejoicing at the return to these shores of their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales. We must not be deterred by the pomp and pageantry of that triumphial procession from appreciating the devotion to the interests of the Empire which inclined the Prince and Princess of Wales to face the inconveniences, not to say dangers, of a long sea-voyage, and the prolong absence from their family circle which it entailed. We, in England, have followed their Royal Highnesses in our sympathies through every stage of their long and prosperous journey. We rejoiced with them at the manifestations of loyal affection with which they were everywhere greeted, and we now welcome them home with the greater enthusaism in that we are convinced of the noble purpose which they have served by their great undertaking. That journey, my Lords, together with the struggle in which we are engaged in South Africa, has done more than anything before, to bring home to the people of this country the loyal sentiments of our kinsfolk across the seas—a loyalty which I believe has always existed, but which has hitherto had little opportunity of finding expression. That journey, too, will in future years be looked back to, as marking our recognition of a turning point in the history of the British Empire.
In the century which is now dawning, great Imperial questions seem destined to occupy the most prominent place. No Government of the future will be able to ignore them, and no policy will be acceptable to the British nation which does not aim at maintaining the unity and vigour of the Empire. But, my Lords, the health and strength of our Empire as a whole depends on the health and strength of every component part, and it is only by concentrating attention on the weaker portions that we shall be able to maintain the high standard of efficiency which such an Empire demands. There is one portion of the Empire, so close to us that we are apt sometimes to overlook its Imperial importance, which, above all others, is in need of such attention. Nobody will pretend that either the people or the soil
12
of Ireland have ever yet reached that maximum development of which they are capable, and the continued discontent of a portion of His Majesty's subjects in that country is a constant source of danger to the Empire, a danger which this war has given us opportunities of recognising. We have seen Irish representatives in Parliament, men who have taken the oath of allegiance to their Sovereign, who yet can exult in public over our defeats and lament over our victories.
But, my Lords, the discontent and animosity which exist in Ireland are the growth of long years, and therefore a disease which cannot be cured by any single remedy; least of all will it be cured by a vindictive attitude on the part of the people of England, and I rejoice to think that the Government will not be deterred by the extremists of either party from maintaining the law with justice in that country and from continuing its efforts to improve the conditions of the Irish people. It would be idle to suppose that the Bill which is announced in the King's Speech will put an end to agrarian agitation or solve the land question. The solution of that question is not in the hands of the Government; it is in the hands of the owners and occupiers of the soil, and all that any Government can do is to facilitate a co-operation between those two classes to settle the question upon the lines which have been proved, by long consideration and actual experience, to be the only possible ones. The sound economic policy which has been inaugurated in Ireland during the past two years, and which aims at uniting all classes on matters which are vital to their country, such as the improvement of their agriculture and industries, will be followed, I believe, by a period of material prosperity such as the country has never hitherto known. But if the Irish people are to reap the benefits of their improved conditions, another important reform will be necessary—namely, a reform in the educational system of the country. Speaking for myself, I hope the Government will see its way to introduce before long a measure which will place the blessings of University education within the reach of the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Ireland.
It may be, my Lords, that questions relating to the material prosperity of the

13
country may also one day prove the determining factor in the settlement of that more distant portion of the Empire which is still the centre of all our hopes and fears. If the reward of our efforts and our patience in South Africa has been slow, that reward has been no less sure. The noble Earl who moved the Address has already referred to the gradual re-settlement of the country, and to the resumption of peaceful pursuits in the area which has been cleared of the enemy. For the last three months our railway communications have been secure; the weekly reduction in the enemy's forces continues unabated; the concentration camps are being gradually broken up; the number of refugees returning to their homes increases every week, and many burghers, who only a few months ago were fighting against us, have now taken service in the British forces. These are facts, my Lords, which shine like gleams of daylight through the dark clouds which have settled for so long over the continent of South Africa, and it may be that, at a date less distant than many of us suppose, the fierce struggles and the hard-fought battles of this melancholy but famous war will be forgotten, or, if they are remembered, will be remembered only to celebrate the military virtues of those two peoples, on whose co-operation the future of South Africa depends.
As Lord Milner remarked the other day, the great cataclysm lies behind us, and we can breathe more freely. May we not hope that the clearing of the atmosphere in South Africa may be accompanied during the coming year by a calmer attitude and a less embittered spirit of controversy in the political discussions of South African topics in this country? In dwelling on the brighter side of the picture, I have laid myself open to the charge of careless optimism, which has been so often raised of late by those who are for ever building dungeons in the air. But if hopefulness is a crime, it is a crime to which I am not ashamed to plead guilty. The people of England at the present moment are filled with the spirit of confidence which is born of determination, and I am happy to think that the Government partakes the spirit of the nation. I thank your Lordships for the patient hearing you have given me, and I now beg to second the Address.
Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne."—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, before I take up the thread of argument which the person who occupies my position usually adopts, I wish to be allowed to make a few personal remarks. My Lords, it is with regret that I stand here; I regret it because I stand in the place of one who long held it, I venture to say, with distinction, one who had not only the cordial and complete support of his own followers, but who, by the manner in which he conducted business, gave complete satisfaction to the other side. It has been a matter of the deepest regret that Lord Kimberley last year was struck down by severe illness, and, at the same time, he received one of the greatest blows that can be inflicted on any family—namely, the unexpected death of his son. I regret to say he is still unable to come here. Your Lordships, I am sure, will join with me in hoping that with the amelioration in his condition he once more will be able to take up his duties in this House. Your Lordships last year extended to me your kind indulgence when I had to take up this difficult and responsible post, and I ask you to extend the same indulgence as long as I have to preform this duty.
I have now to refer to the speeches of the noble Lords who moved and seconded the Address. They bear honoured and distinguished names—names which, in the past, are well known in the history of this country. Their predecessors were men who took a leading part in the affairs of the country, and in discussions both in this place and elsewhere; and in other ways they were distinguished members of the State. We all rejoice that these names will again appear in the list of those who take part in your Lordships' debates, and I think I may be allowed to say with what infinite pleasure we, on this side of the House, heard the very able and admirable speeches which they have made to-night. The noble Lord who moved the Address has had the advantage of sitting in another place, but the noble Lord who seconded the Address has not had that advantage; and I am sure your Lordships will think that he has proved himself able to occupy the post of honour

15
to which he referred, and that he will hereafter often contribute to our discussions here. The two noble Lords have touched on many of the topics in the gracious Speech, and I fear I shall not be able to emulate or surpass them, but that I shall rather fall short of the excellence with which they have spoken. The first matter to which I have to refer is one to which the two noble Lords in the most happy manner referred—the first paragraph of the gracious Speech, which deals with the historical and memorable journey of their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales throughout the Colonies. I believe that the work which they did during that journey was one of enormous importance to the Empire, tending to cement and increase those bonds of patriotism and loyalty, evidence of which has been so signally displayed in the War in South Africa. The influence of that visit was increased, not only by the graciousness, by the dignity, and by the earnestness of His Royal Highness on every occasion on which he spoke, but by the graciousness of the illustrious Princess—the Princess of Wales—who joined with him in the interesting though often fatiguing duties which they had to perform. With regard to the next paragraph, concerning relations with foreign Powers, there is only one thing I should like to say. We should have been glad to hear—and perhaps we shall be enlightened on the subject, if not to-night, on another occasion—some account of what has been done in China. We all notice that the war in China and the gigantic difficulties which met the Powers have come to an end, and I should be glad to hear that that has been done with complete satisfaction to His Majesty's Government, and in accordance with the best interests of the Empire. I firmly believe that that is the case, but should be glad of some assurance on the subject.
Now I come to the absorbing topic of the war. I noticed the terms in which the King alluded to this subject, and I deeply regret that His Majesty's Government are not able at the present moment to announce that the war is concluded, or that there is a near prospect of its conclusion. The remark I venture to make upon that—and I feel bound to make it; it has been made frequently in other places—is that I notice the difference between what is said with regard to the
16
end of the war and what was said on a very memorable occasion—the last dissolution of Parliament. It was said by the Ministers of the Crown that if the war was not actually over it was very nearly over. I think that was a disastrous statement to have made; it was a misleading statement, and had a very great effect on the Election. I remember the argument about the knowledge of the "man in the street." I think that a well-instructed and well-conducted Government must know a great deal more than the man in the street. I wish to express my satisfaction at learning that his Majesty's Government consider that the area of war has been reduced. But I should like to ask for a little more information. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for War, not long ago made a very interesting speech on this subject, and he described how we were advancing in the two new Colonies, and said it was satisfactory that the lines of railway were no longer attacked, and that we now held a large area. It occurred to me at the time to inquire how much of the country was protected by the blockhouse system. I do not want to say anything by way of attack—I quite recognise the difficulties of the war—but it is important that we should know what progress has been made, in order that full preparation should be made, and adequate action taken, to cope with the military difficulties which confront us. As far as I can make out, the protected area amounted to rather less than a quarter of the whole area. If that is the case, I am afraid we may not expect any very rapid end of the war, and we shall have to make exertions—the country will, no doubt, do so cheerfully—in order to overcome those difficulties. Therefore I hope we shall have some more specific information. With the next paragraph I am in most cordial agreement. It does not matter that the war is what has been called a guerilla war. It is a war that tries the endurance and patience of the soldiers more, I imagine, if possible, than a war conducted on the principle of the great battles that we are so familiar with in history. I wish most cordially and earnestly to join in what was said by the noble lord, and what is said in His Majesty's gracious Speech, in praise and admiration of our soldiers. I believe I am speaking the unamimous voice of all

17
those with whom I act, when I say that they admire the bravery, endurance, patience, and consummate humanity of our troops under the most trying circumstances.
I notice that in His Majesty's Speech, there is a complete omission of any reference to the methods by which the war may be satisfactorly and honourably ended. That raises a point of great importance. We have often heard the expression "unconditional surrender." In our opinion, unconditional surrender is not the proper policy, but I want to know whether it is the policy of the Government. On some occasions language has been used which might point to certain terms having been stated as possible, though they were not presented to the Boers. I believe that the policy of unconditional surrender is absolutely wrong. Why? One of the greatest difficulties we have to face is the settlement of the country, and if we persist in the demand for unconditional surrender, we shall impede the attainment of a satisfactory settlement and a durable peace. Let me explain why. I hardly know any case of a war where some terms have not been given. I believe the terms are much more likely to be kept, and the two races are more likely to live together in friendship, if you make terms with the Boers by agreement, than if you make them a free gift as conquerors. Let me for a moment, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, say what, in my opinion, ought to be the general terms. I am against suing for peace. I believe that is impossible. I believe that, either in public despatches or in some way or another, information should be given, not as to the exact, but as to the general terms, on which peace should be discussed. I admit that independence is impossible. We on this side of the House, as well as his Majesty's Government, have declared, and I do declare again, that the granting of independence to the Boers after the terrible sacrifices that the country has made is impossible. But there are other points. I do not know that whenever terms have been discussed there has been any very serious difference as to what the future government of the country shall be. I do not for a moment say that constitutional self-government, such as is enjoyed by Australia and Canada, should be granted at once. The country must
18
be settled. There must be an interval before such arrangements can be carried out. Then I come to the matter of amnesty. It would be impossible for the people to live side by side with the Boers unless a very liberal amnesty was conceded. I would venture to cite the words used by Abraham Lincoln, in connexion with the great civil war, as to the duty of the victors to the vanquished—because the situation in South Africa is very much like that in America at the end of the struggle between North and South:—
"With malice towards none, with charity towards all, with firm determination in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on in the work we are now in—to bind up the open wound, to care for the man who has borne the battle, and for his widow and orphans, and to do everything that may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace between ourselves and all nations."
Those are noble sentiments, and they embody the principles on which we should approach the final settlement of this question. There is one thing in addition I should like to call attention to in regard to the war, and that is the want of information as to what is going on in South Africa. I do not say it would be possible for the Government, or any Government, to allow indiscriminate newspaper correspondence. I believe that to be most mischievous, and that a certain censorship of the Press is indispensable; but I cannot help thinking that His Majesty's Government—and I use those words because I imagine they are responsible—might with great advantage have allowed more information to be given to the public, and have supplied more themselves.
I will take two instances connected with the war, of a political character. We know from the newspapers that two very serious things have been done in Cape Colony. The Cape Constitution has been suspended, and martial law has been proclaimed. I, for one, say at once that I can quite understand that both of these things may be necessary; but we have the right to ask when law is suspended—or I will put it in another way, and say that, if the law is broken, even in the interests of the public, we should know why this precaution is taken, and also when this state of things will be put an end to. As far as I understand it, the law says that once a year the Parliament of the Cape Colony shall be called together. The Parliament

19
of the Cape Colony has not been called together for more than a year. Now it is most desirable that the Governor of a self-governing colony should act according to the advice of his responsible Ministers, but the case is altered when it comes to an actual infringement of the law. It may be argued that the action was necessary, but we ought to know whether the Colonial Government did this with the support of His Majesty's Ministers; and I would go further and ask whether His Majesty's Government intend to bring in a Bill to legalize the action that has been taken. With regard to the second instance, I do not argue that it was wrong to establish martial law; but I think I am right in saying that it has been accepted on the most distinguished authority that martial law is practically no law. Martial law is stated by Lord Hale—
"To be in truth no law, but sometimes rather indulged than allowed as a law, and it can only be tolerated, because by reason of open rebellion, the enforcing of any other law has become impossible. It cannot be said in strictness to supersede the ordinary tribunals, inasmuch as it only exists by reason of those tribunals having been practically superseded."
That is a weighty opinion. I would call attention to a remarkable declaration by Lord Carnarvon in a despatch which he wrote after the Jamaica rebellion in 1867:—
"You will see that under regulation 3, it is provided that Courts-martial shall consist of at least three members. I think it right to observe on this particular rule, that whenever capital punishment is awarded so small a number as three officers is most undesirable….Nothing short of an unavoidable necessity would justify the infliction of capital punishment on the authority of only three officers."
In the present war has that injunction been set aside or has it been carried out? From information which has reached us, I understand there have been a great many cases where the Court-martial has only consisted of three persons, although capital cases have been tried. In 1900 an Act was passed by the Cape Parliament to create a new tribunal to try treason prisoners without a jury. That Act was only in force for a year, but why was not that precedent continued? And with regard to this particular point, I would refer to the important language which was used in a speech made in 1851, by the greatest general we had in the last century, the Duke of Wellington, with reference to
20
proceedings in Ceylon. The Duke said:—
"He had in another country carried on martial law—that was to say, that he had governed a large proportion of the population of a country by his own will. But then what did he do? He declared that the country should be governed according to its own natural laws, and he carried into execution that will. He governed the country strictly by the laws of the country, and he governed it with such moderation, he must say, that political servants, and Judges, who at first had fled on being expelled, afterwards consented to act under his direction. The Judges sat in the Court of law, conducting their judicial business and administering the law under his direction."
That is a remarkable declaration coming from an illustrious person, and it encourages me to press forward the question as to why during recent proceedings, those who appointed Courts-martial did not use civilians or lawyers on those tribunals.
I now turn to other topics. I endorse every word that was said by the noble Earl who seconded the Address with regard to the Nicaraguan inter-oceanic canal scheme. Your Lordships will all agree as to the great importance of the treaty. No doubt it has materially affected a treaty of very old standing, the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty; at the same time a treaty made so long ago could not face the changed circumstances of the present day; and, as we obtain, as I understand it, all the advantages we require in connection with this important inter-oceanic communication, we must rejoice that His Majesty's Government have had the courage to carry through this treaty, and I congratulate them upon it.
That part of the Speech from the Throne which is addressed to both Houses of Parliament, touches upon the different measures which the Government intend to bring forward. The first question is one which, I presume, will be introduced by the noble duke, the Lord President of the Council. I agree with what has been said as to the enormous importance of a large and adequate educational measure, to the whole interests of the country. We cannot stand still at the present moment, in face of the competition we have with our own colonies and with foreign nations, and in face of the enormous advance in their system of education. It is, therefore, of the greatest importance that a wide, adequate, and sufficient measure of national education should be brought

21
forward. But there is a curious phrase in this part of the Speech:—
"Proposals for the co-ordination and improvement of primary and secondary education will be laid before you."
What is the meaning of "the co-ordination and improvement of primary and secondary education"? It may be a system in which we all agree; but if it means an enormous change, for instance, in the management of primary education, then I think it will be difficult for the Government, even with their large majority, to carry it through the other House. We should look with grave suspicion and considerable animosity on any measure, if we thought that it would upset the main lines of the settlement arrived at by the Acts of 1870. We shall endeavour to secure that the management of education of all sorts is satisfactory and completely under popular control. We shall not be favourable to any measure to build up and strengthen mere denominational management; and we should vigorously oppose any proposal in our large towns to overthrow and destroy the School Boards which have done so much good to the country.
There are topics of considerable interest and value in other portions of the Speech from the Throne. There is the question of land purchase in Ireland. That will be a question of immense interest, particularly to myself, as I have had, during a long career in Ireland, great experience of the working and even of the framing of measures for the management and sale of land. But in the Speech from the Throne there is no reference to the condition of Ireland. I am afraid that the condition of Ireland has not improved within the last year. We hear that a considerable number of Members, representing constituencies in Ireland, have been tried and convicted, and some of them are in prison. This is an indication that the condition of Ireland is anything but satisfactory; and I should like to hear what the Government have to say on that subject.
There is also a reference to the question of improving the law of valuation. I see the noble Lord, the chairman of an important Commission (Lord Balfour) in his place, and this measure may spring from his Commission, and if it does will open out a gigantic question. I should be glad if it did, because there are recommendations made by that Commission which
22
I should gladly see carried, and which will effect an enormous reform, and will relieve the great pressure, not only in counties but in towns, and will be of the greatest possible value. But the phrase in the Speech is so vague that we hardly know how far that measure will go. With regard to temperance, we have had considerable difficulty with that question in this House in recent years, and the Government have not certainly persisted with measures for improving the temperance of the country, or in helping to carry out the almost unanimous Reports of the great Commission which they appointed on this subject. I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to give some explanation of the points which I consider of great importance.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, my first duty is to thank my two noble friends behind me for the very admirable and remarkable speeches which they have contributed to our deliberations this evening. The noble lord who moved the Address bears a name which is dear to us on this side of the House. I think it was Lord Rosebery who noticed once in this House that there were three members of the house of Harrow by who had occupied a seat in the Cabinet. They are no doubt a very distinguished family which my noble friend represents, and from what we have heard to-night there are grounds for believing that he will adequately bear out the traditions of his family. Of my noble friend Lord Lytton let me say that I have a recollection of having heard in the House of Commons from his grandfather some of the most brilliant speeches I have ever heard; and there could be no greater tribute to what I may call the deterrent power of this House than the fact that the first Lord Lytton could never be induced to open his mouth here. The second Lord Lytton, whose friendship I enjoyed for many years, was a man of very great ability, and in this House he delivered some speeches of great value. But it is more the power he exercised over the native and English subjects of the Queen in India that has consecrated for him in the memory of that country a very unique position; and I feel in welcoming here an inheritor of his name and his talents, who appears to be well worthy

23
of the inheritance that has fallen to him, that we are marking one step in the forward progress of those statesmanlike qualities by which this House has been for so many generations distinguished.
I cannot part from the more personal aspect of that with which I have to deal without expressing the deepest regret felt on every bench in the House that Lord Kimberley's health does not allow him to resume his duties at present. We earnestly join the noble earl in hoping that the disability may be of short continuance. There is no man whose active work in this House I have seen who has left such a general impression of calmness and impartiality as Lord Kimberley did during the long time when he filled a prominent position in this House. I earnestly hope that his absence will not be prolonged, but at the same time I am bound to say that the substitute he has left behind is one who is extremely sympathetic to all who sit on this side. I do not know that it is necessary for me to follow the noble Earl's speech step by step. The difficulty I have had is that there are so many points with which I agree that I cannot always be certain of picking out those with respect to which I differ. But I was very glad to hear the testimony that he bore to the feelings which have been elicited by the voyage of the Prince and Princess of Wales, and how much we, who are deeply interested in the maintenance of the Empire, owe to the exertions of his Royal Highness, and to the influence which the Princess has had on all who came into contact with her. As I have said, I agree with the noble Earl too much to be able to meet him with the clash of swords which is decorous on these occasions. For two years I have been very severely censured for having said that we never could admit that the Boers should retain a shred of independence. I adhere entirely to the language I used, though I am afraid it did not entirely please Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. But I was glad to hear the noble Earl, without unnecessary adornments of phrase, state that the independence of the Boers was impossible. With that I concur.
The noble Lord then spoke of future arrangements. He spoke of them as being in harmony with the general practice of our colonial Empire—the liberal and successful practice—but he was very careful to avoid pledging him-
24
self as to the matter of time; and he is wise enough to know that it does not depend entirely upon us, how much time there should be between our final victory and the constitution of the new state of affairs. Again I am very much pleased to shelter myself under the broad defence of the noble Lord's wisdom and reputation, because I have also been blamed for saying that it was utterly uncertain when it would be possible for us to return to the normal relations which have been so long established between our colonies and the Mother-country. These things must be left to work themselves out, as the current of events shall determine. I do not think that it is possible for us to deal with these matters, except in a purely hypothetical spirit. There is nothing that is more difficult, and nothing that is less profitable, than to try and determine beforehand what course you will take in the event of contingencies, whose arrival, whose bent, and whose general character, it is impossible for you to foresee. And that is my answer to many questions of the noble Earl's, which really resolve themselves into this—What would you do on this occasion or that? I reply that we, or whoever is in our position, will do whatever the circumstances, under our eyes, may dictate to us. It is impossible for us to foresee this circumstance, or to foretell what course it will be necessary to take in that circumstance. The noble Earl spoke of terms. His view of the natural order of things appeared to be this. That when one nation has, absolutely without any international provocation whatever, invaded the territory of another nation, it is then the duty of that other nation, after it has defeated the first, to go and ask on what terms they will consent to be forgiven. It is impossible for us to ask them on what terms they will be forgiven.
EARL SPENCER: I particularly said so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY.—Yes, but the noble Earl contradicted it afterwards. It is easy to lay down a wise generality and then to strip it of all its application. We cannot tell what the contingencies may be, and therefore we are unable to answer the questions of the noble Earl. But I entirely repudiate the idea that it is our business, having been gratuitously and unreason-

25
ably attacked, to come forward and say on what terms we will forgive our assailants, when our assailants have not even got so far as this—as to wish to be forgiven. When they do, it will be quite time for those who have the disposal of events to say on what terms peace will be accorded; but it is not our business to come forward to people who, in every word they utter, repudiate the very notion that they should sue for peace; nor is it our business to make promises in order to induce them to depart from the line which they have drawn for themselves, or to throw out future amnesties, Constitutions, and the rest, as so many baits to persuade them to abate that vigorous attitude with which they have broken the peace, despised the rights of this country, and covered the dominions of the King with misery and desolation. If they wish for peace, let them come and tell us so; and until they do so, I think we had better say as little about it as possible.
The noble Earl then passed to other controversies, the first of which, perhaps, was the question how many special correspondents you are bound to allow at the front; and, if you have special correspondents, I suppose you will have to settle the terms on which they are appointed. I should like a list of the qualifications which the noble Earl thinks necessary for the special correspondents who are to be imposed upon the Generals working at the front, and to whom, no doubt, they will communicate, for such discussion as they choose, all the plans which they have in view. There are many new things in these days; but this is the newest method of conducting warfare that I have ever heard of. I shall not be surprised to hear next that the noble Earl has proposed to conduct war by contract, and to derive much of the expenses of it by the circulation of news supplied by special correspondents.
Of a number of points on which the noble Earl touched, that which he spoke on with the greatest insistence was the question of martial law. One difficulty which I have in dealing with that matter is that I am informed through the usual channels of information that a noble Lord intends to challenge in the Courts the application of martiallaw—I refer to Lord Hobhouse—and as long as this question may be a matter of discussion before tribunals I have some doubts
26
whether it is entirely expedient to discuss it in detail before this House. In the first place, we have several distinguished lawyers, like the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who would feel themselves bound not to give an opinion in a legislative capacity if they may be called upon to give an opinion in a judicial capacity. I do not think we can discuss the matter with advantage if we enter upon it now before this litigious question has been disposed of. But if I can express my own opinion, which is of little value, but which for the sake of candour I should like to express, it is that if the local Government or the military authorities, in the middle of a long and anxious war, are not able to use the authority of martial law, I think it is high time that Parliament gave them that authority. It is perfectly impossible that the military authorities should conduct their difficult operations with any prospect of success if their hands are tied behind them by litigious difficulties which a thorough knowledge of the Statute-book might enable their critics to place in their way. If martial law does not exist, it ought to be established. I will give you only one reason for adopting it—a reason which has been brought home to us very clearly. How are you to conduct, for instance, such a war as we have been conducting, if you have not the legal power to stop those treacherous members of the community who are introducing ammunition for the support of the enemy? That has been a real and practical question; and unless you allow the exercise of an authority somewhat in excess of that given by the common law you cannot prevent that secret assistance of our enemies, which only prolongs the war, and increases the bloodshed and misery. It is absolutely necessary that our Generals should have the power to supersede the ordinary powers that they possess under the civil law in order to ensure, not only that the enemy in the field, but also that the silent enemy behind him, is not using his liberty to impede the progress of the Generals and to diminish the chance of an early arrest of the war.
This question of martial law goes to the root of the matter. If you will not grant martial law in the countries where war is raging, you had better give up the idea of waging war altogether. But I admit that it is a matter which

27
requires to be watched with the utmost care. There ought to be a thorough review at the hands of competent authorities of all great acts of martial law. I do not say that they ought to be judged under the common law; but they must be judged by common sense—by that great referee which in these international struggles must obviously be dominant. But you must be content that your ordinary doctrines shall not be always regarded. The noble Earl said something about acts of indemnity. I agree that that is a matter on which the Parliament of this country will have to be satisfied that the law has only been set aside on grounds of real necessity. I do not say while the war is going on. But in disposing of the matter Parliament must determine on those indemnities which are necessary in order to clear the position, not only of the soldier, not only of those who act under the direct warrant of His Majesty, but also of the authorities and instruments of the Cape Government, who are themselves very largly implicated in all the irregular proceedings to which the war may make it necessary to resort. But I do not in the least discourage the noble Earl from bringing it on, or the idea of the necessity for the two Houses of Parliament to watch with the most careful jealousy the exercise of powers which, no doubt, if unrestrained, might be very dangerous to the liberty of the subject. I do not know that I have anything else to say in respect of the noble Earl's speech.
EARL SPENCER.—The Cape Constitution.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY.—I put that under martial law. It is the same thing. [EARL SPENCER indicated dissent.] No doubt the superseding of a Constitution is not the ordinary business of a Governor here or there; and it is only under the greatest exigencies that such a thing could be done. But the power of doing it must necessarily lie somewhere, with the duty of giving afterwards the reason why it was done, and of coming to the supreme Parliament of Great Britain for the indemnity which must follow. All that I wish to say is, consider the position you are in. If your desire is only to make a good case against His Majesty's Government, I should not
28
wish to impede that very harmless and estimable pursuit. I would rather say that if we could induce noble Lords to satisfy themselves with belabouring His Majesty's Government, and not to say or do things which interfere with the progress of the war, I should think that I had made a very satisfactory bargain. But what I wish clearly to press upon the noble Lord is that we are not dealing merely with the question whether a good case can be made out against His Majesty's Government. I quite agree that if there is a case against His Majesty's Government it should be made; but the noble Lord must remember that the constitutional fiction is that you cannot include in your condemnation only His Majesty's Government, you must include also the great military and civil officers on whom the strength of our Empire out there wholly depends. They also are responsible, and you must deal with them. You must not allow yourselves to imagine for a moment that you can belabour His Majesty's Government and can spare the great authorities to whom the execution of these powers is entrusted. And therefore I would plead for very considerable care in the apportionment of your praise or blame to those great officers. If it were possible by any ingenious contrivance that you could store up a kind of compensating vituperation for his Majesty's Government in regard to each matter in respect to which you were more generous to the great officers of State, again I say that would be, from our point of view, a very happy determination. But again I say this cannot be done, at least I fear it cannot be done, Therefore I ask noble Lords to consider that very serious national and Imperial interests are now dependant on the course which Parliament in its two Houses may take. Let us consider two things, merely as theories, merely as hypotheses. Supposing you were induced by any agitation at home, or by any of those strange disturbances which occur in the working of the constitutional machine, to allow this war on which you have entered to terminate in a manner not very honourable to your arms, or at all events not corresponding to the language with which you entered into it, do you imagine that you would not feel that result in every quarter of the globe? Do you think people would look on your allowing this wretched little

29
population to beat you down—do you think that in other parts of the world, and there is hardly a part of the world where your flag does not fly, malcontent minorities would not also take advantage of every chance in order to exact from you the kind of semi-submission which you are exhorted to pay to the Boers and rebels who are in arms against you? That would be one fatal result; there would be worse. Still supposing—suppose you were induced to concede some of those arrangements which are concealed under the denunciation of unconditional surrender, suppose you were to allow to be fixed in a corner of your dominions a people with the power of making arrangements with foreign nations, a people with the power of accumulating arms and of raising again the authorities which we have with difficulty cast down. Suppose that this province, though it may be called a suzerain province, though every kind of verbal subtlety may be brought into practice, as was brought into practice in 1884 to conceal the reality of the submission, suppose all these things were done, would you have gained? For a long time forward you would there have a population hating you, and, according to human nature, after what has passed, with every cause to hate you. You would have an invitation to foreign Powers to undertake intrigues which might be rich with territorial aggrandisement to them, and this people would have an opportunity of wresting from you the independence which you deny them now, and which you could only at the cost of great exertion take away.
My Lords, these things may come if you allow the pressure of certain interested or certain fanatical elements in this country to drive you from that which is your clear duty—to make the King supreme in these two colonies of Africa. If you shrink from that, if you try to remember any old-world traditions or imaginary duties, if you do not bear in mind that in these colonies you must have the supreme power of keeping foreigners at a distance, and of preventing the accumulation of magazines under which we have so terribly suffered, if you do not do that, you will be merely preparing for yourself at a very short distance of time a renewal of this struggle with all its sorrows, with all its losses, and it may be under circumstances less favourable than you enjoy at present. I entreat
30
you, my Lords—attack, condemn, vituperate His Majesty's Government as much as you will, but for Heaven's sake do not allow your eagerness in pursuit of this laudable aim, do not allow your eagerness to maintain and improve your party position, to make you forget that we are dealing at this moment with an issue which shall determine whether you are victors in this South African conflict or not, and whether you have for many years to come to bear all the dangers, all the embarrassments, all the difficulties which are imposed upon you by any failure, however slight, in the task which before all the world you have undertaken.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I hope you will excuse me if, before this debate closes, I offer a few remarks, I hope in a less polemical and controversial spirit than usual. It is, perhaps, hardly fitting that in this House, on which the noble Marquess has uttered so glowing a eulogy, the debate on the Address to the Crown should terminate simply with the speeches of the mover and seconder and of the two leaders in this House. It is, I acknowledge, no part of my business to enter into the personal questions which have been so ably dealt with by the two noble Lords. But I should be wanting to myself if I did not say I share the regret which they have so well expressed for the unavoidable absence of—I was going to say our noble friend—Lord Kimberley, who has attracted in so singular a degree the confidence and affection of this House. I welcome my noble friend's action on his behalf, and I only hope on behalf of my noble friend that he may equal the esteem with which this House rewarded Lord Kimberley, for I am quite sure he cannot surpass it. And, again, let me go beyond my measure in congratulating the mover and the seconder of the Address. I hope the mover, whose name represents so long an historical tradition of political eminence, will forgive me if I dwell more on the speech of the seconder, for it is my deliberate judgment, having heard too many movers and seconders in this House, though not I confess, all since I have been a member of it, that his speech stands out as by far the best that has ever been delivered in my hearing on such an occasion. The noble Marquess on a remarkable occasion last year spoke of the extreme difficulty

31
—I do not know why—of procuring junior members for his Government. I think the mover and seconder to-night will remove part of that difficulty, and his embarrassment will rather be one of riches than of poverty in the future.
I said I hoped not to address you in a polemical spirit to-night, or very slightly so; and that is partly due to the speech of the noble Marquess, who, I think, gracefully evaded the points which were laboured by my noble friend behind me, and set up a bolster or dummy of his own, which he pummelled with most refreshing vigour. But it is also due to the character of the Speech from the Throne, of which, if it is not disrespectful to say it, one may remark that a more jejune speech was never placed on the lips of any Monarch. That occurred to me on reading it, and it occurred to me also on hearing the speeches which referred to it. The noble Lords have had to soar far beyond the limits of the Speech in order to find topics on which they could dilate, As regards the domestic part of the Speech, it can be dismissed in a very few words. We see it can be dismissed in a very few words if only for the reason that the First Lord of the Treasury in a recent speech told us that, after the House of Commons had dealt with finance and with procedure, there would be very little time left for any considerable measures. And, therefore, when I read the ingenious paragraph which ends the King's Speech, and which refers to measures as to the existence of which I am sceptical, but as to the production of which I am wholly an unbeliever, I confess I feel a sense of vacuity, which, I think, has not been absent from the other noble Lords who have discussed the subject. I observe, by-the-by, that an old friend on which we, in this House, spent so much time last year, and on which, I believe, somewhat less time was taken in preparation—I mean the Bill with regard to the King's declaration—does not appear in any form.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Lord Llandaff.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not know what that mystic allusion portends. I remember that we were cheered towards the end of last Session by an interruption
32
of the noble Marquess which gave such hope to the supporters of the Bill that an eloquent Bishop delivered an enthusiastic speech founded on that interruption alone. It is with an approach to disappointment, if anything can disappoint a politician after many years of public life, that I feel convinced that we shall not see our old and controversial friend once more. As to the Education Bill, the mover of the Address, I believe, expressed a hope that it would be discussed in an uncontroversial spirit. If so, it is unlike any other Education Bill of which we have any record, and singularly unlike previous Bills on this subject produced by His Majesty's Government. But the Bill rests on the laps of the gods, which may be taken for the present purpose to be the lap of the Lord President of the Council. As to the Bill for amending the law relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors, I look to the Bishop of Winchester, and I cannot help wondering if any wild hope of temperance reforms really fills his bosom after his experience of last year. In the Episcopal bosom a more sanguine spirit may lurk than that which inspires mere secular individuals. He must, indeed, have it in an abundant measure if he has any hope now after his experience of last year.
My Lords, I do not think we need dilate at any length on the domestic promises of the Government, though I hope it will not be disrespectful to say that I do not found any extravagant hopes on them. No, the questions which occupy our minds are, in their essence, external. There is, of course, the war. My noble friend behind me expressed disappointment that there was no intimation in the Speech from the Throne as to the date at which the war might reasonably be expected to terminate. I do not share that disappointment. I am, indeed, a little surprised that he expressed it. He should have known that the war was officially over sixteen months ago, and, as to the duration of the unofficial warfare which still rages in South Africa, I am quite sure, after a uniform failure of every prediction which the Government has hazarded with respect to those operations, that he cannot very much wish that the Prime Minister should add to their number. The Prime Minister, however, passing by the laborious argu-

33
ments of my noble friend with regard to martial law, which he dismissed, I think, as a matter before the Courts, dealt with a bogey, if I may so express myself, which he set up for the purpose of displaying his oratorical vigour. It consisted in saying that if in any Government there was a tendency found to give the States now annexed to the Crown the power of treaty-making, of importing arms, and of entertaining foreign relations with other countries, that Government would deserve all that his peroration awarded to it. That was an otiose remark. I do not think that any Government in this country is in the least likely to repeat the magnanimity, or the mistake, whichever you like to call it, which was committed in 1881; and, therefore, I confess I should have been glad if the noble Marquess had kept more strictly to the point, and had given us definite and Ministerial assurances on the question which my noble friend put to him, instead of soaring into these oratorical platitudes.
As to martial law, there are two points to be raised. One of them which certainly was not raised by my noble friend was why it was not declared before. I quite agree with the Prime Minister that it is a necessary operation of war. I entirely support the declaration of martial law; but, if my information is correct with regard to martial law, you shut the stable door after the horses were stolen or imported into the enemy's country, and it was not until the enemy had been deriving for nearly two years supplies, owing to the absence of martial law, that His Majesty's Government thought fit to declare it. That is a point on which we should like some information. The other point is with regard to its administration. I quite admit that in one sense martial law is no law at all; and I was pleased at my noble friend, who said he was not at all conversant with law, but was able to quote with so much fluency and readiness from Lord Hale. But it does deserve a little consideration as to who should administer it. I hear stories—I do not quote them, because I could not give chapter and verse for them—of the harsh and unfeeling administration of martial law by some of the subaltern officers to whom it has been entrusted; and I hope that in this, as in so many other cases with regard to the South
34
African War, we shall recollect that we are dealing not altogether with an enemy's country, but with a country which is to remain for ever part of the dominions of the British Crown.
I have heard of one case which I can quote, but it is a triviality. One of my friends—who does not sit on that side of the House, but who is charged with unduly supporting the policy of the Government—delivered a speech in which he made some very slight criticisms of His Majesty's Administration, and he received it back from his correspondent with a passage scratched out and the signature of the subaltern officer who had scratched it out in the margin. I quite admit that it is injudicious that rash statements, which might be likely to encourage the Boers, should be allowed to reach them, but I do not think that innocent criticisms of this kind should be liable to excision at the hands of a subaltern officer in South Africa. That is nearly all I have to say on the question of the war. We cannot tell whether it is being prosecuted efficiently, but we believe that it is. We have faith in the generals, in the officers, and in the soldiers whom you employ; and therefore I do not think it is necessary, in a debate of this kind, to enter at any length into the questions relating to the war. There is, however, one other important question relating to the war, as to which I should like to ask a question of the Government. I said the other day in a long speech which I had the misfortune to make that I was in favour of a passive policy of peace—that is, of receiving overtures when they should be made, even if they were made by the exiled Boer Government in Europe. The Times, I think it was, commenting on that said that no such overtures had been received. Some time has elapsed since then. I do not know whether The Times information is correct or not, but I should like to know whether there have been any overtures.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Ah! as usual, the newspapers are misinformed on matters of this kind. I see that the Dutch Prime Minister was over here recently. I do not suppose he came over to see the old masters. He remained two or three days in this country, and we

35
were specially and officially told that he saw no Cabinet Minister and was over here only on private business. I suppose that is just the sort of announcement which makes one believe that he came here with business in his eye.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I accept the denial of the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As far as I know.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The noble Marquess evidently did not see him. But there are other external questions which interest us. The Colonial Secretary the other day made a speech in which he boasted at some length of the diplomatic achievements of the Government. I did not know that the Government were very proud of their diplomatic achievements. I think we have always been accustomed to pass them sub silentio in the House from a tactful feeling that such was the case, but when Mr. Chamberlain trails his diplomatic coat and invites anybody to tread on it, it is going almost beyond human nature to suppose that we shall pass over entirely in silence the remarks he has made. He contrasted, I think very favourably, the diplomacy of the Government with that of the late Government, and he said that the late Government lived under a very strange delusion if they thought that they were universally beloved in Europe. I can assure you my lords that the late Government cherished no delusion of the kind. When a British Government is universally beloved in Europe the period of the millennium will be on us. I cherish no illusion of the kind. But the late Government were not universally detested. That is the difference between the position in which we find the country now and the position as we left it. I challenge the Government to mention any country in Europe where, rightly or wrongly, the British name is not held in hostility compared with which all previous records pale into insignificance. Now, I say that that is a very dangerous state of things. It is a matter which I regret has not been touched on earlier this evening. It is one that we cannot separate from our discussion. The
36
Colonial Secretary told us, as an example or instance of the imbecility of the late Government in foreign affairs, that the present Government succeeded to no less than six unsettled questions with which they had been able to deal. I can only tell the Colonial Secretary that if the present Government only succeeded to six unsettled questions they were much more fortunate than any Government of which I have any cognizance. If he had said 16 or even 60 I should not have been greatly surprised. This does not cast any reflection on the Ministers going out, for the simple reason that the settlement of foreign questions requires the assent of two parties, and no foreign Minister, however eminent or capable he is, can secure the assent of those parties without exceptional skill and opportunity. What were these questions? I do not pretend to enumerate them all from memory. There was Venezuela. The Venezuelan question arose out of a matter which was very nearly a century old, and therefore if the late Government transmitted it to the present Government it is not an alarming example of laxity on their part. I rejoice that the Venezuelan question was settled by the Government, but I honestly confess that the whole history of that negotiation is not one upon which we can look back with special pride and complacency, and I do not think it is one that I should wish to bring forward if I were boasting of the foreign policy of the Government. Then there were the question of Siam and the question of Samoa. They were settled by the present Government. That of Samoa was settled by the simplest of all processes—the handing over of Samoa to the party who wanted it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, No.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Will the noble Marquess tell us what he did?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There were three parties in the matter—England, Germany, and America. How was it possible for any responsible Government to go on under that system? We agreed that we would surrender our part to Germany, receiving corresponding privileges from her in exchange.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: That is exactly what I said; and I do not know that it was not a perfectly desirable and businesslike operation in all the circumstances of the case. But on those principles you can settle any question whatever. Then you settled the question of Siam very nearly on the same principle. You very nearly settled Siam itself. All that we had contended for, or nearly all, you handed over to the other side. As to the fortress of Chantabun, the evacuation of which had formerly been promised, you made a large angle in the line of demarcation in order that it should be permanently alienated from Siam.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is perfectly true that the noble Lord had left proposals for erecting a buffer State of Chinese between Siam and China, but we gave no kind of encouragement to that proposal, which we thought was exceedingly unwise. We really had nothing whatever to do with it.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: You made a line of demarcation by agreement with the French. At the same time the noble Marquess has reminded me of another point, and I am obliged to him. It is that we got rid of the buffer State and surrendered British territory, which was a thing of which we should have heard a good deal if it had been done by a Liberal Government. I will not go further into these matters. I do not think the noble Marquess's controversial contribution adds much to the interest of the argument. But I want to point out that before boasting of foreign policy it is necessary to go more into detail and discuss these questions on the facts of the case. The noble Earl behind me asked for some information as to China. That was not one of the diplomatic achievements of the Colonial Secretary. The net result of the policy of the Government with regard to China appears to be that we have an agreement with Germany which Germany authoritatively contrues one way and we another. If there is any other net result the Government can point to I shall be glad to hear it at a later period of the debate.
Then I had occasion to say that we were extremely unpopular at this moment in Europe, and I confess I see in that a certain danger which seems almost to gratify some members of His Majesty's
38
Government, but which must cause anxiety to all who wish well to their country. For the spirit and the words of the Colonial Secretary's speech the other day in the controversy upon which he has entered I have nothing but commendation. I think it was a proper answer to give, but I confess I am a little anxious about these controversies with Germany or with other Powers, to which the dialectics of the Colonial Secretary have so singularly contributed. I dread, and I think the reader of every newspaper dreads, his excursions from the legitimate colonial sphere into that of our foreign relations. When is this system going to stop? You may have a spirited repartee from some other country, and then we must rejoin to that. All this time the fever of national animosity is growing, not on one side of the Channel, but, I am sorry to say, on both; and you must, if my opinion is worth anything, prepare yourselves, providing you go on as you are proceeding now, to maintain by efficient measures that position of splendid isolation which for some strange reason you consider the most desirable one for this country.
This leads me to ask what it is you are doing with regard to preparation to maintain our military position. You cannot dissociate foreign policy from the question of your military strength. I do not wish to use any rash or incautious words, but I do feel from the bottom of my heart that the Government which prides itself on being divorced from all common sentiment with any other European country cannot be too strong. It is well to have an overpowering Fleet. Other nations have fleets too. What is the condition of your Army? You have an enormous force (for us) locked up in South Africa. You are now sending out reinforcements to fill up the necessary gaps in that Army. What are the measures you have taken with that intention? So far as we know you have summoned 2,000 Yeomanry at 5s. a day to your standard, and 10,000 Volunteers at a shilling a day simultaneously to your assistance. That may be an efficient measure. It may be a great result of the elaborate Army scheme of the past year, but I confess it inspires me with no confidence at all. I do not know what military authorities like my noble friend the Duke of Bedford opposite, who made so able a contribution to the

39
military question the other day, may think of such preparations as these, but I confess they fill me with grave disquietude. In ordinary times and with an ordinary Government which conducted its foreign relations in an ordinary way, this matter would, perhaps, be less formidable. But at the present time our condition of preparation is cause for some disquietude, I think, among reasonable men. Where are the six corps ďarmée? I thought the opportunity would be taken now to forward some divisions from those hosts to South Africa, but, as far as I can make out, they are non-existent. I say this is a matter which does deserve the attention of your Lordships, and which, I hope, will not escape attention in your future debates. I hope I have not broken my pledge, except in this instance of foreign affairs, of speaking non-polemically to-night, and I thank you heartedly for the attention with which you have listened to me.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I do not think your Lordships will desire me at this hour of the evening to make a long speech. The custom of this House offers many facilities for discussion, and I think we may look forward to debates on some of the important points which have been raised by the different speakers to-night. But I do not wish to appear wanting in respect to the two noble Lords on the other side. I wish to take notice at once, very briefly, of a question which was put to me by the noble Earl opposite in regard to China. I shall, of course, be glad, following the precedent of last session, to be interrogated by him on the subject of China whenever it may suit him to do so. Perhaps it will suffice this evening if I tell him that since we last met, although progress in China is, as we well know, very slow, it is possible to say that events have moved, upon the whole, in the direction which we should desire. The Court has gone back to Peking. That event is very variously regarded by different people; but to me it seems that we are much more likely to be able to come to a satisfactory arrangement with China if we have at the capital a recognised and established Government with whom it is possible to deal in the usual form. Since last year we have diminished our military forces in China.
40
A year ago we had no less than 16,000 troops in that country; six months ago, 11,000; and to-day we have only 6,000. I hope we may be able before long to make still further reductions. That, of course, must depend largely upon the condition of the country and also upon the action of foreign Powers with regard to the withdrawal of their troops. I am sure it will not be your Lordships' desire that this country should be inadequately represented in the matter of military strength in comparison with the other Powers who maintain forces in those regions. We have resumed negotiations at Shanghai for the purpose of dealing with many questions concerning the commercial interests of this country. These negotiations have just commenced. We have appointed as our principal representative Sir James Mackay, a gentleman who has earned a very considerable reputation as a conspicuous member of the mercantile community in India, and who has held office as a member of the Council both of the Viceroy of India and of the Secretary of State in London. I should be inclined to say that if ever there was a person typical of that kind of business man whom the noble Earl below the gangway desires so much to see in official employment, Sir James Mackay merits that description. I will say a very few words only with regard to the speech of the noble Earl below the gangway, and I must express the deep regret with which I heard him proclaim to this House and to the country that we are universally detested in every country of the world.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: In Europe.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: In Europe. My Lords, I will go so far as to say that, even if that statement had some foundation of truth, it is not a statement that should have been proclaimed by a person of the noble Earl's weight in the councils of the nation. Nor, indeed, am I, for one, prepared to admit that this is a true statement. I believe it is perfectly true that we enjoy a very great and a very inconvenient amount of unpopularity upon the Continent in consequence of the war now proceeding in South Africa. The spectacle of a great Power belabouring a weak Power always provokes a natural sympathy for the weak Power, and that

41
sympathy not infrequently takes a somewhat hysterical shape. I think if we were to look back to our own annals we should find cases in which there have been outbursts, of popular indignation upon similar occasions a good deal exceeding the real requirements of the occasion. But, my Lords, because we are unpopular in Europe on account of the war in South Africa, I for one certainly do not admit that our position in regard to the great Powers of Europe is an unsatisfactory or an undignified position. I believe, on the contrary, that the manner in which this country has demeaned itself during the South African war, the manner in which the war has brought out the solidarity of the Empire and the amount of support which is forthcoming for us from our great colonies—I believe all that has gone to increase immensely the respect and I will say the esteem, with which we are regarded in other countries. Then, my Lords, the noble Earl took exception to the statement of the Colonial Secretary that the present Government had been successful in a large number of cases in dealing with outstanding difficulties which had not been surmounted by the late Government. The noble Marquess behind me (Lord Salisbury), whose familiarity with these cases, as they were dealt with by him and not by me, must obviously be greater than mine, was able in each case to question the correctness of the noble Earl's criticisms. But, after all, his criticism so far as I have been able to follow only comes to this, that if the present Government had been successful in dealing with those cases, they were cases for the existence of which the noble Earl's Government was not responsible, because they existed long before his time. The fact remains that these cases have been settled, and for the life of me I cannot see why the Colonial Secretary was not justified in referring to the fact.
The noble Earl concluded his remarks by dwelling on the gravity of the military situation in South Africa, and asking His Majesty's Government what we were doing in order to deal with it. I cannot help thinking that, if the noble Earl desires information upon military questions of this kind, he would do well to put a notice upon the Paper and to challenge us to provide the information for which he seeks. If it is his contention that we are sitting
42
with folded hands and doing nothing or nothing sufficient to cope with the emergency in South Africa, I would venture to remind him that we have constantly maintained in that country a force of over 200,000 men, that that force has been constantly replenished, and that we have at this moment hardly an empty barrack in the United Kingdom. That seems to me to show that we are dealing adequately with this great military problem. As for reforms, a scheme of reforms of a very thorough nature was announced last year by the Secretary of State for War, and I am almost tempted to remind the noble Earl that on more than one occasion he has intimated his own belief that what he once called organic changes ought not to be undertaken until the war was over. We do not go quite so far as that. We think that as far as possible we should make a beginning with organic changes whenever we can detect that such changes are clearly desirable, and those changes are being made, and we are fully prepared to defend them. But our main object, the object at which it will be universally admitted we should aim, is to finish this war and to spare no efforts to do so. That we are doing with all our might; and in doing that I believe we shall have the approval of the people of this country.
On Question, agreed to, nemine dissentiente; Address ordered to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
The Earl of Morley appointed, nemine dissentiente, to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.
Committee for Privileges—Appointed.
Committee for the Journals—Appointed.
Stoppages in the Streets—Order to prevent, renewed.
Appeal Committee—Appointed.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS).
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the following Papers having

43
been commanded to be presented to this House by His Majesty had been so presented on the following dates by delivery to the Clerk of the Parliaments, pursuant to Order of the House of the 17th February 1896, viz:—

COLONIES.
I. Annual Reports—
No. 330. Straits Settlements, 1900. (August 29);
No. 331. Fiji, 1900. (September 10);
No. 332. St. Lucia, 1900. (September 10);
No. 333. Seychelles, 1900. (September 24);
No. 334. Falkland Islands, 1900. (October 1);
No. 335. Mauritius and Rodrigues, 1900. (October 28);
No. 336. British New Guinea, 1900. (October 28);
No. 337. Leeward Islands, 1900. (October 28);
No. 338. Trinidad and Tobago, 1900. (October 30);
No. 339. British Honduras, 1900. (November 9);
No. 340. Hong Kong, 1900. (November 19);
No. 341. Ceylon, 1900. (November 21);
No. 342. Gibralter, 1900. (November 28);
No. 343. Basutoland, 1900. (December 10);
No. 344. Gold Coast, 1900. (December 17);
No. 345. Grenada, 1900. (December 28);
II. Miscellaneous Reports—
No. 17. Gilbert and Ellice Islands. (September 18);
No. 18. Hong Kong. (October 28);

TREATY SERIES.
No. 7. (1901). Convention between the United Kingdom and Denmark, for the exchange of press telegrams at reduced rates. [Signed at Copenhagen, 15th August 1901. (September 30);
No. 8. (1901). Treaty between the United Kingdom and Servia for the mutual surrender of fugitive criminals. [Signed at Belgrade, 6th December 23rd November 1900] [Ratifications exchanged at Belgrade, 13th March, 28th February 1901.] (November 7);
No. 9. (1901). International Convention for the pacific settlement of International disputes. [Signed at The
44
Hague, 29th July 1899.] (With an appendix containing certificates of exchange of such ratifications of Powers parties to the Convention, as had been deposited at The Hague down to 15th July 1901);
No. 10. (1901). International Convention for adopting the maritime warfare the principles of the Geneva Convention of 22nd August 1864. [Signed at The Hague, 29th July 1899]. (With an appendix containing certificates of exchange of such Ratifications of Powers parties to the Convention as had been deposited at The Hague down to 15th July 1901);
No. 11. (1901). International Convention with respect to the laws and customs of war by land. [Signed at The Hague,29th July 1899.] (With an appendix containing certificates of exchange of such Ratifications of Powers parties to the Convention as had been deposited at The Hague down to 15th July 1901.) (December 31):

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
I. Abstract showing the acreage under crops and the number of live stock in each county and province, 1900–1901. (August 22);
II. (Migratory Labourers)—Report and Tables relating to Irish migratory agricultural and other labourers, for the year 1901. (December 3);
III. Tables showing the extent in statute acres and the produce of the crops, for the year 1901. (December 28):

INDIA.
I. (Statistical Abstract). Statistical Abstract relating to British India, from 1890–91 to 1899–1900. Thirty-fifth Number. (August 23).
II. (Trade). Review of the trade of India in 1900–1901. (October 11).
III. (Sanitary Measures). Report on sanitary measures in India in 1899–1900. (November 21).
IV. Royal Engineering College—Further Papers respecting. (October 28).
V. Indian Plague Commission.

1. Indices to evidence, glossary, maps, and summary: Vol. IV. (September 28).

2. Report of 1898–99, with appendices and summary: Vol. V.

VI. Indian Famine Commission—Report of, for 1901, and papers relating thereto.
VII. China Expedition, 1900–1901—Correspondence relating to the evacuation of the Summer Palace at Peking by the British troops. (December 20).

IMPERIAL YEOMANRY.
Report of Deputy Adjutant-General. (August 24).
PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES)
Report of Commissioners, for year ended 31st March 1901. (August 24).

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (COMMITTEE ON SCOTTISH AGRICULTURAL PRICES).
I. Report of Departmental Committee upon existing methods of collecting and recording the prices of agricultural products in Scotland; with copy of minute. (September 13).
II. Minutes of evidence. (October 19).

BANKING, RAILWAY, AND SHIPPING STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Report for 1900. (September 16).
POST OFFICE (PARCELS POST BETWEEN UNITED KINGDOM AND URUGUAY).
Copy of Agreement between British and Uruguayan Post Offices. (September 19).

TRADE REPORTS.
Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance—
No. 2696. Brazil (Bahia). (August 30).
No. 2697. Germany (Dantzig).
No. 2698. Russia (Riga). (September 3).
No. 2699. Portugal (Chinde).
No. 2700. Chile. (September 10).
No. 2701. Belgium.
No. 2702. Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul).
No. 2703. Italy (Rome).
No. 2704. United States. (September 14).
No. 2705. Siam (Bangkok).
No. 2706. France (Dahomey).
No. 2707. Turkey (Baghdad). (September 20).
No. 2708. Russia (St. Petersburg). (September 26).
No. 2709. Russia (Odessa).
No. 2710. France (Algeria). (September 28).
No. 2711. Borneo (Sarawak).
No. 2712. Turkey (Bussorah). (October 2).
No. 2713. China (Soochow).
No. 2714. China (Kiungchow). (October 4).
No. 2715. Austria-Hungary (Bosnia and Herzegovina. (October 12).
No. 2716. Italy (Sicily). (October 15).
No. 2717. Siam (Chiengmai).
No. 2718. Zanzibar.
No. 2719. Russia (Reval).
No. 2720. Siam (Nan). (October 22).
No. 2721. Portugal (Angola).
No. 2722. Africa (British Central Africa Protectorate).
No. 2723. Morocco (Tangier). (October 30).
No. 2724. Brazil (Rio de Janeiro). (November 6).
No. 2725. France (Senegal).
No. 2726. Norway (Supplementary).
No. 2727. France (Society Islands). (November 15).
No. 2728. Japan (North Formosa). (November 26).
No. 2729. Russia (Trans-Caucasus). (December 6).
No. 2730. Turkey (Salonica).
No. 2731. China (Shanghai).
No. 2732. Würtemburg. (December 17).
No. 2733. Denmark (Iceland).
No. 2734. British Trade with Switzerland (Supplementary).
No. 2735. Africa (Ukamba). (December 20).
No. 2736. Chile (Supplementary). (December 28).
No. 2737. France.
No. 2738. China (Foochow). (January 1).
Miscellaneous Series: Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest—
No. 564. Japan. (September 6).
No. 565. Netherlands (Draining of the Zuiderzee). (September 14).
No. 566. Germany (Würtemburg Schools). (September 26).
No. 567. Purchase and Holding of lands by aliens in the United States. (September 28.)
No. 568. Suggestions for British traders with Turkey in Asia. (October 12).
No. 569. Russian Customs Regulations. (October 30).
No. 570. Italy (Report on the industries of the province of Florence). (November 22).
No. 571. Report on the Austro-Hungarian Currency. (December 11.)

SOUTH AFRICA.
I. Further Return respecting refugee camps (in continuation of [Cd. 694.]). (September 23.)
II. Return of numbers of persons in the concentration camps in South Africa, September 1901. (October 29.)
III. Reports &c., on the working of the refugee camps in the Transvaal, Orange River Colony, Cape Colony, and Natal. (November 18.)
IV. Despatches by General Lord Kitchener, dated 8th August, 8th September, and 8th October 1901, relative to military operations in South Africa, including a supplementary despatch, dated 18th October, on the actions at Itala Mount, Fort Prospect, Moedwill. (December 3).
V. Further Papers relating to the working of the refugee camps in the Transvaal, Orange River Colony, and Natal (in continuation of [Cd. 819.], November 1901). (December 10).
VI. Correspondence relative to the treatment of natives by the Boers. (December 12).
VII. Further correspondence relative to the treatment of natives by the Boers. (December 28).
VIII. Further correspondence relating to affairs in South Africa (in continuation of [Cd. 547,], April 1901).
IX. Further Papers relating to the working of the refuge camps in South Africa (in continuation of [Cd. 853], December 1901).
X. Transvaal—Further Papers relating to legislation in the Transvaal affecting natives (in continnation of [Cd. 714], July 1901). (January 11).

INEBRIATES ACTS.
Report of the inspector, containing the Twenty-first Report of Retreats and the second Report on Reformatories licensed and certified under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1899, for 1900. (September 28).
CROFTER COLONIZATION.
Twelfth Report of the Commissioners on colonization in Canada of crofters and cottars from Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland; with appendices. (October 2).
Report respecting Peterhead Harbour Works (in continuation of [Cd. 412.]).
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (EDUCATION).
Annual Report on distribution of grants for agricultural education and research in 1900–01; with statements respecting the several colleges and institutions aided, the experiments conducted and the agricultural instruction provided by county councils in 1899–1900. (October 3).
ARMY (MILITARY PRISONS).
Report on the discipline and management of military Prisons, 1900. (October 4.
STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
Reports on the Federated Malay States for 1900. (October 7).

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
I. (Proceedings):

1. Return for months of March, April and May, 1901. (October 8).

2. Return for the months of June and July 1901. (November 15).

3. Return for the month of August 1901 (January 4).

4. Return for the month of September 1901. (January 7).

II. (Judicial Rents)—

1. Return for the month of January 1901. (December 5).

2. Return for the months of February 1901. (December 17).

III. Rules—Rules made by the Irish Land Commission under the Land Purchase Acts, dated 17th May 1901. (January 15.

WAR OFFICE.
I. Report of Committee appointed by the Secretary of State to consider the reorganization of the Army and Indian Nursing Service.
II. Report of Committee appointed by the Secretary of State to consider the reorganization of the Army Medical Services. (October 4).
III. Order in Council defining the duties of the principal officers of the War Department. (November 12.)

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Statistics of proceedings under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, and Employers Liability Act, 1880, for 1900. (October 8).
MINES AND QUARRIES (GENERAL REPORT AND STATISTICS FOR 1900). PART III.
General Report and statistics relating to output and value of minerals raised in the United Kingdom, amount and value of metals produced, and exports and imports of minerals. (October 9).

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION IN IRELAND (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Reports of Commissioners appointed to inquire into the present condition of the higher, general, and technical education available outside Trinity College, Dublin—
I. First Report (Vol. I. Report. Vol. II. Appendix; with minutes of evidence). (October 12).
II. Second Report (minutes of evidence taken in November and December, 1901). (January 7).

EGYPT, No. 3. (1901)
Correspondence respecting assault on British officers near Cairo. (October 19).
LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 30th September 1901. (October 22).
AGRARIAN OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
Return for the quarter ending 30th September 1901. (October 23).
FOOD PRESERVATIVES.
Report of Departmental Committee; with evidences, appendixes, and index. November 4).

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
I. Special Reports on Educational Subjects—

1. Vol. 7. Rural education in France;

2. Vol. 8. Education in Scandinavia, Switzerland, Holland, Hungary, &c.;

50

3. Vol. 9. Education in Germany;

4. Vol. 10. Education in the United States of America. (November 5).

II. Reports from University Colleges. (November 20)—
Agricultural Department (Ireland)—First Annual General Report of the Department, 1900–1901. (November 7).

EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
Return of evictions in Ireland, for the quarter ended 30th September 1901. (November 12).
FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
Supplement to the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops, for the year 1900 (Fourth and Fifth Annual Returns of persons employed in factories). (November 14).
REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (GREAT BRITAIN).
Forty-fourth Report, for the year 1900, of the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools: Part II. General Report and Appendices III. to XI. (November 14).
METEOROLOGY.
Report of the Meteorological Council to the Royal Society, for the year ending 31st March, 1901. (November 15).
Correspondence relating to the proposed Establishment of a Final Court of Colonial Appeal. (November 21).

CENSUS.
I. (Census of Ireland)—Part I. Vol. I. Province of Leinster. (November 26).
II. (Census of England and Wales)—County of London. (December 17).
III. (Census, Scotland)—Return of population, &c., of Parliamentary Constituencies. (January 7).

FOG SIGNALS.
Report of Trinity House Fog-Signal Committee on experiments conducted at St. Catherine's Point, Isle of Wight, in 1901. (November 28).

EMPLOYMENT OF SCHOOL CHILDREN.
I. Report of the Secretary of State for the Home Department by the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed to enquire into the question of the employment of children during school age. (November 29).
II. Minutes of evidence taken before the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the question of the employment of school children; with appendices and index. (January 3.)

EXPLOSIVES.
I. (Explosion at a firework factory at Longlands, near Ossett)—Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Captain A. P. H. Desborough, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending an explosion which occurred during the operation of forming coloured stars at the factory of Mr. Mark Ellis Riley, at Longlands, near Ossett, on the 26th September 1901. (December 10.)
II. (Explosion at the Elterwater Gunpowder Factory, near Ambleside)—Report to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Captain M. B. Lloyd, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending on explosion which occurred during repairs to the corning house, at the factory of the Elterwater Gunpowder Company, Limited, Elterwater, near Ambleside, on the 23rd October 1901. (December 21):

MINES.
Report to His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department—
I. By J. B. Atkinson, Esq., one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, on the circumstances attending the accident which occurred on the 26th August 1901, at the Donibristle Colliery, Fife. (December 4);
II. By J. S. Martin, Esq., one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, on the circumstances attending an explosion which occurred at Llanbradach Colliery, near Cardiff, on the 10th September 1901. (December 10);
III. By W. N. Atkinson, Esq., one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, on the circumstances attending the accident which occurred at Talk-o'-th'-Hill Colliery, Staffordshire. (December 12):

LIGHT RAILWAY'S ACT, 1896.
I. Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of—

1. Light railways in the city of Wakefield and the townships of Horbury, Alverthorpe, Sandal, Magna, and Outwood, in the West Riding of the county of York;

2. A light railway in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, from Bury St. Fdmunds to Stanton, Walsham-le-Willows, South Lopham, and Diss;

3. Light railways in the boroughs of Kidderminster, and Bewdley, and in the parish of Kidderminster Foreign in the rural district of Kidderminster, in the county of Worcester;

4. Light railways in the urban districts of Richton, Clayton-le-Moors, Great Harwood, and Padiham, the rural districts of Clitheroe and Burnley, and the parishes or townships of Read, Simonstone, and Whalley, and (under certain conditions) in the county borough of Blackburn, all in the county palatine of Lancaster;

5. Light railways in the city of Durham, the parish of Brancepeth, the urban district of Brandon and Byshottles, and the parishes of Bearpark, Neville's Cross, and St. Oswald's, in the county of Durham;

6. Light railways in the county of Derby, from Derby to Ashbourne;

7. Light railways in the county of Somerset, in the city and county borough of Bath, and in the rural district of Bath;

8. Light Railways in the parish of Mitcham, in the rural district of Croydon, in the county of Surrey;

9. A light railway in the county of Essex to join the proposed Elsenham, Thaxted, and Bardfield Light Railway with the Colne Valley and Halstead Railway;

53

10. Light railways in the rural district of Halesowen, in the county of Worcester;

11. A light railway in the county of Somerset from Bridgwater to Nether Stowey and Stogursey. (December 14):

II. Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioner, and confirmed by the Board of Trade amending—

1. The Welshpool and Llanfair Light Railway Order, 1899;

2. The Hadlow Light Railway Order, 1897;

3. The Tanat Valley Light Railway Order, 1898;

4. The Amesbury and Military Camp Light Railway Order, 1898. (December 14):

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
I. Appendix (Section II.) to the Annual Report of the Commissioners, for the year 1900;
II. Appendix (Section III.) to the Annual Report of the Commissioners, for the year 1900. (December 16th).

JUDICIAL STATISTICS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1869.
Report for the year 1900. (December 20).
LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND).
Returns for the year 1899–1900. (December 20).
POLICE (METROPOLIS).
Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for the year 1900. (December 21).
RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES).
Return by railway companies of the United Kingdom for the six months ended 30th June 1901. (January 7).

UNITED STATES, No. I. (1902).
Correspondence respecting the Treaty signed at Washington, 18th November, 1901, relative to the establishment of communication by ship canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. (January 15).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.

  SOUTH AFRICA (DESPATCHES).
  Despatches by General Lord Kitchener, relative to military operations in South Africa.
  1. Dated 8th November, 1901 (in continuation of [Cd. 820.];
  2. Dated 8th December, 1901 (in continuation of [Cd. 823.]
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
  I. General Rules, dated 13th December 1901, of the Supreme Court;
  II. Rule, 1902.

  LUNACY.
  Report to the Lord Chancellor of visits made, patients seen, and miles travelled by visitors of lunatics, between 1st April 1901 and 30th September 1901.

  INDIA.
  I. (Loans raised in England). Return of all loans raised in England under the provisions of any Acts of Parliament, chargeable on the revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended on the 30th September 1901, with the rates of interest and total amount payable thereon, and the date of the termination of each loan, the debt incurred during the half-year, the moneys raised thereby during the half-year, the loans paid off or discharged during the half-year, and the loans outstanding at the close of the half-year, stating so far as the public convenience will allow, the purpose or service for which moneys have been raised during the half-year.
  II. Loans raised in India. Return of all loans raised in India chargeable on the revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended on the 30th September 1901, with the rates of interest and total amount payable thereon, and the date of the termination of each loan, the debt incurred during the half-year, the moneys raised thereby during the half-year, the loans paid off or discharged during the half-year, and the loans outstanding at the close of the half year, stating so far as the public convenience will allow, the purpose or service for which moneys have been raised during the half-year.

  GENERAL PRISONS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
  Order closing the prisons at Carrick-on-Shannon, Enniskillen, Mullingar, Omagh, Wicklow, and Drogheda.
  INCLOSURE, ETC., EXPENSES ACT, 1868.
  Fees to be taken in respect of transactions under the Tithes Acts, 1836 to 1891, in accordance with the provisions of the Inclosure, &c., Expenses Act, 1868.
  BANK OF ENGLAND.
  Return of the amount of notes issued more than forty years which have not been presented for payment, and which have been written off from the total amount of notes issued from the Issue Department of the Bank of England.

  CHELSEA HOSPITAL.
  Account of the receipts and expenditure of the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital in respect of Army Prize and Legacy Funds, &c., for the year ended 31st March 1901; together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.— SUITORS' FUNDS.
  Account of the receipts and expenditure of the Paymaster-General on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, in respect of the funds of suitors of the court in the year ended 28th February 1901; also account of the National Debt Commissioners for the same period in respect of funds held by them on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature; together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  I. Treasury minutes declaring that professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service are required for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of—

  1. Director of engineering and architectural works under the Board of Admiralty.

  2. Instructor in antique life drawing and anatomy at the Royal College of Art.

  II. Treasury minutes granting retired allowances to the following persons under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887—

  1. Walter Innes Pocock, higher division clerk, Local Government Board, Ireland. (31st May 1900).

  2. William Henry Joyce, resident magistrate, Ireland. (18th November 1901).

  III. Treasury minutes, declaring that the following persons were appointed without a civil service certificate through in advertance on the part of the heads of their departments:—

  1. John Thomas Staines, artificer, Royal Small Arms Factory, War Office. (18th October 1901).

  2. Michael Fitzpatrick, rural postman, Post Office. (11th November):

  3. Richard Pearce Nott, 2nd class sorting clerk, Post Office. (20th November 1901).

  GENERAL LIGHTHOUSE FUND.
  An account of the General Lighthouse Fund, under the Acts 57th and 58th Victoria, chap. 60. sec. 679; and 61st and 62nd Victoria, chap. 44, showing the income and expenditure for the year ended 31st March 1901.
  Patent Rules, 1901, under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Acts, 1883 to 1888.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACTS.
  Order in Councils.

  1. Of 26th September 1901, authorising the payment to non-pensioners of certain allowances from the funds of Greenwich Hospital.

  2. Of 4th November 1901, authorising the grant of a pension of 130 l. a year from the funds of Greenwich Hospital to the late medical officer at the Royal Hospital School.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Order in Councils—

  1. Of 26th September 1901, applying the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 238 of "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894" (Merchant Seamen Deserters)

  57
  in the case of the Republic of Honduras.

  2. Of the 4th November 1901, confirming pilotage byelaws made by the Trinity House of Kingston-upon-Hull.

  DOCKYARD PORTS REGULATION ACT, 1865.
  Order in Council of 26th September 1901, defining the limits of the dockyard port of Berehaven.
  EXTRADITION ACT, 1870.
  Order in Council of 26th September 1901, entitled "The Straits Settlements Extradition Order, 1901."

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Order in Councils of 26th September 1901—

  1. Entitled "The Northern Territories (Gold Coast) Order in Council, 1901."

  2. Entitled "The Ashanti Order in Council, 1901."

  3. Entitled "The Gold Coast Order in Council, 1901."

  4. Revoking the Order in Council of 29th December 1887, relating to British Jurisdiction in divers countries on the West Coast of Africa near or adjacent to the Gold Coast Colony.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1878 AND 1889, AND WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) ACT, 1897.
  Orders in Council of 4th November, 1901, fixing fees to be paid on the verification and stamping of weights, measures, and weighing instruments of the metric system.
  LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1897.
  Order in Council of 10th December 1901, further postponing the operation of the Order in Council of 18th July 1898, as regards the city of London, to the 1st March 1902.
  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1858.
  Order in Council of 10th December 1901, approving a statement of proposed new and revised appointments and alterations of salaries in the establishment of the Secretary of State for India in Council:

  WINTER ASSIZES ACT, 1876.
  Order in Council of 10th December 1901, amending the Order in Council of 28th July 1893, with respect to the Winter and Summer Assizes in the North and South Wales Circuits.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MARGATE PIER AND HARBOUR COMPANY.
  Report and statements of accounts, for year ended 5th April 1901.
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD.
  Accounts for year ended 1st July 1901: Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
  Statue made by the Governing Body of Peterhouse or St. Peter's College, Cambridge, on 16th March 1901, in substitution of Statute XXIX. of the Statutes of the College:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 1.)
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.