Sitting of 13 March 1902

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

  MANCHESTER (MARKET STREET AREA) IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
  (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CRAWFORD SMITH, who moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, craved the indulgence usually granted in the House to those who addressed it for the first time. He only regretted that his arguments might not have the weight carried by the words of a more experienced speaker. He had waited day by day to see if some other hon. Member more intimately acquainted with the provisions of the Bill would put down a Motion opposing it, but, failing that, he had put down a Motion in his own name. He candidly confessed that
  1240
  he was to a very small extent interested in the welfare of the Bill, but although he was speaking on the subject he did not intend to take any part in the division which might follow. Whatever interest he had would be properly safeguarded by a syndicate which had been formed, and which, he understood, consisted of gentlemen connected with the city of Manchester and district, and who would take care that all interests would be properly looked after. He knew nothing about the members of the syndicate—he only assumed that they intended to carry out the promises they had made to the Corporation—but he wanted to call the attention of the House to the very grave matter of principle involved. The principle which lay upon the very surface of the Bill was compulsory purchase of private property by a private syndicate instead of by a corporation, in order to transfer the interests of private individuals to others without the previous consent of both parties. They who were owners of property were accustomed day by day to hear of syndicates formed for the acquisition of various matters, and of private buyers and sellers coming together to formulate large schemes which were eventually carried out successfully. They were also accustomed to corporations sending in notices that, for the purpose of improvements, they were going to take possession of one's property, and although one might regret it, one bowed to the inevitable. But here they were threatened with a new terror. They would not only have corporations allowed to serve notices upon owners of property, but if a private syndicate was formed, it might, with or without the consent of the corporation, if that Bill were passed into law, be able to serve notices upon owners for the appropriation of their property. That Bill applied to Manchester, but there was no reason why the principle should not be applied to any other large centre of industry in the country. Once they allowed that principle, they would have syndicates formed not only in their own country, but probably very many thousands of miles away, which would not only absorb their industries, but would also become owners of their streets, with the result that they would be placed in a position of considerable jeopardy.

  1241
  A statement which had been circulated that morning, indicated that of twenty-four owners interested in the matter, twenty-two were not against the Bill, and the other two would be dealt with probably in a favourable way in the event of the Bill coming into law. The question at issue had reference to a well-known district of Manchester. Market Street was the main artery of Manchester, and was a very congested district. The traffic was not only very large in certain hours of the day, but from the early morning to late at night the passers-by upon the pavement and the vehicles in the street made the congestion of that district a very great danger, not only to the present population of Manchester, but also to the prospective increased population in years to come. The scheme which had been put before the Corporation had very generally the approval of the citizens of Manchester, but a similar Bill was brought before the Manchester Corporation last year. It was not exactly the same, but the principle at the foundation of both Bills was the same. That Bill was relegated to the Parliamentary Sub-Committee of the Corporation, who considered the matter very carefully, and in a division eight voted for the Bill and five against it. It was afterwards discussed by the Corporation, sixty-three out of 104 members being present, and forty-one voted for the Bill, and twenty-two against it, so that when they took the Bill of last year into consideration, it was evident that there was a considerable minority of the Corporation who were against the measure. The new Bill introduced this year might have met with the approval of the Corporation—he was not in a position to say whether it had or had not—but that did not affect the argument. The Bill proposed to hand over powers which should belong to the Corporation to a private syndicate to carry forward. The reasons which the Corporation officials gave why that Bill was not taken over by them, were that their hands were so full with other schemes that they had neither the time nor the opportunity to carry forward such a measure, and that they had power to acquire land, but not to build upon it. Another reason was that some years ago, a piece of land known as Victoria
  1242
  Buildings, close to Victoria Station, was acquired by a private syndicate, and, in the course of time, the contractor employed upon the work of building failed to carry out his contract, and the Corporation stepped in and took possession of the un-finished building. There was an estimate given in that case that the rental would amount to £35,000 per annum. The actual amount now received from that property was only £13,000, so that the amount expended by the Corporation was yielding a very small revenue, and once a Corporation had been bitten, they were very shy in taking over a scheme which might not be in the future remunerative. But the Corporation had taken care in this scheme that sufficient capital should be provided. £900,000 must be subscribed before the undertaking was commenced. They were to receive from the syndicate a street sixty-three feet in width, and what would weigh more with the Corporation than anything else, the increased rental upon the new street would affect the rating authority to such an extent that they expected the existing rates would be reduced 3d. in the pound by that new undertaking. He did not for one instant doubt the bona fides of the syndicate or their methods.
  The principle at stake was far more interesting than any such consideration, and was one upon which the House itself must decide, viz., whether a local authority could abnegate their powers, and delegate them to private individuals. Parliament not only gave powers to but imposed duties upon local authorities, because they represented the taxpayers. It was asked that the Bill should be referred to a Committee upstairs. Last year a Bill similar in its application to the present was introduced into the other House, where it was sent to a Committee and discussed in detail with the Corporation officials and witnesses present, and was rejected. Now the promoters of the Bill came to that House with a similar clause in a similar Bill. Why should that Bill be sent up to a Committee when it had been rejected in Committee in the other House? Surely the House was quite able to understand the principles which underlay the Bill. In 1898 an interesting debate took place upon a Bill introduced into that House

  1243
  upon similar lines. He referred to the Victoria Embankment Extension Bill. In that case the House, by an enormous majority, refused to send that Bill to the Committee.† The figures were, 84 for, and 336 against, the Bill. He hoped a similar fate would occur to the present Bill that day. It was a Bill which might have the effect—and he presumed would have, if the clause were carried into effect by the proper authorities—of the necessary alteration being made that was wanted. The congestion of the district of Market Street might be alleviated and traffic diverted, but he appealed to the House, and to those Members of the House interested in the rights of private property in large centres of population, to recognise that if that compulsory power was granted there would be no means of knowing when private property would be compulsorily taken from them. He also appealed to those Members who believed in the proper authority looking after its proper duties, and to the many Members of the House who realised that in any extensions and improvements of property in centres of population, the proper authority was not a private syndicate but the local body elected by the ratepayers for that purpose.
  MR. JAMES REIDseconded the rejection of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out the word 'now,' in order to insert 'on this day six months.'"—(Mr. Crawford Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid that although his name was on the back of the Bill he had no interest in it except as one of the Members for Manchester, and intimately acquainted with some of the promoters of the Bill. It certainly must be a matter of surprise that, with six Members for Manchester and three for Salford, besides those representing the adjoining districts, the opponents of the Bill had gone all the way to the Tyneside to find a Member, and that a new Member, to move the rejection of a private Bill in the interests
  †This debate is reported in (4) Debates, lvi., 1094.
  1244
  of the citizens of Manchester. The hon. Member had said he would not vote. Why?
  MR. CRAWFORD SMITH: Because I have a small interest in the matter as an occupier.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid that, under the circumstances, the hon. Member's position was thoroughly legitimate. The hon. Member for South-west Manchester had exerted himself in opposition to this Bill, and had always been thoroughly straightforward in the matter. He had told him from the first that he was opposed to the Bill and intended to do all he could against it. The land affected by the Bill was not in his hon. friend's constituency, and had the interests of the inhabitants of the district been injuriously affected, he was sure his hon. friend the senior Member for Manchester would not have been slow to interpose on their behalf. The hon. Member said that this was practically the same Bill as that introduced last year; but that dealt with two great thoroughfares, whereas this Bill dealt with only one. The hon. Member objected to an improvement of this kind being undertaken by a private company and not by the Corporation, but surely the Corporation was the best judge of whether it was convenient for them to undertake a large work of this kind. Forty-four Members had voted in favour of the scheme, and only seven against, and that after a full debate. The Corporation had its hands very full. It had guaranteed £5,000,000 for the completion of the Manchester Ship Canal, which he believed indirectly had been very beneficial to the city, and which he hoped at no distant date would be remunerative. With the enormous works they had already in hand, the Corporation would rather that this improvement was carried out by private enterprise. At the same time they desired that the company should not interfere with the great artery of Market Street, but should leave that to be done by them under an arrangement provided in the Bill. It was true that some land the Corporation acquired last year had not for the most part been sold yet, and that was a considerable reason why they should not be burdened with a large amount of property which they

  1245
  perhaps could not realise. The hon. Member said he did not question the efficiency of the capital. He could hardly do that, because it was expressly provided in Clause 28 that unless the capital was subscribed in full the company should not exercise its compulsory powers. Therefore there was abundant security to the public that the company should not begin with insufficient means.
  The hon Member for Tyneside said that this measure was on all fours with the Victoria Embankment Bill of 1898. and ought to be dealt with in the same way. Would the House believe that there was so little similarity between the two measures that the Bill was thrown out being opposed by the London County Council, because they had a scheme of their own for which they had since received Parliamentary powers? Therefore there was a great dissimilarity between the two cases. He was surprised to see in The Times that morning two suggestions, neither of which he ventured to say were accurate. One was that the Corporation of Manchester, having failed to obtain Parliamentary powers to carry out this scheme, were now attempting to prevent a private company from passing it into law. The Corporation had done nothing of the kind. This was a scheme for the benefit of Manchester, for he knew no street which was so congested as Market Street, Manchester, where they would find vehicles of all kinds passing along, besides a large number of foot passengers. No less than twenty-two out of the twenty-four owners affected were not opposing this measure, and the remaining two were virtually satisfied. He ventured to say that no scheme had been made out for withdrawing the scheme.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid he would be quitefrankinregard to this measure. He had no private object of any kind to serve in opposing this Bill, and he had no interest of any sort in the property affected. His right hon. friend had said that the only difference between this measure and the Westminster Bill of 1898 was that the local authority in that instance were anxious to promote a Bill, and in this case the Council was not anxious to promote the
  1246
  scheme. In the case of the Westminster Bill the same principle was contained in it, namely, that they were asked to give to a private syndicate powers to take compulsorily the property of other people. In that case Parliament would not reverse its almost universal practice of refusing to allow a private syndicate to exercise compulsorily rights over other people's property. This was an area which undoubtedly needed improvement. The widening of Market Street had been in the air for a great number of years, but the question as to whether this scheme would improve Market Street was a point more for the Committee to consider. If hon. Members would look at the plan, they would at once be convinced that the improvement proposed was a very partial one, and at one end in particular it would be a serious danger to the traffic. With regard to the consent of the Manchester Corporation to the scheme of this Bill, his hon. friend admitted that last year there was great opposition on the part of the Corporation, but this year it had been considerably reduced. and he said that now forty-four members of the Corporation voted for and seven against the Bill. He was under the impression that there were only six, and, therefore, his hon. friend had understated his case. He would point out, however, that only fifty members of the Council voted out of considerably over 100, and after the discussion several of the oldest and most respected members not only took no part in the division but actually walked out. He did not wish to suggest that that proved that the Corporation were not in favour of the scheme, because he believed they were; but what he did say was that the Corporation had not shown any burning desire for the scheme such as his right honourable friend had suggested. The position of the Corporation was this. They said, "If we can get this improvement by a private syndicate, why not? And why should this company not have compulsory powers if Parliament thinks fit to give them to it?"
  His right hon. friend had said that the Corporation of Manchester thought this was a matter for a private syndicate and not for Parliament to decide, but he ventured to say that that was a misrepresentation of the state of affairs in Manchester. It was really a question of principle, and

  1247
  the opponents of the Bill felt that practically the same Bill had been brought in again. Therefore they did not see why they should be put to the expense of again threshing out a question which had been decided by a Committee of the House of Lords. There was a question of principle involved. Parliament had given to the local authority in Manchester the means to carry out street and local improvements. They had to hold local inquiries and ratepayers' meetings, and all these means had been provided by Parliament, whereby the local authorities could carry out necessary improvements. Parliament in one or two exceptional cases gave compulsory power to private syndicates to carry out improvements of this kind, but in all cases there were, like the Strand improvement, very exceptional circumstances. His right hon. friend had mentioned Birmingham, but the improvement there was carried out by the local Corporation, and in the Leeds case the powers were granted to the Corporation. If the House was going to reverse its decision of 1898, in the case of the Westminster Improvement Bill, he did not see where there was going to be any security to owners of property. The promoters said that this property was necessary to their scheme, but the House was being asked to pass the Bill because someone desired to make money out of it. Was it right that Parliament should give these people the right to make money out of other people's property when no case had been made out? Did his right hon. friend suggest that the Corporation, which was able to borrow money at a little over 3 per cent. on their consolidated stock, was unable to carry out a great improvement of this kind? He thought that if the Corporation was really in earnest in desiring to carry out the scheme, they would have very little difficulty in getting the money. He hoped, therefore, the House would agree to reject the Bill by a large majority, and not put those whose property was attacked under the necessity of having to defend themselves before a Committee of this House.
  MR. GROVESsaid he wished to correct a misapprehension in the mind of his hon. friend. It was the General Purposes Committee of the Corporation that decided in favour of the scheme by a majority. When the matter came before the Council it was passed
  1248
  without question. The plans of the promoters had been considerably improved and out of twenty-four proprietors concerned there were only two who were now dissenting. When that opposition was overcome, as it was hoped it would be, the Corporation would proceed with the widening of the remaining portion of the street. He knew pretty well every brick on this property, although he had never owned or had any interest in any portion of it. It was absolutely tumbling down in many places, and the reason that the owners could not take means to rebuild was because their property at every point was surrounded by ancient lights. It was quite impossible to deal with this matter piecemeal. For many years the Corporation had had their hands full, and they could not proceed with this scheme, much as it was required. The rates had been going up, and the public spirit of the Corporation was such that they had undertaken improvements which were not always of a remunerative character. The various interests concerned in this matter having now been brought into line, he hoped that the House would take a broad view of the measure, and not stand in the way of the promoters carrying out the public improvement.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINSsaid the opposition to this measure was based on the sacred right of private property. He must say that when twenty-three owners of property out of twenty-four were in favour of the scheme it seemed to him to be a singular ground of opposition. Those who knew Manchester knew that there was a crying evil in connection with this matter. Hon. Members who had been in the Committee room today knew that the tramway scheme would be utterly impossible unless the street was widened. It must be widened, and this proposal seemed to provide the only way in which it could be done. It was supported unanimously by the Manchester Corporation, and he submitted that the Bill should be passed in accordance with their wish.
  MR. SEELYsaid he knew nothing whatever about this Bill, but he was in favour of its going to a Committee on the ground that the constant habit of Members bringing forward Motions at the time for private business to prevent Bills going to a

  1249
  Committee was becoming a nuisance, and was causing inconvenience to public business. It seemed to him that the only way to stop this was for a large number of Members to vote for sending everything to a Committee which was opposed in this way.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid that he had not the privilege of being connected with Manchester, but as a case in which he was interested had been more than once referred to, he was bound to point out that this Bill was in most respects similar to the Westminster Improvement Bill, which; on a Motion which he proposed, was rejected by the House. It was rejected entirely on a matter of principle. It was not, as the right hon. Baronet behind him (Sir J. Ferguson) had urged, rejected because of the opposition of the London County Council. He did not want to depreciate the assistance which he and his friends received on that occasion from the hon. Member for Battersea; but it would be within the recollection of hon. Members that in those days the County Council was not very popular in the House, and he himself was warned that the co-operation of that body would not advance his case. The question of principle involved in that Bill was
  the same one that was obviously involved in this. It was a principle so important that the House was not only justified in coming, but was bound to come to a decision in the matter. The principle involved in the Bill now before the House was whether the public interest was to be guarded by a public authority responsible to the ratepayers, or whether that public interest, so far as it was embodied in a scheme like this, should be in the hands of a private body who could have no ultimate object to serve except the interest of their shareholders in making dividends. That was a definite principle on which the House ought to decide. On this point he differed entirely from his hon. friend who had just spoken, Matters of detail undoubtedly should go to a Committee upstairs; but to say that important matters of principle should not be decided by this House was a reductio ad absurdum of the procedure of the House with regard to private Bills, which in that case ought not to come before the House at all.
  (3.58.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 102; Noes, 179. Words added. (Division List No. 76.)
  Second reading put off for six months.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (DUBLIN) BILL (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred pursuant to the Order of the House of the 7th day of March, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Public Offices (Dublin) Bill.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL; MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 1) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
  "To enable the London County Council to construct new tramways in the County of London and to work the same by electric traction; to make street improvements; to acquire lands for a station for generating electricity and for use in connection with their tramway undertaking; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
  NORTHUMBERLAND ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  CENTRAL ARGENTINE AND ROSARIO RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1902–3 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
"That a sum, not exceeding £19,095,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, viz.:—

CIVIL SERVICES.

Class II.

Home Office

£60,000

Chief Secretary for Ireland

16,000

Class I.

Royal Palaces and Marlborough House

35,000

Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

50,000

Houses of Parliament Buildings

16,000

Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

22,000

Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

16,000

Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

12,000

Revenue Buildings

150,000

Public Buildings, Great Britain

190,000

Surveys of the United Kingdom

90,000

Harbours under the Board of Trade

7,000

Peterhead Harbour

6,000

Rates on Government Property

250,000

Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

110,000

Railways, Ireland

80,000

1296

Class II.

United Kingdom and England:—

House of Lords, Offices

£3,000

House of Commons, Offices

12,000

Treasury and Subordinate Departments

39,000

Foreign Office

30,000

Colonial Office

25,000

Privy Council Office, &c.

5,000

Privy Seal Office

1,000

Board of Trade

70,000

Mercantile Marine Services

30,000

Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

3

Board of Agriculture

70,000

Charity Commission

15,000

Civil Service Commission

18,000

Exchequer and Audit Department

26,000

Friendly Societies Registry

3,000

Local Government Board

85,000

Lunacy Commission

5,000

Mint (including Coinage)

5

National Debt Office

6,000

Public Record Office

10,000

Public Works Loan Commission

5

Registrar General's Office

25,000

Stationery and Printing

350,000

Woods, Forests, &c., Office of

8,000

Works and Public Buildings, Office of

23,000

Secret Service

40,000

Scotland:—

Secretary for Scotland

25,500

Fishery Board

8,000

Lunacy Commission

3,000

Registrar General's Office

3,000

Local Government Board

5,000

Ireland:—

Lord Lieutenant's Household

2,000

Department of Agriculture

70,000

Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

1,000

Local Government Board

26,000

Public Record Office

2,000

Public Works Office

16,000

Registrar General's Office

9,000

Valuation and Boundary Survey

6,000

Class III.

United Kingdom and England:—

Law Charges

40,000

Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

27,000

Supreme Court of Judicature

140,000

Land Registry

14,000

County Courts

15,000

Police, England and Wales

20,000

Prisons, England and the Colonies

320,000

Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

140,000

Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

14,000

Scotland:—

Law Charges and Courts of Law

30,000

Register House, Edinburgh

15,000

Crofters' Commission

2,000

Prisons, Scotland

40,000

1297

Ireland:—

Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

£35,000

Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

45,000

Land Commission

55,000

County Court Officers, &c.

46,000

Dublin Metropolitan Police

40,000

Royal Irish Constabulary

600,000

Prisons, Ireland

45,000

Reformatory and Industrial Schools

55,000

Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

3,000

Class IV.

United Kingdom and England:—

Board of Education

4,500,000

British Museum

80,000

National Gallery

10,000

National Portrait Gallery

3,000

Wallace Collection

5,000

Scientific Investigation, &c., United Kingdom

31,000

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

43,000

Scotland:—

Public Education

700,000

National Gallery

3,000

Ireland:—

Public Education

710,000

Endowed Schools Commissioners

400

National Gallery

2,000

Queen's Colleges

2,500

Class V.

Diplomatic and Consular Services

250,000

Uganda, Central and East Africa Protectorates, and Uganda Railway

320,000

Colonial Services

1,100,000

Cyprus, Grant in Aid

29,000

Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

50,000

Cretan Loan

— —

Class VI.

Superannuation and Retired Allowances

280,000

Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.

2,500

Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances

1,000

Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

17,000

Class VII.

Temporary Commissions

22,000

Miscellaneous Expenses

17,087

Coronation of His Majesty

— —

Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

— —

Total for Civil Services—

£12,105,000

1298

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

Customs

£350,000

Inland Revenue

830,000

Post Office

3,800,000

Post Office Packet Service

210,000

Post Office Telegraphs

1,800,000

Total for Revenue Departments

£6,990,000

Grand Total

£19,095,000

Resolution read a second time.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: When the Vote on Account was in Committee, there was considerable discussion on the salary of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and on the policy of the Irish Executive. The object of the discussion in Committee was to endeavour to elicit from the Irish Government some explanation of the policy they intended to pursue in the near future in Ireland. But the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant—the man really responsible for the Government of Ireland in this House—was unfortunately absent. We regretted his absence for public reasons, because his absence rendered the debate futile and quite ineffectual; and we regretted his absence for personal reasons, because, whatever our views of the action of the right hon. Gentleman in the Government of Ireland may be, we were all sincerely sorry that he was ill, and we are all very glad to see him back in the House again. Now, this matter would not have been raised again for discussion by myself were it not that, in my opinion, questions of very grave importance may arise in regard to the future of Ireland; and it is expedient that the right hon. Gentleman should have the opportunity tonight of explaining exactly where he stands in this matter. In my opinion, the immediate prospects in Ireland are exceedingly grave; not because there has been any recrudescence of crime, but because the Government have entered upon a fatal path—a path in which it is almost impossible for them to stop, a path, which will inevitably lead them, as it has led every Government which preceded them, to disaster and to crime. The Chief Secretary has, as it seems to me, allowed himself to be bullied on to this path by a section of the people in Ireland who have always been false guides to the English Government, and, having succeeded in getting him on to that path, they are making a resolute effort to force

1299
him on the downward course. Anyone reading the English papers, and especially the London papers, for some little time past, would be of opinion that Ireland today was in a state of universal lawlessness, crime, and outrage. Every newspaper, every morning, now contains a sensational heading about lawlessness in Ireland, with incitement to the Government to put in force the provisions of the Crimes Act. I charge that there is a deliberate conspiracy on foot to mislead and infuriate public opinion in this country on the Irish question, and to force the Chief Secretary, in my opinion, against his own judgment, to put in operation all the provisions of the existing Crimes Act.
Now, that being so, and this conspiracy being composed of influential men, being led by influential men, and being able to obtain the space that it does in the English newspapers, makes it of the utmost importance that this question should be fully discussed in the House of Commons on this Vote. Speaking of Ireland as a whole—I do not speak of particular localities for the moment, although it is not because I am going to shirk that—I say that for 100 years, since the Union was passed, the country has never been so absolutely free of crime. So far as ordinary crime is concerned, it may with truth be said that there is practically none. The Spring Assizes are on now, and the judges are going from county to county, making a gaol delivery and trying all the prisoners awaiting trial, and I venture to assert that if all the criminals brought to trial in all the Assizes, in all the counties of Ireland, were added together, the sum total would not be so great as the calendar of any one of the Sessions of the City of London. I was reading the day before yesterday a paragraph with reference to the Recorder's Court of London, which does not have before it all the criminals in London. This is only one Court. I do not know how often are the Sessions; but I have here the calendar for March, from which I gather that the Sessions are held very frequently—and I find that that calendar consists of eighty-six criminal offences. There were two cases of arson, three of agent conversion of property, one of fraudulent bankruptcy, two of bigamy, three of burglary, six of conspiracy, two of counterfeit coin uttering, six of forgery, seven of housebreaking, twenty of larceny, two of stealing letters,
1300
three of libel, four of manslaughter, nine of misdeameanour, one of murder, one of attempted murder, one of perjury, three classed as outrages—it does not say what, four of receiving stolen goods, one of robbery with violence, five of wounding—making a total of eighty-six; and the Recorder, in charging the Grand Jury, said that the crimes in the calendar were merely of the usual character. My hon. and learned friend sitting near me tells me what I had thought myself before—that the Sessions are roughly held once a month, and held only for one specified portion of the population of London. You find, therefore, that in one session, comprising the criminals for one month, in one district of London, there are on the calendar more serious offences than were tried in all the Assize Courts, in all the County Courts of Ireland, and at the Spring Assizes now going on.
I feel that it is unnecessary to labour this question of ordinary crime; but it is well to recall the fact that Ireland is crimeless as regards ordinary crime. The conspiracy set on foot in the English newspapers to urge the Government to use the exceptional powers under the Crimes Act in Ireland, however, tries to make out a case that there is much agrarian crime. They say, "Admitted that Ireland is free from those crimes of violence which are so frequent in England and Scotland, Ireland is disgraced by a large amount of agrarian crime," and they include in that agrarian crime the charge of boycotting. I call as a witness to this the man who is responsible for the peace and good order of Ireland. What does he say? On the 23rd January of this year the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in the course of a speech in which he dealt with this question—not of ordinary, but of agrarian crime, said—
"I do not think the agitation very alarming. On taking office, I fonnd less agrarian crime than in any previous year. At this moment (23rd January) there are thirty-five cases in the whole of Ireland, and 211 persons boycotted; and only in the case of twenty-seven persons can it be attributed to what is called the influence of the League."
There were only twenty-seven persons out of this 211 in whose case boycotting could be attributed to what was called the influence of the League. The right hon. Gentleman gave some figures of an interesting character. He quoted the figures of agrarian crime. As the House is aware,

1301
from time to time Returns are made to the House of agrarian crime in Ireland, and included under this head are threatening letters. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the threatening letters, as a rule, form the largest item in the Returns. The right hon. Gentleman said that in the forty-five months—he took a large view—up to the 31st of January, 1898, which was the date of the first dawning of the League, as he called it, there were 956 agrarian outrages in Ireland; in the forty-five months up to the end of last October, while the League was in existence and in operation, the number was 950; and he went on to say that of those 190 only could be attributed in any degree to the influence, as he called it, of this organisation. He further admitted that the bulk of the agrarian outrages, such as they were, were not to be attributed to the League.
Therefore you have, first, the fact that there is no ordinary crime in Ireland; secondly, that agrarian crime is at a lower ebb than ever before in the history of Ireland; and thirdly, you have the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that of all the agrarian crime only a very small proportion indeed can be attributed to the influence of the organisation of the people. That was on the 23rd of January. What has happened since, Mr. Speaker, to give any cause or excuse for this outcry that has been raised in the English newspapers as to the state of lawlessness and disturbance in Ireland? A more criminal campaign has never been set up than this which has been started to force the Government into enforcing the Coercion Act in the way it is desired to enforce it, which would only be to break up this state of peace and lead again to the outbreak of crime. What has happened since last February? Some four or five grand juries in certain parts of Ireland have passed resolutions calling on the Government to put into force the whole of the Coercion Acts. It is worth while for a moment to recall to the House exactly what these grand juries are. I do not understand the present existence of these bodies at all. Up to the passing of the Local Government Act for Ireland, these were the bodies which had all the responsibility of administering the local business of the country. All that has been taken from them, and they have no business now of
1302
any sort or kind except that of finding true bills for the protection of prisoners, though, in my opinion, it is a proceeding which affords no protection at all, and which might as well be abolished. I see no use in the continued existence of these bodies. They are composed solely of landlords and the representatives of landlords in Ireland; and when you come to speak of the state of the country and the state of land agitation in Ireland, it cannot be expected that they would give impartial testimony. Yet the resolutions of five or six of these bodies are trotted out in England as a demand for making coercion more rigorous. But if we have to consider resolutions of that kind, I want to know why we should not consider resolutions passed by the County Councils of Ireland. While these grand juries have been passing resolutions on the one side, the County Councils, elected by the people and representing the people, composed of all classes, all creeds, and all politics in Ireland, have been passing resolutions in the exactly opposite direction. The newspapers of England, with that fairness which characterises their treatment of Ireland, have been parading the resolutions of these one or two grand juries, but not a single paper in London has published any of the resolutions passed by the County Councils. But it is not only on those resolutions that this demand is founded. We have seen quoted, and most of us have seen with regret, the Charges of certain judges from the Bench in Ireland. I think, Sir, I understand the full limits to which I can go in touching on a matter of this kind. I cannot discuss the propriety or impropriety of what the judge has said, and I do not propose to do so. I propose to deal with a practice known in Ireland, a practice which I believe is entirely unknown here, of supplying to the judge private documents supplied by the police of Ireland, which documents form the foundation for the declaration of the judge from the Bench.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would be in order in commenting on the action of the police in supplying the reports, but he would not be in order in going into the use that was made of the reports by the Judges on the Bench.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I understand that, and I intend to be guided exactly

1303
by that line of argument. The practice is unknown in this country. I do not think the practice I speak of—of supplying to the judge, not merely information with reference to the case before him, but private secret information by the police as to what they think are the prospects of the maintenance of peace and order for the future—exists in England, and the proof is that there are never any such declarations as come from the Bench in Ireland. Sir, we have had what seems to me to be the most absurd position created in many of our Assize Courts. We have had judges with no criminals to judge, and congratulating the people on the fact that there was no crime, and yet we have the same judge saying, from private documents supplied to him from the police, that the country is in such a condition and so bad that the Coercion Act ought to be renewed. This is a wrong and ridiculous practice, and I want to know, if these private reports are furnished to the judges of Ireland, why they are not laid on the Table of this House. It is a monstrous state of things; although there are no criminals to be tried in a county, that county is to be told that it is in such a serious condition that the Coercion Act ought to be renewed. These are the means that are being used by this conspiracy to endeavour to work up a panic here in England with regard to the state of lawlessness and disorder in Ireland at the present moment. A more flimsy pretext has never been put forward, and a more criminal campaign never entered into.
Now, let me ask the Chief Secretary what are the real facts with regard to Ireland at this moment. I have first shown that there is no ordinary crime in Ireland, and that there is less agrarian crime than there ever was before; but there is intense political discontent all over Ireland and intense agrarian discontent all over Ireland, and in our portion of the country this agrarian discontent is of so intense a character as to cause great local excitement, and to threaten peace and order in the future, and there have undoubtedly been certain cases of boycotting. Now, I want to ask in this House, how have the Government met this state of things, and how are they meeting it now? They have met the general political discontent throughout the country by suppressing free speech. In a place where
1304
there is not only no ordinary crime and no agrarian crime, but no political excitement whatever, the Government have wantonly gone and suppressed a public meeting. I dwelt at the commencement of the session on some of these incidents, but the right hon. Gentleman had many other weighty matters to consider, and he made no answer. Again, the other night, the Attorney General omitted to say a single word, and I do not know whether tonight it will be possible for the Chief Secretary, in the course of his remarks this evening, to give some attention to this. I cannot weary the House with these cases over and over again, but I will just indicate in a sentence what I mean. Almost immediately after the right hon. Gentleman arrived in Ireland, a meeting, at which I was present, was suppressed. It was held in a perfectly peaceful county, in the beautiful county of Wicklow; the meeting was broken up by force; the people were dispersed with violence, and, of course, a great deal of bad blood remained behind. That was early in the administration of the right hon. Gentleman. He put down this meeting without rhyme or reason, and in this way, by suppressing public meetings, he has been dealing with this political discontent. Take the case the other day, at Kilmaine. There the meeting was not proclaimed, and the police did not try to stop it. The Member for East Clare had made a speech, and when he finished, another Member, the Member for the district, came forward, and immediately the policeman started up and said "You cannot speak," and when he attempted to persist in speaking the meeting was immediately dispersed by force. I want to know what is the meaning of this policy of interfering with the right of free speech, where there is no crime or danger of any sort.
Then, let us consider how the Government are meeting the case of agrarian discontent in Ireland. They are meeting it by opposing an absolute non possumus to the moderate, and what I claim as the Conservative, demand put forward by the Irish people for the settlement of the Irish Land question, and by postponing indefinitely all attempts to remedy an admitted grievance. We do not yet know when the right hon. Gentleman is to introduce his Land Bill, but we know the Government have no intention of dealing in a

1305
thorough way with this Irish Land question; and we will find that this Bill is once more a measure tinkering with a system proved to be absolutely incapable of settling this question in Ireland. And how does the right hon. Gentleman deal with the agrarian question in the West? This is a very serious matter. This agrarian trouble which has arisen in the West springs directly out of the action of the Government, and it could be stopped tomorrow if the Government simply gave a hope to those people that in the near future they would obtain the concession of their demand, which even the Attorney General the other night admitted was the natural demand for them to make. The hon. Member for East Mayo, in a speech made earlier in the session, I think, impressed the House very deeply. He said that he knew the responsibility of encouraging a struggle of this kind; that he knew the suffering and the trials it would entail on the people, and that he himself would go to Roscommon, and advise the people to come to an arrangement with the landlord if only the Government would hold out any hope whatever that they would deal in a sympathetic manner with this question. That appeal apparently fell on deaf ears. The only answer to it has been—what? The renewal of the Coercion Act in that district; the application of the Coercion Act in such a way as to exasperate and irritate the people all round the district, by the imprisonment of all their most trusted local leaders. Public meeting has been suppressed. Through the length and breadth of that district no man is allowed to speak, no meeting can be held. The only meetings which are held are held surreptitiously by evading the police. No public meeting of any sort or kind is allowed; the country is studded with what might be called blockhouses; there is a perfect army of police in possession of the district, and on every occasion when an attempt is made to hold a meeting the people are dragooned and batoned by those policemen. In fact, an absolute state of terror exists; wholesale prosecutions have been set on foot, and the Government are at present engaged in sending to gaol as a criminal every single man in the district who has the confidence and trust of these tenants. They say they are doing this in order to put down boycotting.
1306
Let me say a word on this question of boycotting. There are two perfectly distinct kinds of boycotting. There is a kind of boycotting which is contemptible, unjust, and mean, which springs from personal or petty or trade motives, or other motives of that sort. Boycotting of that kind has always been denounced by every Nationalist organisation of the past, and is quite foreign to our objects and views at this moment in Ireland. But there is another kind of boycotting. There is that boycotting which is simply the expression of the unanimous will of a community to refuse to have dealings with a man who is regarded by them as a pest and an enemy to the well-being and safety of the community. Take the case of a land-grabber. What is a land-grabber? Anyone who has read the history of Ireland knows what evictions have done in Ireland. They know also what has been the curse of Ireland—that greed for land, that land-hunger which has induced the Irish peasants to bid one against another, and give ruinous prices for small patches of land. Then when a man has been unjustly evicted—that is to say, evicted from his farm for the non-payment of an impossible and unjustrent—another man comes in and takes that farm. He is an enemy to the whole class of tenants in Ireland; he is encouraging the exaction of an exorbitant rent; he is breaking down the trade union of the tenant farmers; and I say that, in my judgment, it is just as justifiable to boycott him as it is in England to boycott the blackleg and the scab. The point I desire to make is this: if you cannot put down that kind of boycotting under the ordinary law, you cannot put it down at all. You cannot put down that kind of boycotting simply by re-enacting any clauses of any Coercion Act, and my anxiety is due to the fact that your coercion proceedings in the West of Ireland, while they will not put down boycotting or fulfil the object you have in view, will gravely imperil the peace and the order of the entire district. I say that boycotting such as I have described cannot be put down by your coercion.
Let me quote a great authority on this question—I mean Lord Salisbury. Speaking in 1885 on the attempts to put down boycotting by Coercion Acts, Lord Salisbury said—
"The effect of the Crimes Act has been very much exaggerated. The provisions in the

1307
Crimes Act against boycotting are of very little effect. Boycotting has grown up under the Act, because it is a crime that legislation has very great difficulty in reaching. Boycotting was the act of persons purporting to do things which in themselves were legal, and were only illegal because of the intention with which they were done. I will give you an instance of boycotting, and I will leave it for you to tell me whether the Crimes Act will affect it. Not long ago a boycotted man went into a Roman Catholic Church, and everyone left the Church instead of sitting still until the service was over. The priest said, I will go on with the service and finish it for you alone, but I would recommend you to go away. Now, what is the use of an Act against a system of that kind? You cannot indict people because they go to church or leave church. It is more like an excommunication or an interdict of the Middle Ages than anything I know. The truth about boycotting is that it depends on the passing humour of the population. I do not believe, for my part, that in any community it has ever endured; I doubt whether in any community the law has ever been able to provide a remedy."
Sir, I say that your coercion, while it will inflame public opinion, endanger peace, and work untold mischief and suffering on individuals, will not put down boycotting. It is impossible for you to put down boycotting of the character I have named. You have never succeeded in doing it; and when people believe, rightly or wrongly, there is adequate cause, you never will succeed in putting it down by your Coercion Acts. When men break the law, deal with them; when any man goes out and incites others to do a criminal act, deal with him according to the law, but, I beg of you, do not, under a mistaken belief that by renewing coercion you will stop boycotting, set about this wretched campaign in Ireland for the suppression of free speech, and putting into prison every man who is engaged in a political campaign opposed to you. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing in Ireland is shutting the safety-valve. Politically speaking, I am free to confess that I would welcome the coercion of the Government. The stronger and more powerful the Government, the more powerful the example. Every exhibition the Government makes of its inability to govern Ireland except by abrogating the British constitution, except by laws that do not exist in England, Scotland, or Wales, or in any freely governed part of the Empire, every such exhibition simply proves the case we have come to this House to make for Home Rule. It
1308
arouses and unites the Irish people at home, and the right hon. Gentleman knows enough about Irish polities to be quite well aware of the effect which it has upon our movement in America. Only this afternoon I received a cablegram. I am sorry I gave it away, so I cannot read it, but it was from Philadelphia, telling me that last night there was held the greatest meeting (as it said in the cablegram) ever seen in Philadelphia, presided over by the Governor of the State, and that a large sum of money, amounting to many thousand dollars, was subscribed as a protest against what they thought was the decision of the Cabinet the other day to renew the Coercion Act. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that politically—looking at this matter simply as a politician—his action is welcome to us, and is likely to strengthen our hands. But anybody who has any sense of responsibility must admit that there is an over-riding consideration. I was in public life through the Land League agitation, and I saw what was the consequence of a coercion campaign in those days. What happened then? The leaders of the movement were in prison. I do not mean only the leaders of the movement in this House—they were in prison as a matter of fact—but, in addition, the leaders of the movement all through Ireland were in prison. Thousands of men, all the local leaders, all the men who possessed the confidence and trust of the people, and who had the power of restraint on their neighbours and friends—all those men were arrested and thrown into prison. The open public organisation of the people was shattered, and what happened? Then the moonlighter and the assassin came upon the scene. I want, if I can, to save Ireland from a renewal of scenes and proceedings such as occurred in that year. I do not hesitate to say that I dread the recurrence of such, scenes, and I sincerely hope that whatever the Government does—whether it draws back from adopting this fatal power or allows itself to be driven on to disorder and crime—I trust that the Irish people, and especially those living in the West of Ireland, who are most tried, will listen to our voice when we tell them, as we have been telling them, and as we tell them now, and as I tell them—and I wish my voice

1309
could reach every cabin in Connaught—that the one thing they will ruin their movement with will be to stain their hands with crime, and that their greatest hope for the future is to maintain an attitude well within the attitude of the United Irish League organisation, which denounces crime, which has up to the present suppressed crime, and which will continue to suppress it so long as it is allowed to exercise a restraining influence upon the people.
It is astonishing how history repeats itself upon this Irish question. I was reading only the other day a report of a discussion in this House on a Coercion Bill in the year 1833. Then it was a Motion by Lord Althorpe for the introduction of a Coercion Act, which was one of the eighty-seven Coercion Acts which had been passed since the Union. In reading the debate upon that occasion I came across a passage spoken by an eminent English Conservative statesman, which might very well be addressed to the Government at this moment. Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, on the 7th of February, 1833, said—
"We take the time for exercising new coercions at the very moment when, by our new experiment of conciliation, we have virtually declared that seven centuries of coercion have been unavailing. I am sure that no people on the face of the earth can be governed by the system His Majesty's Ministers propose. Today Concession; tomorrow Coercion. This system, at once feeble and exasperating, of allowing the justice of complaint, and yet of stifling its voice, of holding out hopes and fears, terror and conciliation, all in a breath, is a system that would make the most credulous people distrustful, and the mildest people ferocious. Do what you will, if you pass these laws I warn you that it will be in vain. You can never counterbalance, in the opinion of the Irish people, this attack upon the vitals of their freedom. No individual reforms, however salutary, can pacify or content a nation that you rob of its constitution. You flatter yourselves that under shelter of those laws you will be able, with effect, to apply your remedial measures; it is just the reverse. They will blight all your remedies, and throw their own withering shadow over all your concessions."
There is a voice from the year 1833, and might not every word of it be spoken in the year 1902. Irish Governments learn nothing by the lapse of centuries.
LORD HUGH CECIL: Does the hon. and learned Member know what that Act was?
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Yes; the Act of 1833 abolished trial by jury in Ireland, and it set up a special tribunal of servants and agents—paid agents—of the Government to try offences which in England could only be tried by jury. That is what that Act did. And so the history has been the same all through the century; and is it not a miserable state of things for English statesmen to have to consider the using of that power again in 1902? And you are still at the old policy, the policy of giving a Land Act with one hand and administering the whip of coercion with the other. You have no consistency, and you have no sense in your policy. Why do not you abolish the forms of the constitution altogether in Ireland and abolish Local Government? What an absurdity it is to create Local Government in Ireland and give County Councils, freely elected by the people, and then to pass a Coercion Act to send the chairman and the leading members of those Councils to prison without trial. What an absurdity it was to send Members of Parliament from Ireland to this House to be always overborne by British majorities, and then have the forms of the Constitution abolished year by year in eighty-seven Coercion Acts!
Sir, the system is absurd. I say that in the West of Ireland the Government cannot with impunity refuse to redress this grievance, the justice of which they have practically admitted, and thus stifle the voice of complaint and imprison the leaders of the people. The Chief Secretary, in my view, has arrived at the parting of the ways, although he has not absolutely and definitely finally taken the wrong turn. I know the difficulties of his position—at any rate, I think I do—not from any communication with him at all, but I think that I know exactly the difficulties of his position; and I really think I know to a great extent his own judgment upon this matter. I am quite convinced he is being driven along this path against his will, and I ask him tonight to resist in his own interest. I am sure he will not, in a grave matter of this kind, think of his own interest, although it would be his interest to avoid coercion; but in the interest of Ireland, the interest of the country he is sent to govern, I ask him to resist this influence, and to retrace quietly, but as speedily as he can, the initial false steps he has already taken. Sir, the faction which is drawing

1311
the right hon. Gentleman on is the faction which has always done wrong at every crisis in the history of Ireland. This is the faction which has ever opposed the removal of grievances in Ireland. They have uniformly opposed every concession, whether it came from the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party, and in my opinion they have been responsible for most of the blood and misery which has stained the history of the relations of this country and Ireland for the last hundred years. I remember the phrase Mr. John Bright used in this House in reference to this action. He said, speaking of them—
"These are the men who stood in the way of improvement of the franchise in the church and of the land. They thought they purchased Protestant ascendency when the price they paid for it was the ruin and degradation of their country."
These, are the men who are attempting to press the right hon. Gentleman along his path today. We know perfectly well that some of them are in the Cabinet. So far as Ireland is concerned, we know who they are—Lord Londonderry and Lord Ardilaun, two men who in the whole of their careers never contributed one useful word towards the settlement of any grievance, large or small. [Mr. WYNDHAM: Really!] The Chief Secretary misunderstands my reference to Lord Ardilaun. I admit his public generosity, but I say, as a politician, he is a man who has never, either in Parliament or out of it, contributed one sensible or useful word to the settlement of any question, large or small; and it would be a pitiful thing if the right hon. Gentleman allowed himself, by a faction led by these men, to be drawn into a course of action which I am convinced his own better judgment does not warrant.
Sir, I say to the right hon. Gentleman, let him retrace his steps; let him deal with this Land question in a thorough and broad spirit; let him open the safety-valve he has shut in Ireland; let him withdraw once and for all his policy of suppressing free speech; and let him cease to imprison the local leaders. Let him, for example, allow men like John Fitzgibbon of Castlerea—a man universally loved and esteemed by all classes and creeds in County Roscommon; a man who today possesses the confidence and trust of the people, and a man whose influence has always been used in restraining
1312
the passions of the people—let him allow men of that character to do some useful work outside of prison instead of sending them in as criminals into the gaols of Ireland; and if he does that, I believe he will find that the result will be that the state of immunity from crime in Ireland which exists will continue to. But, on the other hand, if he rejects the advice given to him by the representatives of the Irish people in this House, if he follows the invariable rule and practice of all English Governments almost without exception, and if he allows himself to be guided by this unresponsible juncta of Irish landlords, I warn him he will fail in his policy; he will fail to put down boycotting; he will fail in his policy in the West of Ireland; and he will inevitably bring great disorder upon the country. The Chief Secretary has great power, and no one recognises that more than I do. He has not much power for good, but he has sure influence in his position of governing Ireland from Dublin Castle; but he has enormous power of infamy and of evil. He may recreate agrarian crime, not only in the West but all over Ireland. He may be able to present to Parliament this day twelve months a really disturbed Ireland which he received, on his own admission, free from crime when he took up office. He may weaken, he may perhaps destroy, the power of men who desire to restrain political passion, and to guide it into channels of open peaceful and constitutional agitation. He may add enormously to the power of other men of extreme views and more violent methods; but, Sir, there is a limit to his power. Whichever course he pursues, there is a limit to his power. He cannot by any repressive legislation make his policy a success, or by any repressive measures he may adopt, or by any dragooning of the people, or by wholesale imprisonment of the people, he cannot succeed in making the English Government in Ireland one whit more successful or one bit less hated than it is at the present moment.
Amendment proposed,
"To leave out '£19,095,000.' and insert '£19,094,900.' "—Mr. John Redmond.)
Question proposed, "That'£19,095,000' stand part of the Resolution."
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND(Mr. WYNDHAM,), rising after a pause, said: I gave an opportunity, as I thought it my duty to do, to hon. Members who might wish to take part in the debate; but it appears that hon. Members in all parts of the House are prepared to hear what I have to say in reply to the speech which has just been made, and also, in a lesser degree. to the attacks which have previously been made on the Government, and notably the criticism passed on the Government during the Committee stage of this Vote, when I was unfortunately absent. Let to before I say anything else, express to the hon. Member who opened the debate my appreciation of his reference to the cause of my absence. He was good enough to say that he regretted it on public grounds, but he added that he regretted it also on personal grounds. I thank him for that. We are sharply divided on many questions relating to Ireland, and though I agree with a very little of what fell from the hon. Member, I cannot accept his account of the history of the relations of the two countries during the last hundred years; and when he asks us where is our consistency and our sense, those are the very words in which I have put a similar question to the hon. Member, and in which a similar question has been put to almost every Irish leader who has preceded him—Where is the consistency in deliberately inviting coercion and then stating that coercion prevents any good fruit from being born? Where is the consistency in declaring that agitation, and agitation alone, produces remedial measures? It is a matter of history that more legislation has been passed for Ireland during the lulls in this bitter controversy than at moments of crisis and panic. The hon. Member says that I am being driven by a section of the Press into a course of which I disapprove. I have already stated that, in so far as I am responsible for the Irish Government, I shall defend it in this House; and I must respectfully repudiate any speculation as to my private views on any matters relating to Ireland. I am the Minister responsible to the House of Commons for the policy of the Irish Government and for the action or inaction of the Irish Executive,
1314
and so long as I hold that position I shall defend what I think capable of defence; and I am to be held personally, as well as politically, responsible for all that I defend, whether in the matter of action or of inaction.
Now, Sir, the hon. Member declared that the situation in Ireland was grave, and he went on to say that it was not grave because of any prevalence of crime. I do not say the hon. Member quibbles with this matter, for I wish to avoid any offensive language; but is it not an unhappy play on words for one set of men in this House to use the word "crime" in one sense, knowing perfectly well that it is used by every one else in another sense? What is it we call boycotting? If it is indeed your view that it is no crime to overbear the will of people in the poorest circumstances, to hamper them in the pursuit of their lawful avocations, to cloud their horizon with apprehension, to fill their lives with bitterness, and to bring them within measurable distance of absolute ruin—if it is the opinion of hon. Members from Ireland that that is not a crime, let us fight openly on that issue. What is a crime? A crime is an action against which a charge can be brought in a Court of Law. It is not a question of words, it is a question of fact. If under the law of the country such action is illegal, and if evidence is forthcoming, persons guilty of such action can be convicted, not only in Ireland, but in England also. Therefore I deprecate any quarrelling over the use of words. Let us come to the facts. Are these things done in Ireland, and are they legal? I say they are done in Ireland and I say they are illegal. The hon. Member quoted a portion only of the speech I made in the debate on the Address. I have always endeavoured to be perfectly candid in everything I have said about Ireland since I became Chief Secretary. I have never tried to improve my case or the case of the Government. I think there is too much misconception already about affairs in Ireland to make it morally right for anyone who has a special know ledge of the facts not to state the facts as accurately as he can. Therefore I have always held it to be my duty to say that of violent crime against the person or against property in Ireland, there is less now than in any period of which we have

1315
record. I have said that because it is true, and the more truth we can import into the discussion of Irish affairs the sooner we shall arrive at just and accurate results. But, speaking on the Address, I did pick out two sets of facts which I then described as grave. I picked out the revival of a state of things in the De Freyne and Murphy estates, which, in my opinion, was indistinguishable from the plan of campaign, and I picked out another set of facts, namely, that one or two or more speakers had often come together, apparently deliberately, in order to hold up to public execration some individual. I stated then quite clearly that in my opinion a Government would be unworthy of the support of this House if it neglected to adopt any proper course likely to succeed in order to protect such people from such annoyance, which is often far more than annoyance, and attended with graver circumstances. I stated those views then, and I adhere to those views now. The hon. Member's speech, after all, if he will allow me to say so, shaded off into the repetition of a great many speeches with which we have been familiar in this House. The echoes of 1887, 1888, 1889, and 1890 rang again in my ears. In those years such speeches were very familiar. I remember occasions when I have stood on the platform with the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and heard him denounce this boycotting.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to say that when this matter was before the Committee the other night I made a strenuous protest against boycotting, and declared that I would support the Government in almost anything to put it down.
MR. WYNDHAM: I am not making an attack on the hon. Member.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am sure you are not.
MR. WYNDHAM: I am glad to find that in the hon. Member's opinion there are now in Ireland persons whose cases do demand the zealous care and protection of the Government. That care and that protection shall be extended to them. I was saying that many of the speeches delivered the other night seemed to me to be mere echoes of others. There is a new
1316
generation of Members in this House.—[A NATIONALIST MEMBER: And with the same thick heads]—but I may tell them that the charges now preferred against the Irish Government are conventional charges. Action is deliberately taken in Ireland, as I said a moment ago, in order to oblige the Government to send extra police into a district. The hon. Member for Cork City has said that the best way in which you can hamper the Government and render their task difficult is to force them to send down a number of police in order to protect persons in certain districts in Ireland. So that is the way in which the police are brought upon the scene. It is a deliberate mechanical contrivance in order to force this question on the public attention. The police, being on the scene, are charged with brutality. The first conventional charge is the brutality of the police. The next, which has not been urged tonight, but has been urged, and will be urged again, is the servility of the resident magistrates to the Government. The third conventional charge is that the Government is forced to resort to exceptional legislation, and by so doing provokes further exasperation. Now these are the three notes in the chords of this old tune with which we are so familiar, but I shall not inflict on the House a detailed reply to the particular incidents which have been urged in their support, at any rate, not at great length.
Let me take the first conventional charge—that the police are brutal. It was said that not long ago, at Lough-glynn, they drew their batons and charged the crowd in a perfectly unnecessary manner. Whenever such charges are made the Irish Government of the day at once makes a most careful investigation [Nationalist laughter], and is informed from official sources that nothing of the kind took place.[Renewed Nationalist laughter.] I almost courted that repudiation. It almost invariably comes, prompted by the very same motives which lead hon. Members to prefer the charge. Therefore the Government is not content to rely only on official information. They generally refer to some perfectly impartial witness, and what they want is almost always to be found in the Nationalist newspaper published in the locality. In this particular case I looked the incident up in a Nationalist newspaper which is edited by an hon. Gentleman belonging

1317
to the Nationalist Party, whose impartiality is proved by the fact that he is now under sentence of imprisonment, and I found it there stated that on this occasion the police did not draw their batons at all. The charge is always made and the official defence is scouted, and then we bring in the testimony of an impartial witness. I pass now to the charge of the servility of the resident magistrates. The hon. Member for South Tyrone argued that everybody who took a part in platform defence during the years I have mentioned was familiar with this conventional charge, and with the hackneyed but adequate answer. During the whole of the five years from 1887 to 1891, when coercion was in full swing all over Ireland, the percentage of acquittals by resident magistrates was higher than the percentage of acquittals by juries. They may be right or they may be wrong, but when they convicted and when they did not it was quite clear they were not the mere puppets of the Irish Executive, who dictated to them the verdicts they were to give. That is the old charge and the old argument. It will always be preferred. I will take a particular case dwelt upon the other evening, to which I must ask the hon. Member to allow me to refer, although he has not brought it up again—the case of the prosecution of the woman Normoyle. I must refer to that case, because I gather from the report, and I have also been informed by those who were present, that it was handled in such an ingenious manner by the hon. Member for East Mayo as to cause a great deal of derision, even on the part of persons who would be the last, I am sure, to wish that anyone oppressed in Ireland should not find a remedy in a Court of Law; and I read in a newspaper, which is urging the Government to be very firm and resolute, that they must also be particularly careful in the cases which they select, and not bring themselves or resident magistrates in Ireland within the reach of such ridicule.
In the Normoyle case, one of the resident magistrates was not a member of the Protestant Ascendency Party, nominated in order to domineer over a people of another race and another religion. He is an Irish Nationalist, Mr. Kelly, appointed by the right hon. Member for Montrose Burghs when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland. The person who had been subjected to oppression was a woman named
1318
Mrs. Normoyle, who earned a livelihood by selling milk. She was not directly or indirectly concerned with any political or agrarian issue. She is a common country woman, making her own living in an honest way. She is subjected to gross oppression, and she informs the police. She makes a statement which she signs. Her son also makes a statement, which he signs, to the same effect. The persons who, in my opinion, were responsible for the oppression from which that woman and her son suffered were prosecuted under the Crimes Act for unlawful assembly. Both the aggrieved parties go back on the statements they have made. Why? Well, the Judge, Mr. Justice Gibson—who held that the magistrates had been technically wrong in holding these people to bail—said that, in his opinion, that could only be due to the intimidation which had been practised upon them. The Judge expressed his opinion upon the point of law with great diffidence, and his colleagues on the Bench differed from him. The majority of the Court held that the persons who had been accused, but could not be convicted of that charge owing to the aggrieved parties having gone back on their evidence, could properly be bound over to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour. Why not? If the Court was satisfied that they had been acting in this manner, and that the evidence had broken down because they or others had persisted in the same reprehensible conduct, why should not the Court of Magistrates have given directions for binding over the parties accused to keep the peace and be of good behaviour? I think I have said enough to satisfy a good many hon. Members in this House that the case is not so transparent a travesty of justice as some of them were perhaps led to believe the other night.
MR. MACVEAGH: Is it a fact that the magistrates decided that these men were innocent, and that the men have now had three months in gaol?
MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Gentleman has given a different version from mine. It means the same thing if you really look into it. Where the Court finds there is no evidence against the men

1319
accused, they are discharged, but they are then bound over in their own recognisances, and I believe that that is a practice for which a parallel can easily be found in this country. If a person is found in this country under suspicious circumstances, and there is reason to believe he intended to commit some crime against other persons, he is arrested, and if he is unable to give any satisfactory account of his conduct he is frequently bound over to keep the peace.
Now I come to the third conventional charge, namely, that the Government has had a wanton and unnecessary recourse to exceptional powers. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford, who opened this debate, made a point that we had interfered with the right of public meeting; that at Kilmaine and other places the police had interfered with the right of public meeting. I think that is a serious charge, which ought to be met. I will quote the words of Chief Baron Palles—
"There is a constitutional right for people in this country to meet in a peaceful and lawful manner in a place where the occupier consents to such meeting for the purpose of stating what are, or what they may deem to be, their grievances, to ask the Legislature to provide remedies for their grievances, and to suggest to the Legislature such remedies as they may think right, even remedies which others may think wrong and revoluti nary."
The Chief Baron went on—
"But the right of public meeting is but a small portion of our law. Many rights exist of a wholly different nature—first, the great right that the peace shall be kept, or, in the language of the old common law, that the King's subjects shall live in the King's peace. Another right, as well as that of public meeting, is the right of personal liberty."
And he cited another great authority, Lord Bramwell. In 1867, when dealing with disturbances in some of our manufacturing districts of a somewhat aggravated character with a state of affairs not utterly unlike the state of affairs which occurs in parts of Ireland, Lord Bramwell used these words—
"There is no right in our country so sacred as the right of personal liberty. But that liberty is not the liberty of the body only, it is the liberty of the mind and will. That liberty of a man's mind and will to say how he should bestow himself, his means, his talent, and his industry—is as much the subject of the law's protection as is that of his body."
When a body of men is gathered together to interfere with the liberty of some individual, if these persons so
1320
gathered together deliberately advise a course which will interfere with his liberty and with his means of subsistence, that undoubtedly in point of law constitutes such a meeting an unlawful assembly. Well, then, the police, if they reasonably hold that such is the case—[Interruption.] May I resume my argument? It is somewhat a technical argument, but I take up that argument. We are often accused of directing the police to do this or that beforehand. That is not so. An officer in charge of a police force is bound to form a reasonable view as to whether such a meeting is an unlawful assembly; and if in the course of such a meeting any act is performed, or words spoken, which convinces a man of reasonable intelligence and firm mind that such courses are being advocated that the meeting becomes an unlawful assembly, it is the duty of any police officer to stop a crime being committed. Now I will take the Kilmaine case.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give authority for that proposition?
MR. WYNDHAM: Do you mean a legal authority?
MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes.
MR. WYNDHAM: You will find the whole of that, if not explicitly, at all events implicitly, conveyed in the judgment of Chief Baron Palles. I have gone carefully into this question. There are many lawyers in this House, and I do not know whether they will support me; but we have been advised, and I myself believe, that an assembly becomes illegal if persons go to attend it for the purpose of recommending a crime. Do not let us go back to the question we have already dismissed—whether boycotting is a crime or not.
MR. T. M. HEALY: What I asked the right hon. Gentleman was whether he has any authority for the proposition that the tribunal to decide on the question is a police officer.
MR. WYNDHAM: He does not deside the question of guilt at all. He

1321
does it at his peril. But if he, as a reasonable man, believes that a crime is about to be committed and that the assembly is unlawful, then it is his duty to disperse it. If anybody supposes he is quite wrong they can bring an action to prove it. Now, I would ask the House to consider what are the facts and considerations a man of reasonable intelligence and firm mind ought to take into account. I hold that if in a part of Ireland where actual intimidation has been practiced, where some individual has been constantly held up to public execration, a mob of people suddenly collects in close proximity to his house, and if a speaker advances to address that mob who has notoriously on two or three occasions deliberately held up that same individual to public execration, and recommended that he should be boycotted, then if I were a police officer in charge of a force I should come to the conclusion that that assembly was an unlawful assembly.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: That is not the Kilmaine case.
MR. WYNDHAM: I think it is.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I think the right hon. Gentleman must be confusing it with another case. The meeting was allowed by the police, and a certain number of speakers made speeches. For instance, the hon. Member for East Clare made a long speech. But immediately the hon. Member for the Division, Mr. John O'Donnell, was called upon by the Chairman to address the meeting, and before he had opened his lips, the police constable said, "No, no! You will not be allowed to speak," and the meeting was broken up.
MR. WYNDHAM: At Kilmaine there resides a person I shall not name him who has been held up to public execration in that district, and held up to public execration on two preceding occasions by the hon. Member to whom the hon. and learned Member refers. There was no proclamation of the meeting, because it was a surprise meeting. The occasion of a fair was chosen, when there were about 5,000 people congregated in the town. That was the moment seized upon by two or three persons seeking to raise an agitation, to collect a crowd of 500 and to
1322
begin to make speeches. I say that created a dangerous situation, with which the police on the spot were bound to deal. When the hon. Member for East Clare got up to speak there was no reason to suppose that he was going to make an attack on this individual whose house was in close proximity to the meeting, and therefore he was allowed to speak; so careful are the police in Ireland not to interfere with the right of public meeting. Then the hon. Member who, on two previous Sundays, had also surreptitiously held surprise meetings on almost the same spot, gets up to go through the same performance a third time: and the police properly tell him that he must not turn the meeting into an unlawful assembly. I accept the whole responsibility for their action, and think that the police showed a very wise discrimination in this case.
Now as to surprise meetings. The new generation in this House who did not hear the old debates are not familiar with these things, which in the old days were done more openly. There used to be great green placards posted by those who wished to stir up agitation, clearly stating that the object of the meeting was to denounce some individual. In that case the Government countered with their proclamation, to inform His Majesty's faithful lieges that the meeting would in all probability turn out to be an unlawful assembly. But now we have to deal with surprise meetings, when the word is passed round over night through the public-houses.[Nationalist cries of "Oh!" and interruption.] Surely hon. Members did not mean to say that the public houses are not places where many people are to be found in the evening? I do not wish to insinuate anything. If you like I will say the private houses. As a matter of fact, the word is passed round where the people are found to congregate together. Next day some local agitator, who has on previous occasions held unlawful assemblies and denounced people by name, starts in one direction with his car, and after going a certain number of miles whips round and goes in the opposite direction. Perhaps two or three others do that, and effect a concentration. That is a surprise meeting; and I urge upon the House that the very fact that these proceedings are surreptitious enhances the presumption of their illegality. There is

1323
no sacred right inherent in the individual to behave in such a way as to arouse a legitimate suspicion that he intends to cause an infraction of the rights of other people. If he does so, it is at his own peril, and the police have a right to interfere with him. In this country they march him to the police station, and if he can give a good account of himself he is discharged; and if not he is bound over to keep the peace.
I hope that I have now justified some of the measures of preventive justice which the Executive take—the dispersal of unlawful assemblies and the binding over to keep the peace of persons from whom some security may be demanded that they do not mean to go on oppressing their neighbours. Now I go on to the Crimes Act. There are times when the use of exceptional law is necessary, where, for example, owing to the deliberately surreptitious character of these unlawful assemblies, the police are outwitted, and where there are so many persons assembled that it may be imprudent or criminal on their part to disperse the meeting. Then they must take evidence of what has occurred; and if that evidence proves that the assembly was, in fact, an unlawful assembly, then it is the duty of the Government to prosecute the persons there for unlawful assembly; and if the Government believe honestly that no conviction could be obtained before a jury, then they would show great want of courage if they did not prosecute under section 2(3a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. That is why in many cases we have proceeded under that Act. Again, when repeated attempts on the part of one agitator have proved that he has a deliberate design to go on with his malpractices, then, also, instead of moving on the meeting. I feel that the Government have acted quite rightly in instituting a prosecution under section 2(3a) of the Crimes Act. I do not claim any merit from any quarter of the House because we have, as a rule, used that section of the Crimes Act and not others. We use it because it is effective. It strikes immediately at the very root of the evil—at the assembly which advocates injurious courses and advises
1324
the people to enter into a criminal conspiracy. Are you to wait until the people have been drawn into a criminal conspiracy, and then to institute a lengthy and doubtful process of law to prove it?
A great many people talk about the Crimes Act without troubling to look into it, and without examining the results which followed from the use made of the Act between 1887 and 1892. By far the greatest number of convictions obtained during those years under the Crimes Act were obtained under Section 2 3a) for unlawful assembly. They were 42 per cent. The convictions under Section 2 (3a) for intimidation were only 12 per cent., for conspiracy only 10 per cent., and under the section which authorises prosecution of persons for belonging to a dangerous association only 2 per cent. Therefore I am not entitled to any laudation from any quarter for defending the use of Section 2 (3a). We use it because we think it effective and adequate for the purpose we wish to achieve. If you look into the results under the Coercion Act in old days, you will see all the features of Irish agitation reflected. It shows what happened, because the bulk of the convictions were obtained for resisting bailiffs and obtaining forcible possession. The fact is that agitation, after some months of vague talking, like the moaning of the wind before the storm, always bursts upon some particular spot in Ireland, and the fight, as it is called—though I do not think the word can be properly applied to what reflects so little dignity on any one concerned—rages round one estate or one holding, which rapidly becomes historical, because the person's name becomes known from one end of the country to the other. The whole trouble is wrought there, and it is there that the Government find that exceptional law can be used with effect. The offenders who bring this state of things to pass are brought to justice, but the devastation which they have wrought remains. It is a poor satisfaction to those who study Ireland, and who wish to see an end of these fights that thirty or forty persons have been put into gaol for starting a plan of campaign if they know that 2,000 or 3,000

1325
persons have been turned out of their holdings and left for years unprovided for.
In passing from the accusation that we have wantonly taken up coercion, I have a word to say. In view of certain statements published a short time ago, I wish to say that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has cordially co-operated with me in the desire to strengthen the arm of the law wherever and whenever that is necessary. Since my noble friend is precluded from making his position known, I feel it desirable to bear witness to that fact. I would ask my hon. friends also to believe—though I do not suppose they doubt it—that I am as sincere and earnest as any man can be in my determination to protect the liberties of our fellow subjects in Ireland. So long as they are prepared to support me, I shall advise, explain, and defend in this House the course which, month after mouth, the Government may think desirable to effect that object on which all our hearts are set. It may be, and it sometimes is, that their opinion, formed on the information which reaches them—and some of which I beg them to believe is inaccurate—will differ from the opinion formed on the fuller information which reaches the Irish Government. I shall regret any such difference of opinion, but as long as I retain their confidence I shall do my best to secure the full and rapid realisation of the object which we all have at heart. In the light of a study of Irish facts on my part, which I know to be careful, and which I hope to be accurate, I pass to an atmosphere of misrepresentation, or, at any rate, of misconception, which clouds all our discussions of Irish lawlessness and grievance.
It is always asserted that if we would attend to the material grievances of Ireland, there would be no agitation and no disturbance. The hon. Member for East Mayo put that statement forward in the most explicit manner. He persuades himself, by a process of reasoning which I cannot follow, that the agitation in Ireland is due to some remissness on the part of the Government. The hon. Member for Waterford said that if the Government had brought in another Land Bill, or had brought it in sooner, or had announced an intention of dealing with the De Freyne estate, all this misery would have been spared. But even in Ireland the effect does not precede the cause; and
1326
I can prove to the House that the order of events is not what was suggested. I suppose that Ireland was never more peaceful than in the years 1895 and 1896. Was the Government remiss on that account? There was the Land Act of 1896, which conferred great powers on the Congested Districts Board. The Local Government Act passed in 1898 was, in my opinion, by far the most important measure passed for Ireland in the last fifty years. It amounted to a social revolution. It took the power in local affairs out of the hands of one class and put it in the hands of another class. There is no revolution, even a peaceful revolution, which does not bring some evil in its train, and I deplore that Ireland has for the time lost the services of many brave, wise, and public-spirited men who were prepared to give their services to the country. But that was a great measure, passed in a time of profound peace, and so was the institution of the new Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. At any rate, that rule of agitation in Ireland is not due to our callous disregard of grievances. In 1895 the hon. Member for the city of Cork, who was responsible for starting a great deal of this trouble, pointed out that there was not a mouse stirring from one end of the country to the other.
I come now to the particular charge that the Congested Districts Board had done practically nothing until the agitation began. It has been said that the Congested Districts Board were instituted in 1891, but did nothing until the agitation began. Why, their power to do anything of practical utility was not conferred upon them until the Land Act of 1896, and as soon as they got that power they used it—two years before this agitation was heard of. And then again, to prove my case, I come down to the De Freyne estate, which has always been mentioned, and was mentioned again by the hon. Member for South Tyrone the other night. It has been said that if the Government had held out some hope to the people on the De Freyne estate, there would have been no agitation. No man can charge the present Government, or, indeed, the preceding Administration of Lord Salisbury, that they shut their eyes to the economic evils in the West of Ireland. It is said that we have held out no hope. We have done more than talk; we have acted. Did we hold out no hope in the

1327
debate on the last Address, when I went out of my way to deal with the economic situation on the estate, and to express my sympathy with the tenants, and to indicate that, in my opinion, it was the duty of a Government to do what they could to remedy these economic blemishes? That was not all. During last year we passed two Land Acts, one which doubled the credit available for the purpose of remedying these blots in Ireland, and another Act conferring on the Congested Districts Board powers mechanically necessary for the carrying out of further operations. We are charged with creating this trouble because we bought the Dillon estate and did not buy the De Freyne or some other estate. The purchase of the Dillon estate exceeded the credit available for the purpose in the county of Mayo, but what did I do? I got an Act which doubled it last year, before this agitation on the De Freyne estate was heard of. On the Dillon estate we found by experience that you could not better the position of the people unless you had more powers. How could we have taken up another estate when our hands were paralysed because we had not the necessary powers? As I say, those two steps were taken last year. We brought in last year, in a session in which it was not easy to pass legislation, a measure involving a more extensive use of Imperial credit at a time when the borrowing powers of the Treasury were less than in any previous period for a long time past. That was the action of the Unionist Government last summer, and when there was not a whisper of agitation on the De Freyne estate. You do not hear anything suggested until the month of September. Then the hon. Member for Cork City threw out a suggestion—not that the De Freyne tenants should strike for a rent equal to the purchase instalments on the Dillon estate, but apparently that the tenants throughout Ireland should strike for a reduction equal to the purchase instalments, a policy which I look upon as insane. This has done more than anything else to paralyse the Government's intention to expand purchase and to arouse hostility against the system of voluntary purchase. Men who are writing on Irish affairs, who were then in favour of this policy, now declare that the purchase scheme of the Leader of the House and the successive action in a similar direction are, in view
1328
of these disturbances, a little doubtful in their wisdom. I am wedded, and have always been wedded, to that policy; and I have proved that the trouble on the De Freyne estate was gratuitously and unreasonably provoked, not because the Government had refused to do anything, but months after the Government had taken the necessary steps. The policy of the Government in the matter of land purchase, and more particularly in the matter of weaning the West of Ireland from these grave economical blemishes, is arrested by agitation.
I wish that hon. Members from Ireland would try to realise how inconsequent their action appears to us in this matter. Surely they must feel that when a Minister brought in two Acts last year, and is pledged to bring in another Act immediately, it is unreasonable to condone in any way an agitation on the De Freyne estate, which can only arrest that policy and paralyse the power of the Executive. When this question comes up, we are told, it is not unnatural that agitation should be raised against the representatives of the old Protestant ascendancy party and against men who have cleared their estates. But who is the landlord selected in this instance? He is a Roman Catholic gentleman, who has lived among his tenants, who, like those who came before him, has been kind and indulgent, who has never cleared his property; and because someone else does not please the local agitator, forsooth such a one is to be hounded down and subjected to financial ruin. I will protect any landlord in that position to the best of my ability, and I will leave no stone unturned to see that no injustice is perpetrated. I regret the passion sometimes imported into a consideration of this question. It is quite grave enough. Take the migratory labourers; that is a grave matter. But there are only 20,000 of them, and 12,000 live in Mayo. I have always held, and I hold now, that we ought to attack these worst spots in Ireland; and, instead of doctoring the whole country with our physic, we want a surgical operation applied to the part which most needs it. That has been my view, and it is the sound Tory view; but how unreasonable it is to say that

1329
we shall not conduct these operations unless we can conduct them all at the same time. We shall proceed with our work as rapidly as we can proceed with it. I trust that we shall not be hampered by the continuance of agitation; but that work must be postponed for a time on any estate where agitation has brought illegitimate pressure to bear either on the landlord or the Government. These cases, with which we are quite as ready to deal as any other, are taken out of our hands by the action of such an agitation, and they must be left to the healing of time. We shall see justice done to the landlords, we will defend the just rights of owners of such estates, and bring to justice those persons who have misled and coerced the unfortunate peasantry on these estates; but we shall deplore the misery to which the peasantry on those estates have been condemned, while hoping that they will be relieved at no distant date. Such estates must go to the bottom of the list. The credit of this Empire is vast, but it is limited for the prosecution of any service, however important. Therefore, it is a matter not only of justice, but, in my opinion, of true kindness to the peasants of the West of Ireland to lend the assistance of the State, first to those who have abandoned a barren warfare and seek to regulate their dealings on principles of common sense, holding to that which they can offer and which the other party can afford to accept. If that can be done, I shall, so long as I retain my present office, devote myself to the twofold task of repressing lawlessness and removing grievances. It is to be hoped that all men who have been misled will see the futility of their error, so that they may again be placed in the category of those who can be assisted by the State without injury to the community.
SIR ROBERT REID: The right hon. Gentleman was particularly asked by the hon. Member for Waterford as to whether he himself approved of the renewal of the application of the whole Coercion Act to Ireland, in view of the present situation, and I was much struck by the manner in which he met that question. He said he accepted the full
1330
responsibility for whatever was done, by the Irish Government so long as he was Chief Secretary, but he did not say whether he approved or disapproved of the extension of this baneful and dangerous system to Ireland in the condition of things in which Ireland is at the present time. He left us in complete uncertainty with regard to the present intentions of the Government in the matter, and in even greater uncertainty as to his own views upon the subject. I hope it is to be, at all events, accepted that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that he is playing with fire in his attempt to enforce coercion on that country.
Now, I wish to make a few observations as to the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the charges made. He spoke of them as being conventional charges; he passed lightly by cases of police brutality, as though it were enough to say it was one of the conventional charges made against the Irish Government in regard to that particular matter. I have been present at all the debates this session to which he alluded, in which particulars were given of brutality and unprovoked violence—particulars given by hon. Gentlemen who said that they had seen it. In one particular case, the hon. Member for East Clare, who is a perfectly straightforward man, said he was one of the witnessers of a scene of brutality which he could only describe as sickening, on the part of the police. The right hon. Gentleman referred to one case, and said that in that case the police repudiated all responsibility. Of course they did. And there he left it, without further reference—a case where specific allegations were made of brutal conduct in batoning the crowd without any provocation at all. I do not think that is the proper way in which specific charges ought to be met by the Irish Government, and the only conclusion I can draw is that the right hon. Gentleman has not the proof necessary to make a more satisfactory explanation. The right hon. Gentleman also said another conventional charge was made of the autocratic conduct of the resident magistrates.
MR. WYNDHAM: Of the servility of the resident magistrates. The charge was that they gave verdicts at the bidding of the Government.
SIR ROBERT REID: The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that there is no advantage in having independence in our judges. He forgets that in this country, and I believe also in Ireland, the independence of the judge and the Court which has to try these cases is safeguarded by Statute, by which they are placed in that position of absolute independence which is one of the greatest triumphs of those who framed our constitution. But whenever these Coercion Acts are put into force in Ireland, we have placed upon the Bench to try these cases gentlemen, some of whom do not pretend to have any legal training or experience, who are sometimes military and naval officers, and others without any judicial experience or training whatever. Gentlemen who, it is well known, are dependent on the Government for their promotion and for obtaining their positions, are put up to try cases which, according to ordinary law, should be tried by a judge and jury. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks he can dismiss so grave a matter as that by speaking of it as one of the conventional charges against the Government, he misconceives altogether the seriousness of the state of things.
With regard to the specific cases to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, one was the Normoyle case, in which two people were supposed to be aggrieved; those who had boycotted them were brought before the resident magistrates; the stat ements made by the aggrieved persons to the police were not those which they ma le in court. In court they refused to prove their case, and they gave no evidence at all that they had been in any way ill-treated. The consequence was that there was no evidence against the accused—the right hon. Gentleman himself said there was no evidence against the accused; and they were acquitted. Now, two things happened after that. The first was that the people complaining, who had probably been forced to come to the court by the police, were themselves committed for some period of time, I believe a short period; and the second and more serious thing was that after these poor persons, the accused,
1332
had been acquitted, the resident magistrates demanded that they should give bail for good conduct, and in default of that bail being given, these persons were sent, by the tribunal which had been forced to acquit them, to prison, where they now are. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was constantly occurring in England. I say that no person can bring a case of that kind before us at any time, and say that it happened in this country. It is a caricature of justice. It is absolutely absurd to say that such a case could take place in a country governed decently and according to law, as I am happy to say England is.
Let me now pass to the Kilmaine case. The facts are that two Members of Parliament went to address a meeting at a place which seemed to be in rather a sulphurous condition; the meeting was perfectly quiet and orderly—that was a fact the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to deny; one Member of Parliament got up and made a speech, to which no exception was taken, and then up got the other Member of Parliament, who happened to be the Member for the Division, but before he could say a word the police tried to stop him. He tried to speak, and it is not suggested that he said anything of an inflammatory nature, but the police forcibly prevented him, and dispersed the crowd, and followed them down the road, batonning them in a manner described by the hon. Member for East Clare as sickening. What had happened previously? On two previous occasions the Member for that Division had advocated the boycotting of a person in the village, a most improper and unlawful thing to do, and on this occasion, before he could speak, the police, with the intuition which they possess in Ireland, said he was going to do the same thing again, and they, not content with dispersing the meeting, followed the people down the street, treating them in this brutal manner. These facts have been stated before, and the Chief Secretary has not attempted to answer them or put forward any excuse which could justify the violence used towards the people who attended at the that meeting. The fact is, when one follows these Irish debates—as I did from 1886 to 1892—one cannot help feeling that there is a different sense in the police of Ireland to what there is in England; they consider they are at liberty to disperse meetings on their own authority

1333
without their being made responsible. The administration of the police in Ireland is entirely different to what it is in this country. Does the policeman who is present at a meeting, and who thinks it is going to be converted into an unlawful assembly, and breaks it up, know that a policeman has no more right than a private individual to break up that meeting?
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: But they do it.
SIR ROBERT REID: And if it is true that a policeman can do it. anybody can do it. The right hon. Gentleman's law upon this, if seriously applied, is likely to lead to trouble. But this is really no serious answer in point of law. The truth is that the practice has been prevalent in Ireland for many years, and the police think they are entitled to do anything they like, and they feel confident that they will be supported by the authorities at Dublin Castle, no matter what violence they may be guilty of. Those are the only cases the right hon. Gentleman thought proper to deal with. He said a little about the land laws, and a little about the case of the De Freyne estate and the Dillon estate, and I want to put one question to him. Never mind what his powers were, I agree if he obtained powers he was quite right in using them. What he did was to buy the Dillon estate, and thereby turn a one sovereign rent into a 13s. 8d. rent. Now, if the credit which belongs to the whole country is employed in that way for the purpose of reducing the rent on one estate, and all the neighbours round see that though that rent is reduced in that way they have no prospect themselves of getting their own rents reduced, it is perfectly natural, and the Attorney General for Ireland admitted it the other night, that they would be discontented. I do not pretend to be a great authority on the Irish land question, although I have sat for many days on a Committee upstairs dealing with the subject; it is a terribly complicated and difficult question. Nor do I pretend to have been throughout a friend of this land purchase system; in fact, I have on occasions voted against it. But, having gone so far, it seems to me absolutely necessary that we must go farther. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to have
1334
peace in Ireland and to keep Ireland crimeless, his best method is to put aside the idea of coercion, to prevent his police attacking the people or taking upon themselves to interfere with so-called unlawful assemblies, to dismiss his resident magistrates, and to bring in remedial legislation. That would, I believe, afford us a real chance of maintaining peace, although for my part, I am of opinion that we shall never have permanent peace in Ireland under the system of Government which at present exists.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Chief Secretary for Ireland has stated that he felt it his duty to make a study of Irish facts. That, I presume, is the duty of every Chief Secretary who goes to Ireland But other people have been engaged in that operation also. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman the Member for Waterford was practically the same old tune. Ah! but that is the pity of the whole thing. If the Chief Secretary could only see it, it is the most painful part of the whole business. It is because the old mischief is there, notwithstanding everything that has been done, that we are here tonight discussing the Question afresh. But where did the Chief Secretary learn that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, was wrong when he stated that remedial legislation had always followed agitation in Ireland? What history has he read? It is not necessary to go behind the Act of Union. Commence with Catholic emancipation was that passed without agitation, or without a tremendous struggle? Catholic emancipation was passed thirty years after it was promised, and probably it would not have been passed for another thirty years had it not been for O'Connell's determined agitation. Take what followed a few years afterwards, when the tithe system was practically abolished. The tithe system was not abolished until the soil of Ireland had been reddened with blood. Take the Church Act. The Church of Ireland was not disestablished until there had been a fierce agitation, not only in Ireland, but in England. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me if the Land Bills would have passed this House without agitation—aye, and agitation of an illegal kind? What produced the Land Act of 1870? The Fenian movement. The Act of 1881?

1335
The Land League. The Act of 1887? The Plan of Campaign. I want to know where the Chief Secretary has obtained his facts, and what history he has been reading. Then he talks about the Local Government Act having been passed in a time of lull. Yes, it was passed in a time of Home Rule lull, but it was born in a time of storm. If it had not been for the agitation demanding a great deal more than local government, this House would never have come within sight of the Local Government Bill. I say that if the Chief Secretary reads history truly he will find that there is far too much truth in the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman that this House has always been too slow to move, and that reform has always followed agitation, and, very often, illegal agitation, in Ireland. But I rose mainly for the purpose of dealing with the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the De Freyne estate. That is the pivot on which the whole case turns, and the House ought to make up its mind definitely one way or the other, upon the merits of that case. The Chief Secretary has stated plainly and clearly that there is no crime of the ordinary character in Ireland. I think he put it quite clearly, or rather, he admitted the position taken up by the hon. and learned gentleman the Member for Water-ford. He admits also that of the old class of Agrarian crime there is comparatively little. But he says that boycotting prevails, and he is right. I stopped him there, because I thought he was going to pin me down as supporting boycotting. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman nothing would be further from my mind than doing that. (Ironical laughter.)
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,): Hear, hear! Not yet.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The right hon. gentleman sneers, but to what does he owe his position in the House? I, at all events, have never been paid to put down boycotting, and he never did anything against it that he had not been briefed to do. I have fought boycotting, and I have seen more of it than most Members of this House, but Lord Salisbury told the real truth when he said it was impossible to put down boycotting by legislation. Of course, it has to be remembered that at that time Lord Salisbury's party was
1336
angling for the Irish vote. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] I know it for a fact, because I was a Liberal candidate at the time, and felt the full weight of Lord Salisbury's action.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: And what are you now?
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I think the paid hireling of the Government ought to allow me to proceed without interruption. Cries of ["Withdraw."]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman must be more courteous in his language.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I was carried away—["Withdraw."] I am coming to that. I was carried away by the action of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I hope he will cease from hurling these personal remarks at me. ["Withdraw."] I withdraw unreservedly.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: I do not wish it.
MR T. W. RUSSELL: Whether the right hon. Gentleman wishes it or not, I know my duty to the House, and I do it. I withdraw unreservedly, and I desire to express my unfeigned regret that, in the heat of debate, I was tempted into using an expression which I ought not to have used.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Will you withdraw to the other side of the House?
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The real point is this. You can deal, as I said, with incitement to boycotting, and you are dealing with that. You can deal with conspiracy to boycot if you can get the evidence, and you are trying to get that evidence and are dealing with it. But you cannot, as Lord Salisbury said, deal with the act of boycotting itself. it is beyond the power of the law. If you get something like a general consent of the community, it is impossible to deal with it. It is because it has been proved in the past that I repeat it here tonight.
Now let me come to this question of the De Freyne estate. My difficulty in agreeing with the Chief Secretary is this, he has stated that if they are to have this

1337
terrorism, the Congested Districts Board cannot proceed with their work, and he has distinctly declared that where this terrorism exists the work of the Board will cease. I think I am not exaggerating the position he has taken up. What is the real position? The Congested Districts Board, with a very small capital to work upon, has been going on for years purchasing small estates, enlarging the holdings of small occupiers, and conferring immense benefits upon a suffering people. They have turned Clare Island into something like a small paradise, and in other cases they have done a great deal of good. Owing to the very success they had achieved, they were tempted into the gigantic operation of purchasing the Dillon estate with something like 4,000 occupiers. This was not a case of Lord Dillon selling his estate to his tenants. If it had been that, an ordinary case under the Land Purchase Acts, nobody would have had a right to say a word. But the Government bought the estate from Lord Dillon, and re-sold it to the tenants; it therefore became an act of State policy. It is all very well to talk in this House, but what were these unlettered peasants to think of this transaction? How did it present itself to them? Here were 4,000 tenants who had had £20,000 of arrears wiped out; landlord, agent, office, and so on, had all disappeared; they were to pay to the State in the future a terminable annuity of13S. 4d. in the pound, where they had previously £1 paid as an everlasting rent. Can it be a matter for surprise that the tenants on the neighbouring estate, men of the very same class, enduring the very same hardships, should demand the same terms? It is not a matter of surprise to me. The Attorney General stated the other night that he could not deny that it was natural. If it was natural, then it could have been foreseen. Here was the Government taking a step which was perfectly certain to produce trouble; the feeling it would arouse was, according to their own law officer, natural, and therefore it should have been foreseen and provided against.
There is no answer to that, and I would like to tell the right hon. Gentleman that this feeling is not confined to these Western tenants. Not a bit of it. This is the feeling which is at the root of the whole demand in Ulster for compulsory sale. I sometimes wonder
1338
whether the statesman who passed the Land Purchase Act of 1885 ever looked ahead. No doubt it was passed under pressure from hon. Members opposite; that was in 1885, and the Irish Vote in Great Britain had to be secured, and that was one of the terms. Did the statesmen of that day ever look forward and ask what would come about when 100,000 occupying owners had been created with these enormous privileges and advantages. We have come very near to that now. They are paying 30 per cent. less than judicial tenants are paying, with a freehold a few years in advance, whereas the judicial tenants have no chance of a freehold whatever. Can those statesmen have imagined that such a state of affairs would be tolerable—that these two classes could exist together in the same country? The inevitable result of such a line of policy is that what is seen on the De Freyne estate. That feeling is as rampant in Ulster as it is in Connaught. The demand is simply this: If equal rights for all white men is an excellent policy for South Africa, it is an excellent policy for Ireland as well. That is the real position of affairs today. You have set up this object lesson in the very heart of the province of Connaught, in the midst of a poor unlettered peasantry; they cannot judge as we judge here the difference between the judicial rent and a terminable annuity. That is what you have done, and you expect peace, and you are sending men to gaol—if they break the law, I am in favour of them being sent to gaol—but they are telling the tenants that this thing has to be fought out, just what the agitator has told the Irish people all through the history of the last century. They are pointing out now, just as previous agitators pointed out, that the British Government never yielded anything except under the pressure of agitation.
MR. WILLIAM MOORE: You believe it yourself.
MR T. W. RUSSELL: Yes, I believe it myself, and why? Simply because I am not able to resist the facts of Irish history, and the facts that have come within my own knowledge since I entered this House. I have been conspiring to pass Land Bills ever since I have been a

1339
Member of Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks he can carry on these two systems side by side, and at the same time maintain peace in Ireland, I believe he is mistaken. I do not object, and I have never objected, to the punishment of offences against the law of the land. But I say at the same time, whilst you must be prepared to deal with these offences, whilst you must maintain the peace of the country, there is a more excellent way, and that is to remove the cause of the trouble. Could you have a more excellent illustration of what is taking place than that afforded by the Dillonestate case? An excellent illustration is offered by the condition of things on the Dillon estate. The tenants on the estate in the olden days gave all the trouble and were the first to give way when the pinch of want appeared, and that was the real danger point in Connaught and has been ever since I knew the Irish Land Question. But it is quiet now, there is no trouble there, and no boycotting, and you have not to keep any police magistrates there. Everything is now quiet on that estate and why? Simply because you have removed the cause of the trouble. If the removal of the cause of the trouble on the Dillon estate and Clare Island produces this result, am I not right in saying that this is a more excellent way? I think you should go to the root of the matter and give equal rights to all those tenants, and get away from the policy of giving rights to one and denying them to another. Until this is done you cannot reasonably expect peace in that country, which has never known peace since you have had the government of Ireland in your hands.
MR. BLAKEsaid he had listened at first with amazement, and afterwards with despair, to passages in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. They all knew the ability and diligence of the right hon. Gentleman, but nevertheless of the commonplaces of Irish history for the last 100 years the right hon. Gentleman had shown himself absolutely ignorant that night. The open mind was wanting. It was utterly absurd to suppose that anybody could study that history with an open mind without recognising the melancholy, regrettable, and, for Parliament, the humiliating fact that Irish wrongs had not received effective attention until that attention
1340
had been stimulated and some remedy provoked by means deplorable, but for which not the Irish people, but those Englishmen who refused to listen to the representatives of the country which they governed, were responsible. That had been the state of the case in the past, and it was because they wished that it should not be the case in the future that they were endeavouring to the best of their poor ability to impress once again upon the majority of this Parliament the real condition of the Irish nation as illustrated by the land agitation and the administration of the laws. He asked hon. Members from this Island what, after all, in the ordinary affairs of life, they most prized. It was, he supposed, the supremacy of the law. They rejoiced that they were able to boast that they lived under the reign of law, and they had absolute confidence in the administration of justice. And consequently they were willing assenters to and supporters of the administration and execution of their laws. That was a, happy position. He congratulated them upon having attained to it, and upon being able truthfully to assert it. Now there were certain main securities for the liberties of the people which obtained in time of peace, but they were, perhaps, disposed of late years to be a little less regardful of them here than he himself approved, and this just because they had become so absolutely identified with the laws under which they lived, and they had attained such a long settled and secure confidence in the justice and fairness and equal administration of those laws.
He wished to remind the House what those main securities were for the subject in the administration of the law. They were these. First of all, that in any question which involved a serious penalty there should be precision and clearness in the charge formulated against the prisoner in the indictment. The next security was that the case should be tried as to the fact by a fairly empannelled jury of the land. The last was that the trial should take place under the direction, and so far as questions of law were concerned, according to the judgement of a high and independent judiciary, independent of the Crown and independent of the people, holding office during good behaviour with a secured salary; of persons thoroughly versed in the law and acting in the

1341
light of day and under the general responsibility that they had accepted to the people at large. Those were the main features of the administrative system, and they were features to which they were so accustomed in this country that they did not, perhaps, always realise their vital importance. But what was it, after all, that was more necessary than all this to the maintenance of that happy state of things of which they boasted with reference to the law? What was the root and foundation of all; what was that from which the system derived its stability and strength? It lay in the making of the laws whose administration he had sketched. It was that those laws which were administered under those securities and by those methods were laws which they themselves had passed. They were laws framed by the representatives of the people, who had been elected by the people, and they represented practically and substantially the commonsense and general assent of the realm; they were the people's laws made by themselves for themselves. That was the main foundation of the law in this country. It was upon that basis that the reign of law justly rested there.
But hon. Members must remember that when they came to deal with the case of Ireland the whole situation was reversed. The very foundation of the whole system—first as to the creation, next, and consequentially, as to the administration of the laws as applicable to this country—was reversed in Ireland. Across the channel everything was topsyturvy. In Ireland generally, and specially with regard to this tremendous land question, the laws were framed not with the assent of the Irish people, but contrary to their will; and the laws they asked for and insisted upon, the laws which they believed necessary to the life of the nation, and which were demanded by four-fifths of the Irish representatives in Parliament, were demanded in vain and were repeatedly refused by this Parliament. Therefore, in Ireland it was not the reign of law such as the English law was for Englishmen, but it was a reign of law imposed by Englishmen upon Ireland, to which forsooth Englishmen complained that Irishmen did not give that same willing assent and cheerful support which was given by Englishmen to the laws which they framed to suit themselves. If happily
1342
that state of things could be considered and borne in mind, a little more tolerance, a little more justice, and a little more disposition to recognise the real condition of Ireland, might be evinced by the majority in this House.
He had referred to the ordinary securities for the administration of the law in England, and he now wished to apply his statement to that class of transaction which was going on now in Ireland under the general clause of the Crimes Act, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred as the most effective clause, because it was applied by that Act all over Ireland without a proclamation. That clause had thus been made—God help them! —the common law of Ireland as to unlawful assemblies. Now, the question of unlawful assembly was a difficult and complicated question, which demanded for its solution large legal knowledge, a practical acquaintance with affairs, and the exercise of sagacity and judgment. The decision whether any particular assembly as a whole was unlawful generally involved one or more of numerous, delicate, and difficult points—the shadowy line between political and seditious action—the subtle point of intent—that of overt acts as evidence of intent the application of former speeches at other places—the doubtful result of such a general change of intent during a meeting as should convert a lawful into an unlawful assembly by creating a participation of the mass of the assembly in the unlawful intent of a few of their number. There was a question as to the evidence by which the result was to be ascertained. It had been said that this was to be accomplished by proof of one speech made by one man in the meeting. Statements of law had been made and repeated in the House in regard to unlawful assembly which he altogether repudiated. It was suggested the other day, and had been repeated that night, that an assembly which was lawful up to a particular moment became unlawful when one speaker had spoken, or even when he was supposed to be about to speak, something which would be an unlawful speech. That proposition he utterly denied. A meeting must be composed of a certain number of persons. It was certainly true (and that was one of the complications which showed the necessity of securing a proper independent and competent forum for the administration of the law) that you might

1343
find an absolutely lawful assembly made unlawful in its progress. But not simply by the words, still less by the thoughts of one or another of the number. It might turn out that ten or fifteen men might come to a perfectly lawful meeting with intent to promote something unlawful. If so, those ten or fifteen were of themselves an unlawful assembly gathered within the mass of the lawful assembly. But surely that did not turn into criminals the lawful men assembled for lawful purposes. It did not turn those men who came to a meeting upon their lawful business, in pursuance of their rights as supposed free citizens of a free country, into criminals because enough men to constitute of themselves an unlawful assembly had come into their meeting for an unlawful purpose. He denied altogether that one man rising in a lawful assembly and uttering unlawful sentiments turned that meeting into an unlawful assembly. That was a monstrous assertion. To produce any such result it must be made to appear that an unlawful intent, not before existent, had been created in the mass by the speech.
Now consider the difficulty and delicacy of the questions of fact and law involved. It could hardly be overstated. And yet this was the sort of business which it was said ought in common justice to be disposed of by the special jurisdiction made possible by the Crimes Act. There could be very little doubt that in the particular case of which a return had been laid with the securities under the ordinary course of common law by indictment, the information would have been held bad. The procedure in the case was held to be objectionable by every judge; but it was held by the majority of the judges not to be so objectionable as to be void and fatally defective; and this just because it was a summary proceeding. The parties had thus not the security which the common law gave. Next there was no jury to find the facts. That was the second result of the summary proceeding. Lastly, instead of having two independent judges to deal with questions of fact and law, there were two resident magistrates. Resident magistrates were drawn in largest proportion from the ranks of the police. As to the rest, they were largely drawn from the naval and military ranks, the
1344
only calling which was very sparsely represented being the profession of the law. They were thus mainly drawn from sources which rendered them in that unhappy country suspected of the people. They were engaged almost entirely in hearing cases supported by police evidence, given mayhap by their former comrades. They were practically chosen by the Executive for the performance of the special work in hand. They were in close and confidential relations with the Executive. They were dependent on the Executive, having no permanent tenure of office or of salary; fearful of removal, eager to earn promotion, they thus felt that they ought to pay, and, feeling that they ought, they did pay altogether undue deference to the Executive. He asked what English Members would think if one of the judges of this country, dealing with a case involving to a large extent the liberty, fame and fortunes of an individual, and creating great public excitement, were to defer to the judgment which was expressed as to the law of the case by the Attorney General, or the political officer in charge of the case. And they must remember that Irish law officers were not as English law officers. Would they not consider that it was the duty of the judge to decide for himself what was the law, and not to defer to the views of the Attorney General in the matter? Would they not be shocked at the suggestion that the opinions of the prosecuting Counsel should be deferred too. But that was in melancholy truth, the position which these inferior and dependent persons occupied in relation to the Attorney General of Ireland. He would prove that by referring the House to the view expressed by the Chief Baron with reference to this very point. The Chief Baron said—
"I wish to say, that even if my view of the law were the one that was to prevail, I think that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is impossible to say that it was not fairly open to the justices to adopt the course they did. They had there a learned counsel representing the Attorney General, who is to be taken as acting under his immediate direction. He insisted, with all the weight of the position of the high official he represented, that the justices had jurisdiction. They yielded to his insistence, not absolutely, but subject to the safeguard to which the defendants were entitled—and which, of course, it was eminently part of their duty to afford them—of stating a case for this Court."

1345
That was what the learned judge said was the proper relation of those ex-officers and ex-policemen to the Attorney General. What stronger proof can be asked of their superiority and their in-competency? But, in the opinion of the learned judge, even the reflected light the transfused wisdom of the Attorney General descending through the learned counsel who represented him, and who was taken to be acting under his immediate direction, was to be adequate, and his insistence was to be deferred to by the justices who tried the case. In a word the conditions insisted on in England for the impartial administration of justice were frequently violated in Ireland. That was the way in which the law was administered in Ireland.
And let the House mark that within certain limits there was no right of appeal, while there was no obligation to state a case. If the justices limited the penalty to within a month, there was no appeal, and of course they need not state a case; they were not only the first judges, but the last. What were the excuses? It was said that a jury was not of much consequence, and that two ex-constables were adequate to try and condemn a man, because the maximum penalty was so short; they could not give a higher sentence than six months. Try six months in the second class in an Irish goal and you will think it long enough! But a device not merely existed, but was being generally practised, which enabled them, substantially without appeal, to turn even one month into six months or nine or twelve months, or possibly even more—the device, namely, of holding to bail for good behaviour. Not merely was this occasionally the case, but it had now become a general rule, so far as he could see from the late prosecutions, that whether they were obliged to acquit, or found it possible to convict, they added what was practically a further penalty under the provisions for holding to bail for good behaviour. The Chief Secretary, indeed, had stated that the percentage of acquittals by resident magistrates was higher than the percentage of acquittals by juries when coercion was formerly in full swing. But this was a very shallow thing. It should be remembered that these were not English juries chosen according to the law of this land. These were packed juries, or arranged of one completion. The Executive packed the
1346
juries, and got more convictions out of them than out of the packed resident magistrates. And this is the defence of the Resident Magistrates! Now the practice of holding to bail was under ancient law lawful, but a great many things were lawful which were the height of injustice. It was said that this step was not punitive, but only to prevent possible or apprehended breaches of the law. That was the legal view, and he was not going to discuss it. They were told that therefore it was not to be regarded as punishment; but if that was the legal view, it was one of those things which common sense said was not the practical or real view at all. And let them observe how injustice intensifies itself. It was held that, since this is not a punitive step, no charge is needed, no defence allowable and, of course, there is practically no recourse. All this revolts one. Dealing with this particular branch of jurisdiction in the case of the late Dr. Tanner, Chief Baron Palles said—
"Although in my own opinion holding to bail for good behaviour is punishment—grave and serious punishment—the law [that was this old law made statutory by Edward III., brought into active life in Ireland today] does not regard it as such. It has never been regarded as such since the time of Edward III.; and if you want it to be regarded as punishment, to make that which every man of common sense knows is punishment dealt with as punishment by our law, you must do it by an act of Parliament."
But the Parliament of Edward VII. has no time or inclination to redress this judicially condemned injustice. Again the Chief Baron say—
"I regret extremely that the law is so. I regretted being obliged in Harken's case to hold that that was not punishment in the view of the law which I knew and felt was punishment, and would operate as punishment; but I repeat what I have already said so often, that I find such is the law; and if this, which I venture to say is an anomaly of our law, is to cease to exist, it must be by the act of legislature, and not by the act of this court."
There was the verdict of a great judge on the real nature of this sentence. Not even by ordinary tribunals with ordinary securities for indifference, but that was the sort of punishment which was being exercised day by day in Ireland by the removable magistrates, who were dealing with questions of "unlawful assembly," and who were tagging on sentences more or less severe by holding to bail for good behaviour without charge or evidence for the defence. They were

1347
practically, instead of leaving in disuse, using this engine of oppression more vigorously than ever. He maintained that if these two men, sitting under the special jurisdiction conferred by the Crimes Act, were to be permitted, nay, to be encouraged, by the Attorney General, to whom they had to defer, and by the Chief Secretary, under whom they were to proceed in that way, then they were really extending the Coercion Act and inflicting a penalty beyond that which the Act prescribed. They gave a man a month under the Crimes Act—No appeal! and more months under the bail law—No appeal! If there was to be any inspiration to those who were to administer the law, if there was any suggestion to be made to the "removables," he should like the suggestion to be made, not secretly from the Castle to the men on the Bench, but made publicly and openly in the House of Commons, to the effect that in exercising their special jurisdiction they were to keep within the limits of the Act, and to do no more than the Act prescribed. The questions of holding to bail for good behaviour should be decided by another Bench, and under the ordinary law of the land, and should not be touched under the special jurisdiction.
Now again who could doubt that these questions merged largely into questions of politics, and that it was frequently impossible to draw the line? Who could doubt that these antiquated laws and this arbitrary jurisdiction were often really directed today against political action? There was a period when that was the case in this country. It was impossible to say that there was not violent and law-breaking agitation in this country before there was a real representation of the people. But it had ceased since the Reform Act of 1832. Before the passing of that Act, payment of taxes was refused, and men assembled in Birmingham by hundreds and thousands to march on London. The Reform Act was passed under a pressure which in Ireland would be considered so unlawful that ten Coercion Acts would be necessary to put it down. It was not put down for long. It soon prevailed. Further agitation became unnecessary here, because effect had been given to the people's will, and
1348
since then the people of this country had really governed themselves. But the same state of things did not exist in Ireland. What was happening there today? It was said, forsooth, that it was the right, and even the duty of a constable the moment he fancied, from looking at a speaker, or from having read a report of something he had said some other where and at some other time, to give him no room for repentance—he must not assume that the orator would ever become more moderate—that it was the constable's duty at once to hail the speaker from the platform, drag him away, and refuse him liberty of speech. And this view was acted on at Kilmaine and against the member who wanted to speak to his people! But more—though this be bad enough—far more! The circumstance that the Member tried to speak, even though through unlawful force he had failed to address the assembly was of itself sufficient to turn the meeting into an unlawful assembly to be broken up by brutal violence. Was ever in the world a more outrageous travesty of justice suggested? He declared that it was hardly credible even of Ireland. And more must be heard of the Kilmaine case. Rules of police conduct were laid down that night. If the police were not in sufficient force to break up a meeting, they were to assume an attitude of observation, to take notes, and afterwards prosecute for unlawful assembly. If they were in force, their duty was to use the baton and break up the meeting. The right hon. Gentleman said that a constable who did this was liable to an action, but how was the offender to be fixed upon for the purposes of an action? How was the man knocked down and kicked on the ground by four brutes from whom he was trying to escape to identify them? And if, in the circumstances of Kilmaine stated by his hon. friend the Member for Clare, these unhappy peasants found their man, the representatives of the Attorney General would come down from Dublin to defend the officers. Such was the state of Ireland.
What was the general result of all this? How did it affect this House? He agreed that things were sometimes said against the law and were reprehensible, but what was the general result on the administration of justice and on the whole country? They saw hon. Members committed to

1349
gaol for attempting to address their own constituents, and given sentences which kept them in their cells for twenty-two out of twenty-four hours, which allowed them practically no visits and no right to letters or books. They saw these men leave this House with the regard and regrets of their comrades, and when they came back, they sat in the House on equal terms with all other Members; for all knew that they had no stigma of real crime upon them. They suffered no degradation. Dare anyone propose the expulsion of these convicted criminals? But there was degradation elsewhere. The degradation was to be found in the fact that the Government and Parliament did not realize their responsibilities, and redress the terrible evils which existed in Ireland, and from which all those outrages flowed. It was to be found in the fact that the House of Commons allowed itself to be made an instrument and an accomplice of tyranny, by allowing the abuse, by not assisting on the disuse and abrogation of the laws from which these evils sprung, by adopting force instead of redress as its Irish policy. But the House had at any rate the grace not to estrange or boycot or expel the men who had been gaoled for asserting rights for which in days of need English members had themselves been proud to suffer. As a man who had lived his life in an atmosphere saturated with the doctrines of English freedom, he felt all the more strongly the degradation involved in those proceedings in Ireland. Even in England he had seen in late days an impairment of the right of free speech deeply to be deplored. There were sometimes things said in Ireland which he might regret, but that was no reason why the main foundation of the British liberties should be cut away. Free speech was a jewel, and he held that the circumstances of Ireland were such as ought to make this country very tolerant and very lenient as to language employed by a long-suffering people, very careful before exceptional laws were brought into force. If English Members could only realise the dreadful conditions in which the poorer classes in Ireland lived, they would be amazed—not at the occasional agitation and breaches of the law, but at the extraordinary patience and endurance of the people, and he was sure they would not be so inhuman as to refuse amendment of their most unhappy lot.
1350
What he had felt for a long time was that Englishmen, responsible for the government of Ireland, must find it very difficult to reconcile to their consciences their indifference to the real grievances of the Irish people. How many English statesmen apart from those actually for the moment Irish Ministers, but yet responsible for the government of Ireland had ever visited it in any real sense? He could not acquit those who undertook that responsibility of gross neglect of duty. They saw the main features of the history of the hundred years; they saw the country seething with wrong; they saw the frightful, unprecedented and almost unexampled fact of half the population, besides all the natural increase, despite all its national aspirations, despite its passionate love of home and country disappearing; and yet, although living within a paltry sixty miles of the country, they did not make it the main study of their lives to find out what the conditions were which produced those results, and to remove them. No man was an Imperial Statesman who did not put and keep in the very first place the study and redress of the Irish situation. Was it in human nature that there should be a constant condition of disaffection and disloyalty among any people who had a tolerable existence, a tolerable opportunity of attending to their own affairs, a tolerable condition of prosperity, and some hope for the future of the management of their own country.
It was the general condition of humanity that they paid too little attention to their political affairs. There was too great a disposition to devote oneself exclusively and selfishly to one's own affairs and too little to public affairs. England would be infinitely better off, and better governed, if the great opportunity which her happy economical and social state afforded to all classes to promote their own interests did not dull, instead of intensifying zeal and interest in public affairs. When they found a condition of disaffection and disloyalty, such as existed in Ireland for a long time, all history and experience showed that that condition must have a great and substantial cause. Now was it not the greatest interest of those whom he addressed, of those who insisted on maintaining a particular form of Government in Ireland to which the people objected, who refused to have the

1351
right self-government, and who were applying remedies which the Irish Members thought were mere palliatives at best, was it not their greatest interest and their double duty to remedy those grievances? It was a melancholy circumstance, that even if the Government set about reformation and redress at once, and worked diligently at it for a long time, their progress must be slow at best. They could not change the face of those watched congested districts and other like places by Act of Parliament in a day. They had left the people without hope; they had given them no opportunities for thrift; they had taught them no lessons of providence; because the people had nothing to accumulate, and, therefore, they would have to learn by slow degrees the virtues of thrift and providence. Their means were narrower and their lives baser than could be well conceived. They could not be said to live; still less had they a chance to save. Even if land were bought for them and their holdings were enlarged, unless their power of alienation were at first restrained, being without the training of thrift or providence, the same evils which at present existed might be reproduced within a generation. What a fatal stain such a state of things inflict on the reputation of the great and prosperous controlling Power! What was the position in England? The people there had learned largely thrift and providence. They were not afraid to encourage a man to buy, because they knew he would not throw away his purchase improvidently. In Ireland those unhappy people of the congested districts might have to be treated in their new capacity of owners more or less as minors, because their condition had been so wretched that they had had no opportunity of learning thrift or nourishing even the idea of accumulation, unless by hard work at English harvests to save up a few pence to pay the landlord or the shop debt. He saw the Chief Secretary assenting; but did not he perceive that his assent meant two things; first, the condemnation of that past English rule which had suffered the creation of such a condition, and next the condemnation of that present English rule which did not at once and heroically set itself to the business of those measures of redress whose operation must at best
1352
be far too slow. The longer they would take to cure, the more imperative the duty to begin.
With every desire to be just, he could not acquit the Government of appalling responsibility. On the contrary, with the most earnest desire to be fair he there acknowledged that disaffection existed in Ireland; he realised the justice and reason of it; he was utterly unable to say that it ought not to exist, until the causes which created it were removed. He was there as one poor and humble, but most sincere and earnest witness to the necessity of removing the causes of that disaffection and of so promoting the blessed day of reconciliation. He believed that all the courses lately pursued by the Government were courses which tended to intensify their difficulties in Ireland. He would suggest to the Government that they should take other ground. They, who said non possumus as to self-government for Ireland, had an enormously added responsibility with reference to the condition of the people whom they insisted on governing. As he had said, the history of the century contained hardly an instance of even a serious visit from English responsible Statesmen, save the officials of the Irish Government itself, and yet the country was through the century seething with discontent. It had often occurred to him that the lines of Tennyson were very applicable to those who were responsible:—
"They live and lie reclined
On the hills like gods together, careless of ma kind,
For they lie beside their nectar—
But they smile, they find a music centred in a doleful song,
Steaming up, a lamentation and an ancient tale or wrong,
Like a tale of little meaning, though the words are strong;
Chaunted from an ill-used race of men that, creave the soil,
Sow the seed and reap the harvest with enduring toil,
Till they perish.
Aye, God help them, till they perish!"
Myriads by famine and its diseases, myriads more perish at any rate from Irish soil, but rising again in the great Republic, the standing obstacle to your dream of cordial friendship, implacable till you render justice to the old land. God grant that the ears of Members might at length be opened, and that their eyes might perceive

1353
the enormous weight of their responsibility. If they would not let the people govern themselves, which was the only radical and effective remedy, they ought, at any rate, to do something to redress the calamities under which those poor creatures groaned. But he agreed with his hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone that by the experience of a hundred years the people had been taught the fateful lesson that the only way to open those eyes and to quicken those ears was to agitate and make English Government difficult in Ireland. [8.30.]
MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid he found it difficult to follow the eloquent speech of his hon. and learned colleague in the representation of Longford, but he ventured to intervene in order to give what might be called the parochial view of the situation, so far as it affected the national organisation of Ireland, and the view of the people with whom resident Members of Parliament like himself came into contact. Knowing intimately the facts connected with events in Roscommon, Leitrim, Longford, Sligo, and West Meath, he felt it his duty to ask the Government whether there was the slightest shadow of justification for the imposition of the Crimes Act on the people of that large district. What had the charges of the judges at the recent Spring Assizes exhibited above all else? The comparative crimelessness of those counties. The Attorney General shook his head; it was very hard to convince him of the truth of anything. Those counties were in a state of absolute crimelessness. With regard to cases of alleged boycotting, and so far as serious crime was concerned, there was not a shadow of justification for assizes being held, for the cases were so small and paltry that they could have been dealt with by the Chairman of quarter sessions, and thus expense would have been saved. Throughout the whole of Ireland there was not one prisoner for execution, whereas in this country at a recent assizes in one county alone there were four prisoners under sentence of death. The Chief Secretary for Ireland knew perfectly well that there was no comparison between the trivial crimes committed in Ireland and the horrible crimes which had to be investigated in this country.
1354
What was the pretence for and the cause of this outcry for coercion? What was the case for sending down two paid removable magistrates? What was the ease which was set up? Simply that an agitation was going on to endeavour to compel the Government to redeem their pledges by the settlement of the Irish Land question. The one essential feature of the United League was that it was a crimeless organisation. From its central offices, on its platforms, and through its branches the people were being warned and told that the great doctrine of O'Connell against committing illegal offences should be observed. That section of the Cabinet which was dominated by the evil influences of the Castle-reagh family had been at work to compel the right hon. Gentleman to resort to the Crimes Act of 1887. Supposing that there was some justification for the statement that boycotting did exist, and that people were subjected to social isolation because they had broken the rules of an organisation whose object was to obtain a redress of the grievances of the people living on the land, would the right hon. Gentleman contend that after all the political privileges which had been conferred upon the people of this country, and after all the efforts which had been made to teach the people to ventilate their grievances in a moderate and constitutional manner, that the people of Ireland were not entitled to combine and treat as a social blackleg the man who broke the rules of their organisation? The Member for South Tyrone had identified himself with the land reform movement, and they were told that he had been struck off the list of those who received the whips of the Tory Party.
MR. T. L. CORBETT: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to state that I have voted for the principle of compulsory purchase every time it was before this House. I desire also to say that I never asked to introduce Mr. Woods, and I never promised to do so.
MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid that whether the hon. Member made the promise or not was quite a matter of indifference to him.
MR. T. L. CORBETT: Does the hon. Member not accept my statement? The hon. Member states that it is a matter of

1355
indifference whether I made the promise or not. I distinctly state that I made no such promise.
MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid he had accepted the hon. Member's explanation. There was no justification whatever for the Government to impose coercion upon the Irish people. Those people who were urging coercion had always opposed everything that was suggested for the progress and advancement for the people of Ireland. Whether it was a measure for improving the conditions of labour, or for giving facilities for the purchase of Irish land, they always found the small reactionary gang constantly at the head of those who always opposed such proposals. He was very sorry to hear the concluding words of the Chief Secretary's speech, for he appeared to have been driven from the path he had hitherto taken up in regard to land purchase, in consequence of the agitation got up by the landlord ring. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the estate upon which there was any trouble in future would be put at the bottom of the list. The Chief Secretary, with all his abilities and all his learning, did not seem to have applied himself thoroughly to the study of this Irish Land question. Had he done so, he would know that the Irish people had made up their mind to fight for the land in a constitutional manner, and they were prepared to take the risk of the suppression of public meetings, and their leaders and Members of Parliament were prepared to take the risk of being sent to prison. So long as the people of Ireland were quiescent, and took to their bosoms those landlord representatives who misrepresented them so long in the British Parliament nothing was ever given to Ireland by this Parliament. In regard to the Irish Land question, hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and others occupying official positions in Ireland used the word "never," and they had threatened to put back the settlement of the land question because of disturbances in Ireland; and yet the party opposite, after promising remedial measures, threatened to coerce Ireland for twenty years, and to drive Irish discontent beneath the surface. The party opposite introduced this policy of land purchase, which had been applied through the operation of the Congested Districts Board, and indirectly this had produced the state of
1356
things which was now complained of. The threats of the Chief Secretary from time to time that the Government would never deal with this question, had been falsified by themselves. Just as the Government had been forced by the onward progress of agitation and organisation in Ireland to relinquish the rusty old method of coercion, so the Nationalists hoped today that the Government would be compelled, by the force of circumstances in that country, to change the tactics on which they had now entered, and to substitute another policy for that of coercion and intimidation. He warned the Government that the more they imprisoned Members of Parliament, clergy, and local leaders, the more they used the weapons of coercion and repression, the more determined would the people of Ireland be to bring this fight for the land to a successful conclusion.
MR. MACARTNEY: My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary has, I think, given a very conclusive and effective reply to the attacks which have been levelled against the administration in Ireland during the last few months. So far as I am concerned, that reply would have been more convincing as to eventual results if my right hon. friend had been able to point out that his policy had resulted, in any portion of the disturbed districts, in a relaxation of intimidation and in the restoration of the natural rights, as subjects of the Crown, of which they have been deprived for so many months. My right hon. friend; however, abstained—I do not know whether intentionally or unintentionally—from giving any statistics to the House which would have reassured us as to the results of this policy. I confess to being somewhat an unbeliever in that policy—[A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] but from very different motives from those of hon. Members opposite—the policy which is founded on the supposition that the common law of the land is sufficient to cope with the circumstances of the case in these special areas. It is admitted, I think, on all sides of the House that this agitation is restricted to certain districts in Ireland. The question we have to consider is whether those

1357
districts are as restricted as they were a year ago, or as they were six, or even three, months ago, and whether in those districts the policy my right hon. friend has adopted, and which is the policy of the Irish Government up to the present moment, has been effectual in restoring liberty of contract and of action to individuals.
My right hon. friend is such an admirable master of the arts of oratory that when one listens to him he is almost driven to believe that we are living in the best of all worlds, and no doubt tonight many hon. friends of mine sitting on both sides of the House were not only convinced that he had made a very adequate defence to the charges brought against the administration, but also that in all probability his administration was being successful in carrying out that which I believe to be the intention of the majority of this House, that the law should be obeyed and respected, and that the liberty of the individual should be as untrammeled in those districts of Ireland as in any other part of the United Kingdom. I am not going this evening to urge again what I have often urged in this House, but I feel bound to point out what is the position in those districts at the present moment, and what has been the effect so far as I can ascertain it, not from information only in my possession, but from more or less official information which has been published. It will be in the recollection of the House that, in the month of June, last year, my right hon. friend said that this agitation was restricted or confined to small areas which he said could be easily managed In January this year he stated it to be his belief that the United Irish League, if it pursues the present course, would arouse against itself the labourer, the shopkeeper, the professional man, the man of culture, and the man of business, from one end of Ireland to another. The question now is to ascertain how far that belief has been realised, and how far the policy of the administration in Ireland by the common law has realised the prophecy of my right hon. friend. In the first place, I think it is beyond dispute that the area which was somewhat restricted in the month of June last year, and was still restricted in the month of January, has been considerably enlarged. [Nationalist cheers]. I will leave out the
1358
adjective and say that it has been enlarged. There can be no doubt of that, because at the recent assizes Mr. Justice Madden pointed out that in the North Riding of Tipperary there exists what he calls
"Widespread intimidation," and "an organised system of violence and intimidation directed against those who were exercising one of the most ordinary rights of citizenship—the right of freedom of contract."
[A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "Who told him that?"] The hon. gentleman asks who told him that. The Judge founded this opinion on the Returns which were presented to him by the head of the constabulary in the county and those who were responsible for the peace of the North Riding. The view which he took of the condition of affairs in the North Riding of Tipperary is the view that has been expressed by every one of the Judges who have gone on assize in the districts which in the month of June last were in a disturbed condition. They have all pointed out that in the counties of Leitrim, Roscommon, Clare, and Mayo, the condition of affairs has not improved, and that there has been no diminution in the League intimidation from which the subjects of His Majesty are suffering in those districts.
It may be possible that later on tonight my right hon. and learned friend the Attorney General for Ireland will be able to point to some conclusive evidence to prove that the policy of the Government with respect to Ireland has realised the hopes which the Chief Secretary indulged in last year. I shall be only too glad to hear that he is able to point out that in those districts there were persons boycotted last year who are no longer boycotted, and that there wore persons under police protection who are no longer under police protection, that the League is dying out, and that its branches in those various districts are not so numerous as they once were. So far as I have been able to form any opinion from comparing the statistics my right hon. friend gave to the House last year with those of this year, the reverse is the case. I take the condition of the League. The Chief Secretary, in January last, said that, upon further consideration and with a better knowledge of what was going on in Ireland, he was of the opinion that there were only seventy effective branches of the United Irish League. But when I

1359
turn to the statistics which have been laid before the Judges of Assize, I find that in those two counties where matters were especially grave and menacing—the counties of Leitrim and Sligo—the Judges declare, upon official reports presented to them, that there are no less than eighty active branches of the United Irish League. [Cries from NATIONALIST MEMBERS: "Why not?" and "It is not illegal yet."] Let us contrast these figures which the Chief Secretary gave in January as to Leitrim, where he said there were only seven branches, with the statements made by the Judge of Assize in March. He stated, on the authority of the Constabulary, that there are thirty-three active branches in that county. In January the Chief Secretary said that, according to his information, there were only eight active branches of the League in the county of Sligo, but, according to the going Judge of Assize in March, there are no less than forty-seven active branches of the League. According to the same authority, it is to these branches of the League that intimidation, boycotting, and the necessity for police protection are entirely due.
Let me take another test of the policy which has been pursued by the Irish Government. In June last year my right hon. friend said that there were only twenty-five cases of boycotting in the whole of Ireland, but according to him the number had grown in January this year to thirty-five. In January he told us that a close examination of all the cases of persons in Ireland who were then boycotted, showed that only twenty-seven could be attributed to the direct influence of the United Irish League. Whether that was a statement which could be received with absolute credence or not, he would not now argue, but in Sligo the Judge of Assize represented that there were no less than forty-seven persons whose condition was entirely attributable to the direct action of the United Irish League. In county Clare the Judge pointed out with great regret that while last year there were no cases of boycotting, on the present occasion he had to deal with reports of four. According to the same authority, it was to these branches of the League that intimidation, boycotting, and the necessity for police protection were due. I will further test the policy of the Irish Government by statements from the charges of Judges at assizes in Clare and
1360
Fermanagh, indicating that the sporadic action of the League is increasing.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the charges of the Judges on Assize evidently with approval. Will it be in order, Mr. Speaker, to refer to them on this side of the House with disapproval, or to contradict the statements of the Judges?
MR. SPEAKER: Citing the statements of Judges as evidence is in order, but it would not be in accordance with rule to criticise the conduct of Judges on the Bench in a hostile manner and attribute animus to them.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid he was expressing no opinion at all in regard to the charges of the Judges. He was simply extracting from these charges certain facts, which had been placed before them by those who were bound by law to do so, relating to the condition of the counties in which they were holding Assize. One of the arguments of his hon. friend was that there had been no crime in Ireland. He had never contested that point, and he was quite willing to agree with the hon. and learned Member for the City of Waterford that the United Irish League would put down, and probably prevent, crime. It might do so so long as they were allowed to intimidate the whole of Ireland. At the present moment there is no crime. No crime was necessary, because the mere fact that any one of the branches of the League spotted a man was sufficient to induce that man, and a great many other people, to give up all opposition to the law of the League, and to relinquish all their rights and privileges as subjects of the Crown. That was his case. The cases of boycotting in Tipperary would have been undoubtedly much larger but for the fact, as Mr. Justice Madden said—
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Justice Madden said that he distrusted the statistics placed before him?
MR. MACARTNEYsaid he had not seen any report of the charge which supported the hon. Gentleman. What Mr. Justice Madden said was that everybody in the North Riding who declined to obey

1361
the injunction of the League to give up farms in which they had been in possession for twenty years would be boycotted. Therefore on that reading, the number of cases of boycotting were much lower than if these people had been protected from the action of the League. He at once admitted that, so far as the police court was concerned, his right hon. friend had done everything he could to enforce the law and to give protection to everyone. But the "Police Court policy" of his right hon. friend was not invulnerable. There was the case of Lynan who was prosecuted at Limerick for using intimidating language. On the first occasion the Court was attended by two members of the United Irish League, and the Court, being divided, the case broke down. On the second trial the accused was heard to say "I see my friends on the bench, and I feel certain that I will not be convicted." That case was abandoned.
MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his authority for the statement he has made.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid that the words he had quoted from a paper were that "the defendant said he saw his friends on the Bench, and he felt certain that he would not be convicted," and the case was adjourned. He asked his right hon. friend what course the Government intended to take in cases in which the jurisdiction of the Police Court had broken down? There was also the question of the jurisdiction of the Court of Assize. His right hon. friend admitted that there were eight cases in which there was a failure to convict, and another case in which there was a verdict of acquittal. Was the Crown going to persist in attempts to try these men when they had conspicuously failed to obtain convictions for offences in which the Agrarian Question arose? Or were they going to avail themselves of the provisions of the Crimes Act to change the venue? This was an illustration of the truth of the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland more than a year ago that, in a very considerable area of Ireland, it was hopeless to obtain a verdict in any case in which Agrarian animosity or disturbance came into the facts of the case. Up to the present moment, they have not heard from the
1362
Chief Secretary any facts that should satisfy the House of Commons that the policy to which the Irish Government were adhering had been successful, or that there had been anything to justify the belief that in the last six months the condition of these five or six districts of Ireland was any better than it had been. On the contrary, the conviction must be borne into the mind of everybody who read the statements of the Judges that the condition of things was far from improving; that it was far worse than it was in June last, and that this policy of relying entirely on the resources of the Common Law had been a failure, and must prove a failure in the future. Sooner or later his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary would be driven, after additional misery and suffering had fallen on the loyal inhabitants of those districts, to adopt the only remedy at all equal to coping with the difficulties of the situation—namely the resources of the Crimes Act.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made a very able speech indeed—a speech so able that I really cannot understand why he should have been excluded from the Admiralty in favour of the hon. Member for West Belfast My recollection is that the hon. Member for West Belfast used to make his Conservative speeches as out of a book. The right hon. Gentleman makes his out of his head, and so far as the Government is concerned, it seems to have got out of the smoke into the smother. This debate has taken a very curious turn indeed. The Chief Secretary for Ireland came back apparently very tired. He did not weary the House, but he seemed to be very tired of himself, and, so far as I understood his speech, he really seemed to say to the House that with regard to all this business of Ireland, "We have heard it all before; there is no use at all in Irishmen coming here to make statements. I heard all this in substance when I was Private Secretary to Mr. Balfour in 1887; there is a conventional charge made, and I have to make a conventional reply. I have no functions to discharge. It has been going on since the days of Henry II., and it will go on, in all probability, to the days of

1363
Edward XIX. All you Irishmen are really able to do nothing, and I am unable to make any reply." It really reminds me of the story of the Norwegian girl who sought service in New York. She was asked what she could do. Could she cook? No. Could she bake? No. Could she brew? No. Well, then, what could she do? and she said, well, she could milk reindeer! And it appears to me that the functions of the Irish Members in this House should be confined to that domestic art. We have no business to attack the Government, because twenty years ago Irish Members attacked the Government. We are to have no reply from the Chief Secretary, because he wrote a letter for the Chief Secretary in 1887, when he replied to the whole of the arguments in advance. The real wonder to me is that the right hon. Gentleman accepted his office. It was such a "conventional" office that, of course, a "conventional" salary was attached to it, and a "conventional" seat in a "conventional" Cabinet, all being, as we know, absolute and dreary humbug. That is the attitude the right hon. Gentleman has taken up with regard to this Irish question, and, in that light and graceful way which he always adopts, he manages to leave the House under the impression that there is no burning passionate question remaining in Ireland; no underground volcano; that there is nothing that really requires the serious attention of the Government. And so confident is the right hon. Gentleman—I have in my experience in this House seen twelve confident Chief Secretaries—so confident is the right hon. Gentleman of the way to proceed in this question, that if we would only let him alone and cease from worrying him, the whole question, by some extraordinary magic which the right hon. Gentlemen possesses, would be solved by a certain statute which he is about to pass. But, Sir, what are we here for?
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: God only knows?
MR. T. M. HEALY: What is the hon. Member for South Belfast here for? Without him the British constitution and the purity of our noble system of Protestantism would be lost.
Well, Sir, I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman a few questions
1364
in reference to the speech he has made to-night. According to him, the Irish Government, and apparently the Irish policemen under that Government, have acquired a measure of infection unknown in this country; and apparently his view is that there is something inherent in the Irish character which leads them to carry crime in a given direction without cause. It is admitted and claimed by the Government that in all domestic relations, and in all contractual relations, except that as regards landlord and tenant, in regard to the ordinary decency and purity of life there is no danger to property, either public or private, that there is no danger to honour either public or private, and that crime is non-existent in the country. Now, if that be so, ought not it to be a greater reproach to the right hon. Gentleman that people who have none of the temptation to ordinary crime, who do not rob, and who do not steal, who do not commit those outrages which stain the noble English character, should have this trend and tendency to what is called breaking the law? Why is this man whom you call a land-grabber hated and detested? Why is what Lord Salisbury called the ban of excommunication passed upon him? What is the common sentiment as regards the land-grabber? It is this—that he is a receiver of stolen goods. In a country from which your laws have, practically speaking, banished every other industry than that of the land, a man can be put out of house and home—the house that he has built, and the fields that he has reclaimed—and he is entitled to nothing, except some such compensation as your Mr. O'Connor Morrises will award. To that man's house, built by the labour of his hands or those of his forefathers, and to the fields reclaimed by his sweat, a stranger, who never put one stone on top of another, who neither ploughed, nor sowed, nor reaped in the fields, is to come in, under British law, because of the non-payment of an exorbitant rent, and he is to have the whole of the improvements, and the whole of the property that that man has hitherto had. Such a man is, by the common sentiment of the district, detested. It needs no organisation. You do not detest a man by organisation. You detest him naturally, the same as you hate rats. There is no rat-catcher's organisation in the country. But, forsooth, because the

1365
whole population regard that man as a man who has broken into his neighbour's property and is selling his neighbour's goods, you declare that the people who avoid and detest him are lawbreakers. I ask, on the other hand, why do you cherish that man? Why do the British Government in Ireland put forth all their energies for his protection? Because he is the arch on which landlordism is built. Because you well know that if men refused to take land from which tenants have been evicted for the non-payment of exorbitant rents, no landlord in Ireland could exact those rents. That is why the British Government has put forth all their energies in order to support and sustain this man. That is called supporting contract! I would like some of these land-grabbers to be brought to the Bar of this House, and be heard in their own defence. I should like to see them—[A Voice from the Strangers' Gallery: "Go to Whitechapel."] In Whitechapel the people do not build their own houses; the landlord builds them. But be that as it may, I say that so far as the general body of these men are concerned, they are the most degraded and contemptible of mankind. Take this sentence from a speech of the right hon. Gentleman; it represents accurately and exactly the views of the Irish people towards the land-grabber, and I hope the Irish people will take to heart the words of the right hon. Gentleman in a different subject and apply them to the land-grabber. He said that until 1896 the Congested Districts Board had not power to deal with cranks, because, he said, one crank
"in a congested district, unless we can apply coercive powers to him, is able to destroy all the beneficent efforts of the Board over an entire estate."
I hope in future it may be possible in some districts to drop the name "land-grabbers" and call these people "cranks," and to drop the term "boycotting" and substitute "coercive powers." But the right hon. Gentleman who claims, in his superior British beneficence, to be entitled to apply coercive powers to cranks by the authority of Dublin Castle, denies those powers to the entire population locally resident in a district, who, I think, ought rather to know what is good for them than even the gentlemen in Dublin Castle. I am always sorry that these Irish questions are made to turn on the Chief Secretary's
1366
salary, on some question of coercive law, or of the police, or some limited matter of the kind. There are much larger and wider issues, but as these have been raised, we have to debate them. I would take one example from the defence put forward by the right hon. Gentleman tonight. He was asked how he could defend the law, as enforced by the police, with regard to illegal assemblies, He defended the case of the Kilmaine meeting on these grounds—that one hon. Gentleman was allowed to speak because he was a stranger to the police.
MR. WYNDHAMdissented.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I am with the memory of the House, but I may perhaps put it this way. Another gentleman was disallowed from speaking because he was well known to the police. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept this reason?
MR. WYNDHAM: It is better than the other.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Therefore the question of free speech and lawful assembly in Ireland comes to this—that if a policeman knows you, you will not be heard; but if you come in a mask, or as a stranger you may perhaps get a hearing. I would put this to the Government. They are dealing, as we are very often told, with an excitable population. But the police are drawn from that excitable population. The moment, however, a policeman puts on his jacket, he is supposed to have on a coat of infallibility. But, after all, he is only a peasant in uniform. Therefore the question of free speech in any district may depend on whether or not a policeman had a glass of whisky before he went to the meeting. If his mind has been opened by John Jameson, he may take a large and liberal view of the situation, but if it is not after dinner the baton-play may be very severe indeed. Actually in this free country, the right of free speech and of public meeting has been made by the Gentleman who is the ruler of Ireland to depend on the idiosyncrasy of the policeman at a given moment. The right hon. Gentleman was closely connected with South African politics at one time, and I presume he read what the Colonial Secretary said about the rights of free speech in Johannesburg. But in the

1367
whole of the South African business there is nothing to equal the position taken up tonight by a British Minister—that the legality or illegality of an assembly is to depend upon the folly or peculiarity of an individual policeman. If it be true what is the need of your summary jurisdiction? You have a super-summary jurisdiction! What do you want "removables" for? Why, the policeman tries you on the spot. All trouble is saved. You need employ no lawyer in your defence, and the Court need not spend the money of the Treasury in sending down a representative of the Attorney General, while, of course, the baton does very fairly as a substitute for hard labour So little does the right hon. Gentleman consider these matters, that, instead of saying the police made a mistake—he might have invented a hundred tales suitable to the occasion—instead of saying there was disorder amongst the crowd, that excitement prevailed, or that the officer lost his head, he has absolutely invented this new jurisdiction—that any common clown of a policeman, recruited, it may be, yesterday, is, as regards men who have the right to sit in this House and debate your constitution, to decide issues of peace and war. You, Mr. Speaker, would not stop us in a free debate, but in Ireland your place is taken by the commonest police constable. We have heard of the new rules of procedure, but this is a new rule of common law!
The right hon. Gentleman was challenged as to that by one who also represented the majesty of the law in his time—the late Attorney General—and the difficulties were pointed out to him; but the right hon. Gentleman adhered rigidly to the position that in any part of Ireland, while he remains Chief Secretary, our rights are to be dependent upon the views of a common policeman. If that be the law, I ask where has it been laid down? In what police regulation is it to be found? In what statute can it be pointed out? It is to be found nowhere. The real truth, therefore, comes to this, and this is the whole point of the arraignment. It is a confession that you are unable to govern the country. What were these men to discuss? Why, their own affairs, the miserable question of their land. This day the debate is devoted to the discussion of the Chief Secretary's salary; those meetings were devoted to the discussion of their rents.
1368
It was all a question of £ s. d. Because these poor men came out into the open to discuss their own affairs, any village constable has the right to use his discretion. I denounce that proposition as illegal. It is not sanctioned by the common law, and it is not to be found in the Coercion Act, nor in any of the hundred Coercion Acts which this House has vomited forth for Ireland. I myself do not necessarily hold with everything that has been said or done, and I am not called upon to do so. I take an independent stand in this matter. I judge matters from my own point of view, and I say that no support, either in law or in the decision of the judges or in the Acts of former administrations, can be found of the position occupied by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Member for South Antrim, who, I believe, is soon to become a candidate for South Dublin—the North seems to be getting very warm—referred to the case of Mr. Lynan, who is a gentleman who was employed to go from one end of my constituency to the other, organising the people against me, describing me as an enemy of the human race, and using all those epithets which are usually used just before election times. Accordingly, I can speak with a detached mind in connection with this case. The right hon. Gentleman challenged the Government to state whether Mr. Lynan had not been brought up and tried by three petty sessions at Courts where he had "tipped the wink" to the majority on the Bench, and said—
"I see my friends on the Bench."
—I do not believe that he said anything of the kind—
"and, therefore, I have no need to say much in defence."
The prosecutions against Mr. Lynan having become abortive, what is the Attorney General going to do? If the right hon. Gentleman were present, I should charge him with being in arrangement. What are the facts? The right hon. Gentleman is apparently supplied with a brief of everything that takes place, and he knows that the Government, having failed to convict this man before three Benches of petty sessions, took a course which is condemned by Blackstone and Coke, and hauled this man before the King's Bench Division in Dublin, and tried to get His

1369
Majesty's Judge in Dublin to pass against this man a sentence which they failed to obtain in his own county. In other words it means they are not only to be taken out of your venue for jury cases, but for the commonest alleged offences in any district, be it as distant as Kerry or Donegal; and the King's subject may be put to the expense of being brought up for matters which ought to be within the jurisdiction of petty sessions to Dublin Superior Court, and the King's Bench Division of Dublin is to be degraded into the position of removable magistrates. Thank God that has proved to be an outrage which was too much for the King's Bench Division—and the Lord Chief Justice has stated that he will not allow his Court to be degraded into a petty sessions. I charge it here tonight that to effect a conviction in a case which was sub judice, and well known to be so, the right hon. Gentleman was in arrangement with the Attorney General. [Cries of "No, no."]
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): That statement is not only offensive, but absolutely unfounded. I have had no communication whatever with the right hon. Gentleman, either with regard to this or any other case. [Ministerial cries of "Withdraw, withdraw."]
MR. T. M. HEALY: Any statement which the right hon. Gentleman makes I accept, and I regret making the suggestion. I freely accept his denial.
MR. WILLIAM MOORE: As my colleague was obliged to leave the House, will the hon. and learned Member allow me to say on his behalf that there is not a word of truth in his charge?
MR. T. M. HEALY: Of course, my withdrawal of the statement that the Attorney General was in arrangement with the Member for South Antrim conveys also the fact that the Member for South Antrim cannot have been in arrangement with the Attorney General. I think that deals with the hon. Gentleman.
MR. WILLIAM MOORE: The hon. and learned Gentleman, at an earlier stage in his speech, said that my colleague was about to leave South
1370
Antrim for South Dublin. I wish to say that I am aware that that is not the case.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not think it is an offence to the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that he could have been successful where Mr. Horace Plunkett failed. At all events, it shows how large his sphere of missionary labour in the constitutional cause has been, despite the scurvy manner in which he has been treated by the Government. I understand that there is an understanding that this debate must close at an early hour, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion with this observation. The right hon. Member for South Antrim knew whether Lynan's case was sub judice or not. He is a man well apprised and informed of everything that goes on in Ireland, and I say it is monstrous in connection with the charge against this poor man, living in the right hon. Gentleman's own county somewhere in the centre of Ireland, that his case should be represented to the House of Commons as being so peculiarly criminal that it deserved the weighty and careful attention of the Attorney General. I know that the members of the King's Bench Division were incapable of being led away by such an attack, but I say it is a monstrous thing, and I denounce the right hon. Member as I denounce the action of the Government of haling up humble men in their own country and bringing them before the magistrates for no reason whatever. I would have liked to say many things upon other matters, but it is impossible. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is, I agree, in a position of impossibility. We are continually hearing of sailing on an even keel. Has anybody ever seen an even keel? We have continually been hearing of this art of navigation for the last twenty years. The whole question of Ireland, so far as the land is concerned, is a narrow and limited one, and it can be settled by statesmanship. The question of nationality will remain when you have settled it. I would rather have stood up and advocated the national aspect, but the debate has turned in a different groove. Even from a Conservative point of view, there are ways, and means, and remedies, which can be applied to Ireland without affecting in any way that equilibrium which you pretend it is your glory to maintain. But instead of doing that,

1371
without cause, without justice, without necessity, your course is to endeavour to maintain a narrow and embittered faction against the masses of the people of Ireland.
MR. ATKINSON: I do not desire to traverse the field already traversed by my right hon. friend, nor to follow the hon. Member for South Tyrone through all his argument, but I may say that I think the advocacy of my hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone was unfortunate, because, while he condemned the violence and the crime to which certain people resorted, the only conclusion to be drawn from his argument was a justification of these. The hon. Gentleman is a Unionist.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: You said it was natural yourself.
MR. ATKINSON: No; I said the discontent was natural because of the advice they received.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I fought for the Union when many people did not.
MR. ATKINSON: It was no justification for treason or sedition of which men like Wolfe Tone and others were guilty, that they desired to repeal the Union. Their treason was not redeemed by this object, even if that object were good.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Wolfe Tone died two years before the Union.
MR. ATKINSON: It was no justification that they thought and desired that independence should be granted to Ireland. If they found that treason had been committed, surely the hon. Member would not condone it?
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Why should the right hon. Gentleman try to misrepresent my opinions? Have I not stated in these debates over and over again that I am against all crime and in favour of a more excellent way—not by repealing the Union, but by amending the law with regard to the land?
MR. ATKINSONsaid the only difference between them was that so long as the law of the land was what it was it was the duty of the Government to see that every person obeyed it. [Cheers.]
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: So say I.
MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Member for North Louth has described the land-grabber as a contemptible and detestable individual, who almost deserves, as I understand, to be boycotted, a crime which is, in its extreme operation, the most cowardly and cruel crime a man can commit. It means in many cases social and financial ruin. What is the meaning of telling a farmer in Ireland that nobody shall buy from him, that nobody shall sell to him, that nobody shall work for him? It means financial ruin. I may refer to one of the iniquitous cases mentioned more than once tonight—that of the Normoyles. In 1884 an ex-policeman named M'Gharry gave up some land. That land lay idle for ten years. In 1894 four acres of it were taken by this wretched man Normoyle upon an arrangement, I believe, satisfactory to the outgoing tenant. Normoyle went into possession, and with his wife and son endeavoured to carry on some petty industry. In 1897 the step-son of M'Gharry, who had died, came forward before the League, and said he had been unjustly treated. He came before the League on January 5th, and his case was adjourned till January 19th. Normoyle made a long statement in writing to the police, and signed it, describing the terror he was in, and what was done to him when he went before the League. But when the case came on in Court he got up and denied on oath, as also did his relatives, in the most abject terror, everything he had stated to the police. There were, however, two documents in the case which spoke more strongly than either the evidence of the police or the even more convincing perjury of the Normoyles. Here is a letter received by Mrs. Normoyle in reply to a letter written by her to her landlord in the interval between the 5th and 19th of January—
11/1/02.
From
To
J. A. Studdart
Mrs. Normoyle.
"In reply to your letter re the position of land taken by and formerly held by Sergeant McSherry, the facts are as follows:—Sergeant McSherry surrendered the holding in May, 1887, in consequence of being compelled to put back the wall of the road leading through

1373
same, which he had previously removed out, and not for an abatement of rent. He afterwards refused to take back the holding and never made any objection to its being taken by anybody, nor did he ever mention the matter to me since you became tenant in November, 1894, and I understood from you at the time that he had given you his consent and 'goodwill,' and I have no doubt that such was the case."
So that these wretched Normoyles were writing to the landlord for a certificate that they had taken the farm fairly, and that they came in with the goodwill of the outgoing tenant. But that is not all.
AN HON. MEMBER: Is the Mr. Studdart the right hon. Gentleman mentions the same person as figured in the remount scandal?
MR. ATKINSON: That is utterly irrelevant. Then we have also the letter written by John Normoyle, the son, to Mr. Brady, R.M.—
17/1/02.
"SIR,—I want your honour to grant me a gun licence for protection, as I am at present in great trouble through the taking of some land. Some threats have been passed to me from very violent parties.
"I have been advised by Sergeant Cole to forward you this application for the use of a double barrelled breechloader gun. I hope your honour will grant it to me.
"I am, etc.
"To A. M. Brady, R.M."
[Nationalist cheers.] Hon. Members apparently are very proud of this achievement. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "We know how these things are done."] The magistrates bound the accused over to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. There is abundant evidence in these letters to show that they put the Normoyles in terror; and what could have been more right than that the defendants in the case should have been bound over by the Bench to keep the peace? The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries has made the extraordinary statement that where a person is acquitted on trial he cannot be bound over to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
MR. LAWSON WALTON: When a man is acquitted of a breach of the peace, does the right hon. Gentleman say that he can be bound over to keep the peace?
MR. ATKINSON: Not only do I say that that is so, but much greater authorities than myself have said it, namely, Lord Chief Baron Pallas, Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Lord Blackburn, and others. These judges have laid down the law on this point.
MR. LAWSON WALTON: That is where the evidence establishes a breach of the peace, but where it does not establish a breach of the peace; commit tedor threatened, I cannot understand the defendant being bound over to keep the peace.
MR. ATKINSON: I will give the hon. and learned Member the case. It is the case of "Ex parte Davis." (21 L.T., p. 547). That was a case in which a man was charged with assault and battery. The justices dismissed the information against him, and gave him a certificate barring all future criminal proceedings, but they also ordered him, in respect of the charge, to enter into his own recognizances to keep the peace for six months. On appeal their action was upheld. The case came before Lord Blackburn.
"The counsel said, 'There was no informamation calling upon the defendant to enter into recognizances to keep the peace.' Lord Blackburn replied, 'I am not aware that any such information is necessary when the party is before Justices.' Counsel said 'No threats were proved to have been uttered by the Defendant.' Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said, 'Its often occurs that the Justices say no assault has been proved, but there has been such violent conduct shown that we shall require recognizances to keep the peace.' Judge Mellor adds, The conduct of the party may have fallen short of an actual assault, but it may nevertheless have been sufficient to justify his being hound over to keep the peace; he may have used violent language, which though not an assault may have shown an intention to commit one.' Counsel said, 'The certificate would be a bar to all other proceedings founded upon the same course though in a different shape.' Lord Blackburn replied, 'Yes, to an action or any proceedings by way of punishment, but this is only a precautionary proceeding to prevent a breach of the peace.' The Lord Chief Baron in ex-parte Harken (judgments of Superior Courts, p. 317) refers to this case and several others. He says 'It is clear that magistrates upon a hearing for an offence (over which they have summary jurisdiction) even where they acquit of that offence, and acting solely upon the evidence upon which they so acquit, and without a written information, may require the defendant to find sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.'"
This is a jurisdiction which is exercised every day. In this case there

1375
was abundant evidence to show that this man had been put in terror by the accused, and what could have been more reasonable and right than that the men who put them in terror should have been bound to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour? I do not propose to go into all that has been said about unlawful assembly. I wonder at the readiness with which the hon. Member for the Scotland Division has disowned his own offspring. Any person who came into this House tonight and heard the hon. Member's speech would have fancied that the provision under which these men have been tried was some wicked device of a Conservative Government. What is its history? It was the hon. Member for North Donegal who proposed it as Amendment at the time the Crimes Act was passing through this House, and he said—
"This is an extension of the Crimes Act all over Ireland, and it exempts the Government."
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Was the right hon. Gentleman quoting me?
Mr. ATKINSONsaid he was quoting from the speech of the mover of the Motion which the hon. Member seconded. He did not wish to further trespass on the House or to further defend the action of the magistrates, and he certainly submitted that the charge against them had broken down.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland seemed to have failed to grasp the case which had been made against the administration of the law in Ireland. He had no sympathy with lawlessness, either in Ireland or in any other portion of the United Kingdom, but he had the strongest sympathy with the orderly and efficient administration of the system of law which was common to both England and Ireland. The case which had been successfully made against the Irish Office was that they had strained the legal machinery in order to cure a political mischief. The evil was political. The people were out of sympathy with the system of law and its administration. The proper remedy, as had been pointed out, for a political mischief was political in its character; and if they found that our legal system could only be applied
1376
by straining its methods, then it was obvious that it was only by legislation that the political mischief sought to be remedied could be effectively cured. To endeavour to deal with it by the administration of the law could end only in bringing the legal system into hatred and derision. He had listened to the debate with a perfectly unbiased mind. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh."] Well, he did not know that he could be accused of bias. At all events he thought he was as free from any tendency in that direction as hon. Members opposite.
What was the weight of the case which hon. Members from Ireland had been submitting to the House? There were two chief points of the indictment against the Irish administration, these were the suppression of meetings by the police and the Normoyle trial. What was the case in regard to the meetings? There was no right to suppress a meeting greater in Ireland than in this country. If the meeting was, in itself, unlawful, and if it incited to a breach of the law, it was the duty of every loyal citizen, whether he wore the uniform of a policeman or not, to do everything in his power to break up that meeting. But under the system of law which had been carried on in Ireland, what happened? A meeting was held, speeches were allowed to be made, then when a certain person rose to speak, although absolutely no illegality had taken place—although no words tending to encourage a breach of the law had been spoken—the police, with the ordinary rights of an ordinary citizen, took upon themselves the responsibility of dispersing that gathering and arresting the person who was about to make a speech. He appealed to hon. Members opposite if such an occurrence took place in Cheshire or Lancashire what would be the opinion of the people of this country? It was said that the meeting was unlawful because it was supposed that speeches would be delivered inciting to a general breach of contract to pay rent. He agreed that that was an illegal object, but until there was some evidence of the illegal character of the meeting, what right was there under the English system of law, which was the same as that in Ireland, to disperse the meeting, to silence the speakers, and to scatter the crowd as they were leaving the place? That was the first point in the indictment which

1377
hon. Members were preferring against the administration of the law in Ireland.
The Normoyle case was a travesty of justice. Our English system assumed that public opinion would support the law. It assumed that there would be co-operation between the public among whom the law was being enforced and the judicial officers who were charged with its enforcement. If that co-operation did not exist, and if the machinery would not work, then the mischief was political, and could be dealt with only by political means. What was the first principle at the root of the administration of criminal justice? It was that the aggrieved person should make a complaint; that a summons should be taken out voluntarily by some person seeking the protection of the law who had a right to initiate criminal proceedings. If there was not a voluntary initiation of these proceedings, then the first step that could be taken towards the administration of the law in this country or Ireland was wanting. What happened here? A summons was taken out in the name of Mrs. Normoyle. She was the complainant; her summons alleged that she had been interfered with by a conspiracy to injure her in her trade, and that as a consequence she had been prevented from the profitable selling of milk, which was the industry she pursued. The charge made against the defendants was that they had intimidated this woman. She was called as the first witness for the prosecution, and she commenced her statement by saying that she had suffered no intimidation, and that there had been no interference with her in the carrying on of her business. She gave a negative to the very charges which it was alleged in the summons she had made. He was not saying whether that was true or not, but what he did say was that the jurisdiction of the Court depended alone, according to our system of law, on the sworn testimony of the complainant in the box, and if that sworn testimony was not given, then the magistrates were as powerless to deal with the case as any stranger passing in the street.
MR. ATKINSONmade a remark which was inaudible in the gallery.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he was dealing with the case as the right hon.
1378
Gentleman left it. He heard the narrative given with the greatest detail by the hon. Member for East Mayo, and he had heard it referred to by other hon. Members from Ireland. He listened with interest to hear any correction which might fall from the Attorney General. Although the complainant stated that she was not aggrieved and required no relief, the magistrates proceeded to give themselves jurisdiction to deal with the case. It was said—he did not know on what ground—that she had made previous statements to certain policemen.
MR. ATKINSON: That was proved.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he supposed, then, that she was cross-examined by the counsel for the prosecution. If that was so, the person seeking relief was treated as a hostile witness in her own case, which was the first instance of the kind of which he had ever heard.
MR. ATKINSON: It was not so.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he would ask, then, whether it was the police who had been boycotted. The administration of the law in Ireland was really so at variance with everyday experience in this country that he could not say what it was.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman; it is exactly the same in England and in Ireland.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he had always been led to suppose that that was so. But here was a woman who took out a summons—
MR. ATKINSON: She did not take out a summons.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid at all events it was taken out by the police in her name, and she was the prosecutor, the person who sought protection. Yet it turned out that she required no protection, and had no ground of complaint according to her own statement. He quite understood the case of the right hon. Gentleman. He said that the woman had been induced by pressure to abandon the charge, and that she was

1379
brought before the Court unwillingly. Assuming that to be so, this woman was in a most unfortunate dilemma. She could not give evidence that she was being intimidated without inviting the social obloquy which attached to any member of the community who placed herself in opposition to public sentiment. That was one horn of the dilemma. Then if she did not prove the case of the police she was in conflict with the Court, and was committed for contempt. This wretched woman was transfixed on these two horns of a dilemma, and she chose to be committed for contempt of Court. There was no evidence on which the defendants could be convicted, and they were acquitted. But the wretched defendants were also in a similar difficulty. To change the metaphor, it appeared that if they got away from Scylla they had to encounter Charybdis. Although they escaped from the Scylla charged in the summons they fell into Charybdis —still more terrible—for in Ireland it depended on the adjudication of the Court, without evidence, whether or not a man had been guilty of some breach of the peace. He maintained that no tribunal had a right to bind a man over to keep the peace unless there was some evidence that his conduct involved or menaced some breach of the peace.
MR. ATKINSONindicated dissent.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he should only be too glad to be corrected. What he said was that no tribunal had a right to bind a man over to keep the peace unless there was some evidence that his conduct had involved or menaced a breach of the peace. He was waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what was the ground on which these magistrates convicted the defendants and sentenced them to three months imprisonment, which he understood they were at this moment serving. Were the Government justified in straining their judicial machinery and in bringing their judicial system into contempt by seeking means such as had been described to deal with these public evils? If they could not apply the law in Ireland, then
1380
they must cure the evil which led to lawlessness, or change their machinery. They had had a short time ago a debate on jury, packing in Ireland, and whether jury packing was proved or not, it was evident that the jury system could not work unless the jury placed in the box was in sympathy with the law.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had said that he knew nothing about Ireland, and the speech that he had made had shown that he did not. Where was the difference between what was called removable magistrates in Ireland and the police Magistrates in London? (Cries of "Divide.") The hon. and learned Member did not seem to know or understand the genesis of Irish opinion. An eminent Irish scholar informed him that in the Irish language there were no words that expressed property and no word that expressed gratitude. The hon. and learned Gentleman failed to grapple with the real issue. What they had got to do was to maintain the law as it was.
MR. JOHN O'DONNELLsaid that there were words in Irish to define property and theft.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that if there were such words the hon. Member could quote them.
MR. JOHN O'DONNELLsaid that he could give them if they were really wanted.
SIR JOHN COLOMB, who spoke amid loud cries of "Divide," said that the hon. and learned Member seemed to argue that the people who did not want to obey the existing law ought to prevail against those who obey the law.
(11.13.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 215; Noes 125. (Division List No. 77.)

AYES.

Arrol, Sir William

Forster, Henry William

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gardner, Ernest

Mowbrav, Sir Robert Gray C.

Baldwin, Alfred

Garfit, William

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

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

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

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

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

Greene, Sir E. W. (B'yS. Edm'ds

Pemberton, John S. G.

Bignold, Arthur

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Perpont, Robert

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bond, Edward

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Boulnois, Edmund

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. L'dG.(Mid'x

Price, Robert John

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Hanbury, Rt. Hon.Robert Wm.

Purvis, Robert

Campbell, Rt. Hn.J. A. (Gl'sg w

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

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

Holland, William Henry

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh'm

Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Stalyb'dge

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc.)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Jones, DavidBrynmor(Sw'nsea

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Chapman, Edward

Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T. (Denbigh

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Charrington, Spencer

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lawson, John Grant

Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wig't

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Crossley, Sir Savile

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesh'm

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Dairymple, Sir Charles

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bistol S.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lloyd, Archie Kirkman

Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macdona, John Cumming

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

M'Crae, George

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfries-sh

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Mitchell, William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

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

Webb, Col. William George

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Sir James Fergusson and Mr. Groves.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

Williams, Rt Hn J P'w'll-(Birm

NOES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

Grant, Corrie

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Greville, Hon. Roland

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

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Hain, Edward

O'Dowd, John

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

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

Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Mara, James

Ambrose, Robert

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Shee, James John

Austin, Sir John

Healy, Timothy Michael

Parker, Gilbert

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Heath, James, (Staffords, N.W.

Partington, Oswald

Balcarres, Lord

Heaton, John Henniker

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlingtom

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Banbury, Frederick George

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

Pearcy, Earl

Banes, Major George Edward

Hogg, Lindsay

Power, Patrick Joseph

Barlow, John Emmott

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brig'ts'de)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Horner, Frederick William

Rea, Russell

Bartley, George C. T.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Reddy, M.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hozier, Hon. James Hy. Cecil

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Blake, Edward

Jacoby, James Alfred

Remnant, James Farquharson

Boland, John

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Brigg, John

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Joicey, Sir James

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Robinson, Brooke

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Jordan, Jeremiah

Roche, John

Burns, John

Joyce, Michael

Russell, T. W.

Caine, William Sproston

Kennedy, Patrick James

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Caldwell, James

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Seton-Karr, Henry

Cameron, Robert

Labouchere, Henry

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Lambert, George

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Carew, James Laurence

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Channing, Francis Allston

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Soares, Ernest J.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Spencer, Rt.HnC R (Northants

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N.S.

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Cogan, Denis J.

Levy, Maurice

Stanley, Ed. Jas. (Somerset)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Lough, Thomas

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Lowe, Francis William

Strachey, Sir Edward

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James(Kent

Sullivan, Donal

Crean, Eugene

Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

Tennant, Harold John

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Cullinan, J.

Lundon, W.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Dalziel, James Henry

Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellis'n

Wallace, Robert

Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Dilke, Right Hon. Sir Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Dixon-Hartland, SirFr'dDixon

M'Govern, T.

Weir, James Galloway

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

White, Luke (York, E. R)

Doogan, P. C.

M'Kean, John

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Dunn, Sir William

M'Kenna, Reginald

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

Edwards, Frank

Markham, Arthur Basil

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Mooney, John J.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Wilson, John (Durham,Mid)

Farrell, James Patrick

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Fenwick, Charles

Morrison, James Archibald

Young, Samuel

Ffrench, Peter

Murphy, John

Yoxall, James Henry

Fisher, William Hayes

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Flower, Ernest

Nicol, Donald Ninian

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Foster, PhilipS. (W'rw'k, S. W.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Mr. Galloway and Mr. James Reid.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

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

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperayrMid

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Cap. SirAlex. F.

Galloway, William Johnson

Mount, William Arthur

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gardner, Ernest

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Garfit, William

Murray, Rt. HnA. Graham (Bute

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Gibbs, Hon. Vieary (St. Albans)

Myers, William Henry

Arrol, Sir William

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

Nicholson, William Graham

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Austin, Sir John

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

O'Neill, Hon. Robt. Torrens

Bagot, Gapt. Josceline FitzRoy

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Parker, Gilbert

Balcarres, Lord

Green, Walford D. (Wednebury

Parkes, Eberrezer

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

Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ryS. Edm'ds

Penn, John

Balfour, Rt HnGerald W. (Leeds

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Percy, Earl

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Grenfell, William Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Banbury, Frederick George

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Plummer, Walter R.

Bartley, George C. T.

Groves, James Grimble

Pretyman, Ernest George

Beach, RtHonSirMichael Hicks

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bignold, Arthur

Hall, Edward Marshall

Purvis, Robert

Bigwood, James

Hamilton, Rt.HnLordG.(Mid'x

Ratcliff, R. F.

Bill, Charles

Hamilton, Marq.of L'nd'nderry

Reid, James (Greenock)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hanbury, Rt.Hon.Robert Wm.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bond, Edward

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Renwick, George

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Brassey, Albert

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Bull, William James

Helder, Augustus

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Henderson, Alexander

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Butcher, John George

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Russell, T. W.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.J. (Birm.

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Seton-Karr, Henry

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Chapman, Edward

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Kennaway, Rt.Hon.Sir John H.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T. (Denbigh)

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

Give, Captain Percy A.

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

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

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

Keswick, William

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

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Knowles, Lees

Stanley, Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Law, Andrew Bonar

Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Lawson, John Grant

Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart

Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Ed. H.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Stroyan, John

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Cranborne, Viscount

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lockwood, Lt.Col. A. R.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Crossley, Sir Saville

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Thornton Percy M.

Cust, Henry John C.

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Tomlirrson, Wm. Ed. Murray

Dairymple, Sir Charles

Long, Rt. Hon. Walt. (Bristol, S)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Davenport, William Bromley-

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Lowe, Francis William

Valentia, Viscount

Denny, Colonel

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Webb, Colonel William George

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

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

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

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Macdona, John Cumming

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Williams, RtHnJ Powell(Birm.

Duke, Henry Edward

Majendie, James A. H.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Manners, Lord Cecil

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

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh'e

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

Fergusson, Rt.Hon.SirJ.(Man'r

Mitchell, William

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

Fielden, Edward Broeklehurst

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Finch, George H.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Wylie, Alexander

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

Flower, Ernest

Morrell, George Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Hayes Fisher.

Forster, Henry William

Morrison, James Archibald

Foster, PhilipS. (Warw'k, S. W.

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

1382

1383

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Hammond, John

O'Malley, William

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hardie, J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

O'Mara, James

Allen, CharlesP. (Glouc. Stroud)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ambrose, Robert

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Shee, James John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

Partington, John

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Blake, Edward

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Price, Robert John

Boland, John

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Priestly, Arthur

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rea, Russell

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jordon, Jeremiah

Reddy, M.

Burke, E. Haviland

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Burns, John

Kennedy, Patrick James

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Caldwell, James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Cameron, Robert

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Levy, Maurice

Roche, John

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.),

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Lough, Thomas

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Causton, Richard Knight

Lundon, W.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Channing, Francis Allston

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Cogan, Denis J.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sullivan, Donal

Craig, Robert Hunter

M'Crae, George

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Crean, Eugene

M'Govern, T.

Tomkinson, James

Cremer, William Randal

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Cullinan, J.

M'Kean, John

Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds, S.)

Delany, William

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Dewar, John A.(Invernessshire)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Watson, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Doogan, P. C.

Mooney, John J.

Weir, James Galloway

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Murphy, John

White, George (Norfolk)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Edwards, Frank

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Elibank, Master of

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Emmott, Alfred

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Farrell, James Patrick

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

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Ffrench, Peter

O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

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

Flynn, James Christopher

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Young, Samuel

Gilhooly, James

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Gladstone, Rt.Hon. Herbert J'n

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Dowd, John

Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Grant, Corrie

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

*SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I desire, on this the earliest opportunity on which I can, to call the attention of the House and the Government, and last, but not least, of the President of the Board of Agriculture, to the recommendation of the Committee appointed to recommend regulations under Section A of the Food and Drugs Act with respect to the proportion of water to be permitted in butter. The recommendation is that there should be a limit of 16 per cent. of water allowed in butter. But, unfortunately, the recommendation went on to say that a larger proportion of water could be added if disclosure were made to the purchaser. That is to say, that if a retailer of butter displayed anywhere in his shop a notice that he sold butter containing a greater percentage of water, he could not be prosecuted. That recommendation of a Committee appointed to secure that there should be
1384
pure butter and high quality has had a directly contrary effect, and has been received with great consternation by agriculturists and grocers throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain and Ireland. The Councils of the Royal Agricultural Association, the Central Chamber of Agriculture and the Dairy Farmers' Association have declared against the recommendation, so far as it suggests that butter containing more than 16 per cent. of water can be sold as butter if a sufficient disclosure is made. Circulars have been issued throughout the country drawing attention to the recommendation of the Committee, and stating that it is perfectly safe to offer for sale butter containing a large percentage of water, and I am credibly informed that butter containing 25 per cent. and up to 35 per cent. of water is being sold. The result is that the consumer is prejudiced

1385
to the extent that in a pound of butter he only gets twelve ounces of genuine butter and four ounces of water. This state of things is very serious, and it is necessary that the President of the Board of Agriculture should be able to assure the consumer, as well as the producer, that he has no sympathy with this part of the recommendation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the House an assurance that if this question cannot be dealt with except by legislation, the Government will be prepared to introduce a Bill, and that at once.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): I cannot blame the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this subject now, as I quite understand its importance to dairy farmers. At the same time, I am speaking at some disadvantage, because it would be very wrong for me to express any opinion until I have had an opportunity of reading the evidence on which the Report is based. That evidence has not yet been published, and I am afraid it will not be published for another week, and, as I have said, until it is published it would be wrong for me to express a definite opinion on the recommendation contained in the Report. Of course, we have the Report before us, and, prima facie, the recommendation as to sixteen per cent. of water seems to be a fair and reasonable one. But the hon. Gentleman has called attention to another part of the Report, with which I confess at once I am not entirely in agreement; and I think it is going a little outside the terms of reference. Of course, if a suggestion of that kind were carried into effect, it might have the result of defeating the standard altogether. If the Board of Agriculture fixes a standard, it must be maintained and not evaded. It is quite possible that steps might be taken to evade the standard, and, by giving due notice to the consumer, to allow the sale of butter having a larger proportion of water. I do not now express any definite opinion. We know, at any rate, that butter has been treated as an article entitled to separate legislation, and really I do not myself see, since legislation has been already adopted with reference to margarine and to prevent butter being unfairly treated, why something should not be done also to meet
1386
this new attempt to sell as butter what is really not butter. At the present moment the manufacture of that kind of article is going on to a very large extent, and I do think that the farmer is entitled to protection. Until I have read the whole of the evidence, I am, not however, to be taken as expressing an opinion, but, prima facie at any rate, I am in agreement with what the hon. gentleman has said.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.
  Petitions for alteration of Law: From Bacup; and Little Gransden; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Eastleigh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON WATER BILL.
  Petition of the Conservators of the River Thames, against (praying to be heard by Counsel); to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Parkhead; Kirkcaldy; Pathhead (three); Aberdeen;. Glasgow; Dingwall; Holm; Finstown; Garliestown; and Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD.)
  Copy presented, of Statutes made by the Governing Body of Jesus College,. Oxford, on 6th December, 1901, amending Statute V. of the Statutes of that College and the Schedule relating to King Charles the First's Trust [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 98.]
  NAVY (VICTUALLING YARD MANUFACTURING ACCOUNTS 1900–1901.)
  Annual Accounts presented, of the Cost of Manufacturing, Provisions, Victualling Stores, &c., at the Home Victualling Yards and Malta Yard for 1900–1901, &c., with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 99.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  (4.10.) QUESTIONS

    South African War — Release of Lord Methuen—Kritzinger's Trial.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can name the date fixed upon for the trial of Kritzinger, or whether it is proposed that this officer should be exchanged as a prisoner of war for Lord Methuen.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The reply to both questions is in the negative. Kritzinger's trial had been originally fixed, as I informed the House, but was postponed, as consideration of the evidence was not complete. As regards Lord Methuen, I understand that he and Colonel Townsend were expected

    1255
    at Klerksdorp today at two p.m. The medical officer in attendance reports them to he doing well.
    SIR H. GAMPBELL BANNERMAN: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman leaves us in some degree of uncertainty. He speaks of Lord Methuen and Colonel Townsend being expected at Klerksdorp today. Does that mean that they have been released from captivity, or that they are going to be released and handed over to the British authorities? Or what does it mean?
    MR. BRODRICK: That is not specifically mentioned in the telegram, but I presume, from the fact that they are arriving at Klerksdorp, and under the attendance of a British medical officer, that they have been released.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the British Government will be equally magnanimous and release Kritzinger?
    [No answer was given.]

    Lord Methuen's Reverse—Composition of Mounted Force.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the composition of the mounted troops under Lord Methuen in the recent engagement.
    MR. BRODRICK: I have not yet received exact details of the composition of this force.

    Training of Troops for Service in South Africa
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what provision is being made now for the training in riding and shooting of mounted men, to meet any calls that may arise for reinforcements three or six months hence, for the war in South Africa.
    MR. BRODRICK: The training of troops for service in South Africa is in no way relaxed.
    MR. LAMBERT: I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether any provision is being made now. Will he tell the House what is being done?
    MR. BRODRICK: I do not think the time has come to make any announcement as to what troops the Government may have to send to South Africa in six months time.
    MR. LAMBERT: But what provision is being made for training them now? You cannot send untrained troops.
    MR. BRODRICK: I told the hon. Member a few days ago that a large number of troops were in training at Aldershot, and that all the drafts that Lord Kitchener asked for would be sent.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: May I ask my right hon. friend whether, in view of the urgent need of trained troops in the field, he will not consider the advisability of employing the Indian Army.
    [No answer was given.]

    Injudicious Publication of Despatches.
    MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of Lord Kitchener's request at different times that caution should be exercised in reference to the publication of despatches, he will inquire into the circumstances under which the War Office published, on 3rd March, an official announcement that Lord Methuen had started with column from Vryburg towards Lichten-burg to try and intercept enemy, during which march he was attacked by General Delarey.
    MR. BRODRICK: Lord Kitchener communicated the intelligence mentioned in the usual weekly budget of information which is transmitted by telegraph en clair. There was therefore no reason for withholding this particular information from the public.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the allegation made that the news which was only communicated to this House on Monday afternoon leaked out in Paris in the morning?
    MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware that that was the case. As far as I am

    1257
    concerned, the only copies which were made of the telegram were carefully safeguarded, and were communicated to nobody.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It has been stated in all the London Press.
    MR. NORMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three clear days elapsed between the publication of the route and object of the march and the attack on the column?
    MR. BRODRICK: The greatest care will be taken in all these cases. When Lord Kitchener transmits a telegram en clair, which has, of course, to be handled by various telegraph clerks both in South Africa and in this country, it may be taken for granted that the movements contained in it are not such as he desires to keep strictly private.

    Errors in Official Despatches.
    MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to prevent in future the issue of official despatches containing elementary errors of topography, such as "Wynburg" for "Vryburg" in a recent despatch from Lord Kitchener.
    MR. BRODRICK: The error referred to was purely clerical, and was unfortunately not noticed before the copies of the telegram were despatched to the Press.

    Meat Contract.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any undertaking, in writing or verbally, was given by Messrs. Meyer, Weil. Tymms, Stroyan, Lewis, and Marks and Joel, that they jointly or severally would undertake with Messrs Bergl, Houlders, and Hughes to form a Company to carry out the new meat contract; whether any authority, on their behalf and with their consent, was given to His Majesty's Government in writing, if so, by whom, that these gentlemen would undertake the obligation of forming a Company in consideration of receiving the said contract; and, if no such written authority was given, who authorised the Government to put forward the names of these gentlemen as security for the efficient carrying out of the contract.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The business with regard to the formation of the Imperial Supply and Cold Storage Company was carried on by the War Office with Mr. Carl Meyer on behalf of the Company. He gave us in writing a list of the Committee who would represent the Company as Directors in London, and I gave these names to the House on the 10th February as being the names given to us in connection with the Company. Mr. Carl Meyer's authority was sufficient for this purpose. The undertaking to take over the contract was signed by Mr. Carl Meyer, Mr. S. B. Joel, and Mr. Julius Weil. No undertaking, verbally or in writing, was given us by any of the other gentlemen named.
    MR. MARKHAM: May I ask the noble Lord whether the first contract or obligation was undertaken by Messrs. Bergl, Houlders, and Hughes, and whether that obligation was transferred on the formation of the Company; also, was the contract given to those gentlemen before the Company was formed?
    LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. In the first instance the contract was given to Mr. Bergl, who was to form a Company. That Company was formed, but the contract was not passed over to the Company until it had been duly registered at Pretoria.
    MR. FLYNN: Is the office of this Company at Frankfort or Munich, or any other place on the Continent?
    [No reply was made.]

    Remounts—Return of Expenditure.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the amount spent for the purchase of remounts during the war upon horses, mules, and oxen respectively.
    LORD STANLEY: As the amounts paid for transport animals are bulked together, the information would have to be extracted laboriously from the various accounts, and I am not prepared to throw this extra and unnecessary work on the Accounts Department.

    Purchases of Horses in Canada.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, has the Remount Commissioner at present buying horses in Eastern Canada asked permission to purchase horses in Western Canada in 1902; and, if so, has permission been given to do so; and, if not, can he explain why this permission is withheld; and will the War Office send another Remount Officer out West, as one officer cannot buy in the two districts at once.
    LORD STANLEY: The remount officer in Canada has full authority to purchase in any part of that country in which suitable horses can be obtained, and he is arranging to visit the Northwest territories in May. There are already two purchasing officers in Canada.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Are these officers stationed in different parts of Canada?
    LORD STANLEY: I think the two remount officers are acting together. One is under the other.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Are purchases being made in the Western province of Canada?
    LORD STANLEY: Yes, I believe so

    Purchases of Horses in the United Kingdom.
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of horses bought for military purposes in the United Kingdom and shipped to South Africa during the last two years; and have the horse sales and fairs in the United Kingdom been regularly attended by representatives of the Remount Department with a view of buying British horses.
    LORD STANLEY: The number of horses purchased in the United Kingdom in 1900 and 1901 was 60,059, of which about 85 per cent. were shipped to South Africa. Remount officers attend horse fairs and sales whenever it is considered desirable.

    Volunteers and Imperial Yeomanry.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that members of the Volunteer force are being induced by the high rate of pay to join regiments of Yeomanry; and, with the view of preventing financial embarrassment owing to these Volunteers failing to fulfil their contracts of service, will he direct either that the Commanding Officer of Yeomanry enrolling any such Volunteer shall pay the capitation grant he would have earned in the unexpired time of service, or else that the Volunteer Corps shall be entitled to charge such sum against the public.
    LORD STANLEY: I am aware a few members of the Volunteer force have joined the Imperial Yeomanry. I do not understand that this exempts them from any private agreement which they may have made with their Volunteer Corps.

    Pay of Civil Surgeons with the R.A.M.C.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is in contemplation to increase the pay of civil surgeons attached to the R.A.M.C.; has he yet decided whether civil surgeons who have completed three years service are to receive an increase in pay on account of such service; do the Army Medical Authorities treat civil surgeons in a manner different to that in which regular members of the R.A.M.C. are treated; and have they relieved captains and lieutenants of orderly duty in stations where civil surgeons do duty; and, if this be so, will he take steps to put an end to the practice, having regard to the fact that captains and lieutenants are subject by regulation to perform orderly duty.
    LORD STANLEY: It is not intended to make any increase of pay as suggested. I am not aware that the civil surgeons are treated differently to the Army medical officers, nor of any case in which the latter have been relieved of orderly duty at the expense of the former.

    Increase of Soldiers' Pay—Good Conduct Badges.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can

    1261
    state whether soldiers in possession of good conduct badges will continue to receive pay for those badges after 1st April, 1902, in addition to pay at the increased rate.
    MR. BRODRICK: A soldier in possession of a good conduct badge under the old system will not receive pay for that badge, in addition to the increased rate of pay which is given for good conduct and efficiency, if he accepts the new terms; that is to say, he will receive the 2d. at once for stoppages, without deduction, and will continue to receive any good conduct pay he could previously have earned. He will receive in two years time the 6d., with any additional good conduct pay which may be earned under the new terms.

    Members of Parliament and Military Buildings.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether instructions are given to officers in command of military stations to exclude Members of the House of Commons from inspecting the barracks and ordnance yards under their control.
    MR. BRODRICK: A Member of this House is treated like any other person as regards permission to view barracks and ordnance yards.
    MR. WEIR: Are instructions given to that effect?
    MR. BRODRICK: Where other persons are not allowed to go, Members of Parliament are not allowed.
    MR. WEIR: Then I take it that there is no rule excluding them?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Cost of Coal Supplies for the Cape.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to an apparent loss to Army Votes under arrangements with the Cape Government for certain coal supplies set forth in the report of the Controller General, from which it appears that the Cape Government paid only from 46s. 10d. to 56s. 10d. per ton
    1262
    for English steam coal, including landing charges, the cost of which to Army funds varied from £4 12s. to £5 5s. I per ton, and whether he can say what steps are being taken in connection with this matter.
    LORD STANLEY: In the early stages of the war it was imperative that the Cape Railways should have an ample supply of coal. The Cape Government have claimed that the Imperial Government should repay the excess cost over that of coal obtained on their running contracts. This claim is under consideration.

    Kimberley Diamond Mines.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the number of deaths underground at Kimberley diamond mines, stated in the Mines and Quarries General Report for 1900, just issued by the Home Department, to be 10·93 per 1,000 persons employed in the year 1900; if he is aware that the death rate from underground accidents in all mines within the United Kingdom during 1899 was only 1·41 per 1,000, Canada 3·61, Federated Malay States 26, Mysore Gold Mines 2·66, New South Wales 1·14, Victoria 1·45, Western Australia 4·32, and Mexico 1·02; can he give any reason why the death rate at Kimberley is so much greater than that of the countries named; and, as numbers of Cornish and other British miners are employed at Kimberley, will he order some expert and impartial inquiry into this excessive death rate.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The death rate quoted by the hon. Member is for the year 1899, not 1900, and was unusually high in consequence of a serious accident which occurred in that year. The question of the propriety of holding any inquiry is entirely a matter for the Government of the Cape Colony.

    Barnato Brothers' Employees.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if any employees of the firm of Barnato

    1263
    Brothers have, under British administration in South Africa, received Government appointments, and have been elected to Lord Milner's consultative committee; and if any employee of this firm was appointed to sit on a Commission to investigate and report on financial matters wherein the said firm is largely interested.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know to what persons or to what Commissions the hon. Member refers, and I must ask him for names and full particulars before I can make any answer.

    Treatment of British Indians at Pretoria.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Coloniesif he is aware that, since Pretoria came into the possession of the British Government, Indian traders have been fined for walking on the side walks of the streets, and generally remain under the disabilities which prevail under the old laws of the Transvaal Republic with regard to the Indian subjects of His Majesty; and is it proposed to modify or repeal these laws.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No such cases have been reported, but, as I stated in reply to a Question on 3rd February, the legislation of the late Government is still in force, and until I receive Lord Milner's Report on the whole question it is impossible for me to say what modifications will be necessary.
    MR. FLYNN: Are we to understand that British Indian subjects are Outlanders in Pretoria?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

    Pay of Indian Native Troops.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is intended to raise the pay of the native troops of the Indian Army in proportion to the increase in the pay of the British troops.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The pay of the different branches of the native Army was substantially increased in 1891 and 1896, and I see no reason for raising it again in 1902.

    Indian Native Troops and the Coronation.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with regard to the contingent of 1,000 native troops drawn from our Indian Armies, who are to assist at Coronation ceremonies, if he will state by whom the cost of bringing over and carrying back the contingent will be borne, whether by the Indian or British Treasury.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The cost of bringing over and carrying back the Indian contingent which is to assist at the Coronation ceremonies will be borne by the Indian Treasury. They are to be carried in a vessel of the Royal Indian Marine.

    Indian Taxation.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will grant a Return showing the amounts yielded by new taxation imposed in India each year since 1886, and "setting out" in the case of each new tax the purpose for which such taxation was imposed.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Gentleman will find the information he asks for in a statement prepared by the Director-General of Statistics in India, on page 182 of the volume containing the index and appendices to the evidence taken before the Indian Currency Committee of 1898 (Command Paper 9,376).

    Cooper's Hill College.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what was the cost of the site and erection of Cooper's Hill College; what portion of that cost was borne by India; and what is the total expense borne by India in connection with the college from its foundation to the present time.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The cost of the site of Cooper's Hill College, acquired in the year 1871, together with that of all subsequent additions to the buildings then existing, was £143,760, all of which was borne by Indian revenues. Besides this, the excess of expenditure over receipts in the thirty years 1871–1901

    1265
    amounted altogether to £48,288. The total expenditure borne by India in connection with the College is consequently £192,048.

    Indian Civil Service—Mr. A. P. Pennell.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will say when he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House, as promised in the Gazette of India of 12th October, 1901, the Papers relating to the removal of Mr. A. P. Pennell from the Indian Civil Service.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I will lay the Papers on the Table in the course of a few days.

    Indian Mining Board.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if the Mining Board, which the Government of India proposes to form under section 9 of the Indian Mines Act of 1901, has yet been constituted if so, can he state the names of the five members; and can he lay any correspondence or other information concerning the Board upon the Table of the House.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The Government of India is not empowered by the Mines Act of 1901 to create a Mining Board, though under section 9 the Provincial Governments may, if they think fit, constitute such Boards within their respective territories. I have not yet learnt that a Mining Board has actually been formed in any province, but in Bengal the matter has for some time past been under consideration by the local Government. There has been no correspondence on the subject.

    Indian Administration—Separation of Judicial and Executive Duties.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any, and, if so, what reply has been received from the Government of India to the memorial signed by the right hon. Lord Hobhouse, K.C.S.I., and others, praying for the separation of judicial and executive duties in India, presented through the India Office in August, 1899, and forwarded by him to the Government of India for consideration and report; and
    1266
    will he lay the correspondence upon the Table of the House.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I have ascertained that the Government of India have been consulting the Local Governments on this subject, and that they have the question under their consideration.

    Indian Transport Committee's Report.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report, with Appendices, of the Indian Transport Committee, 1897, and the Report of the further Transport Committee of Military Officers appointed in 1898.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The Reports to which the hon. Member refers are of a confidential nature, and were compiled for departmental use only. I could not undertake to make them public.

    New Indian Province.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Malakhand and Bunhier districts are within the area of the so-called new Province.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The political charge over Malakhand, Swat, and Dir is part of the duties of the new Frontier Agency. By "Bunhier" I am assuming that the hon. Member means Buner, a tract included in the charge which I have mentioned.

    Indian Boots for the Army.
    SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the large purchases of boots in India for the use of the British Army and of this encouragement of their manufacture and increasing exportation, and considering that the Government in 1894 placed import duties on all goods entering India, but imposed countervailing duties on cotton goods above a certain limit in the interests of Lancashire industries, he will also place a countervailing duty on boots and shoes manufactured in India, so that the British may trade on equa terms with the Indian manufacturer.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I can hold out no hope of imposing such an Excise duty as is suggested.

    The Natu Brothers.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that on 25th August, 1901, Balvant Ramchandra Natu addressed a communication to the Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Poona, in which he submitted an account for losses sustained owing to the attachment of his personal property, will he ascertain why no notice has been taken of this letter, not even an acknowledgment having been given, and whether the Government of Bombay have yet considered Sirdar Natu's claim.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I have no knowledge of any communication of the kind, but if the hon. Gentleman will furnish me with the information he has in his possession, I will consider whether the matter requires attention.
    MR. WEIR: I think if the noble Lord had looked at the Question with greater care he would have ascertained why no notice was taken of the letter.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I will inquire when I have some facts to go upon.
    MR. WEIR: I will send the noble Lord the facts.

    Anti-Opium Petition.
    MR. JOHN GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Petition presented to him in December last by the Anti-Opium Society, and his reply thereto, and also any correspondence relating to the same.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I have no objection to lay on the Table the correspondence asked for, if the hon. Member will move for it.

    Telegraph Rates to India.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has made any fresh agreement with the Eastern Telegraph Company, or with the Indo-European Telegraph Company in connection with the recent reduction of telegraph rates to India; whether he will
    1268
    give an assurance that no agreement or re-arrangement of agreements with the Indo-European or Eastern Telegraph Companies shall be made until after the House of Commons has had an opportunity of examining and discussing the full and final Report of the Departmental Committee.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: No fresh agreement has been entered into with the Eastern and Indo-European Telegraph Companies in connection with the recent reduction of rates to India. But I have already stated, in reply to a question in this House, that it is not proposed to interrupt or delay the negotiations now in progress with regard to a date for the determination of the Joint Purse Agreement and of the Australian Message Fund.

    Scinde, Punjab, and Delhi Railway—Unclaimed Assets.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that there has been a sum of about £10,000 lying without interest at the Bank of England to the credit of the Scinde, Punjab, and Delhi Railway for the last twenty years; that in 1886 this undertaking was vested in the Government of India; that section 54 of the Act provided for the eventual dissolution of the Company; that this clause has been inoperative, the Company, though still in existence, being without direction, the last surviving director having died; and that this deposit represents various sums distributable, under Section 53 of the Act, between stockholders of the Company to parties who cannot be traced; and will he, therefore, to prevent this sum becoming the property of the Bank of England, either introduce a Bill, or put a clause in some convenient Bill, causing this money to be paid over to the Paymaster General, subject to any claims which may be substantiated.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I cannot, as at present advised, undertake to propose legislation on this subject. The money cannot, as is suggested in the question, become the property of the Bank of England. The

    1269
    Bank may at any time be called upon to disburse the balance in their hands. All claims which are substantiated are paid, and a payment was made as recently as January last.
    MR. CAINE: But is it not the fact that this money has been there twenty years? Is this to go on for ever?
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The money will remain until it is claimed. It is no business of mine.

    Australian Commonwealth—Immigration of British Indians.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of any Acts passed during the last five years by the Commonwealth of Australia, or any of the Australian Colonies, relating to restrictions upon immigrants from any Asiatic countries, including British India and British Colonies and Protectorates, or relating to the employment of His Majesty's Indian subjects on ships touching at Australian ports; with any correspondence which may have taken place between the Colonial Office, the India Office, or the Indian Government with the object of safeguarding the rights of British Indian subjects in the Australian Colonies.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Copies of the Acts and of the correspondence (which is still proceeding) will be placed in the Library as soon as it is completed.

    Kobe Consulate.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the abolition of Mixed Courts in Japan, and the consequent diminished duties of the British Consuls in that country, will he state whether any revision of the staff at the Kobe Consulate has yet been considered; and, if so, will he say what changes it is proposed to make.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord GRAN-BORNE, Rochester): There is no reason to suppose that the duties imposed on the Consular Staff at Kobe have been materially lightened by the cesser of His Majesty's extra-territorial jurisdiction in
    1270
    Japan and the consequent withdrawal of the judicial establishment. The question of the revision of the Consular Staff has therefore not arisen.

    Russia and Manchuria.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to a Convention signed on behalf of the Russian Government and the Chinese Governor General of Moukden on 12th November, 1900, regulating the occupation of Manchuria by the Russian troops, in which it was provided that the Convention should remain in force until a permanent convention should be signed by the Russian and Chinese authorities, or until both the Governors General agree to change or to abrogate it; and, whether the status quo recognised by the Anglo- Japanese Treaty also recognises this Russo-Chinese Convention as part of existing Treaty rights.
    LORD CRANBORNE: It is believed that an Agreement of a temporary nature was concluded in November, 1900, between the Local Russian Authorities and the Tartar General respecting the province of Feng-tien. The Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs informed Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg that it was in the nature of a modus vivendi. A temporary Agreement of that kind does not bring in question the international status of Manchuria under public treaties.

    Tregaron Inquest—Attendance of Factory Inspectors.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the action of Mr. R. J. Rhys, who, whilst acting as coroner at Tregaron, Aberdare, at an inquest into the death of Lizzie Mary Humphreys, who lost her life through having fallen into a vat of vitriol at a tinplate works, refused the repeated requests of Mr. T. O. Edwards, His Majesty's Factory Inspector, for an adjournment to enable him to inspect the scene of the accident; whether proper notice was given Mr. Edwards of

    1271
    the inquest; and what action the Home Secretary proposes taking in the matter.
    THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. RITCHIE,): Yes, Sir; and the facts are as stated in the Question. In my opinion the coroner did not give proper notice of the inquest to the Inspector, and his subsequent refusal to adjourn the inquest appears to have prevented the jury from having all the facts of the case brought before them. I am stating plainly to the coroner my view as to his action, and I am prepared, if any further difficulties arise, to communicate with the Lord Chancellor.

    Gambling by Automatic Machines.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the application made by a school manager at the Westminster Police Court, on Wednesday, 5th March, with reference to the gambling carried on by means of automatic machines in sweetstuff shops, and the magistrate's observations on the same; and if any action can be taken to stop the evil, or, if the law is not able to deal with such cases, will he take steps to have it amended.
    MR. RITCHIE: This matter has been the subject of action by the police, and a question is now before the High Court which may help to elucidate the legal difficulty that has been felt by some magistrates. When the decision has been given, the matter shall receive full consideration.

    Patent Laws.
    MR. JOSEPH LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the effect on British industries owing to the conditions in this country under which foreign manufacturers can introduce patented articles without working, and in view of the answer he gave to a question put by the hon. Member for Monmouth Boroughs on the 15th August last, whether he will now reconsider this matter; and whether he is now prepared to take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to compel foreign patentees to work their patents in this country, just as
    1272
    British manufacturers of patented articles are compelled to work their patents in Continental countries.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The proposals of the Government with reference to this subject are contained in the Patent Law Amendment Bill now before the House, but, as I stated when introducing the Bill, I am ready to consider any representations that may be made to me with respect to the details of the measure. I understand that the views favoured by my hon. friend are to be laid before me by a deputation from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce next week.

    Vaccination—Suggested Repeal of the Conscientious Objection Clause.
    MR. FORSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of urban sanitary authorities in the United Kingdom from which he has received resolutions advocating the repeal of Clause 2 of the Vaccination Act of 1898, relating to the conscientious objector; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to carry out the policy advocated by them.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I have received resolutions of this nature from 251 urban sanitary authorities. The Vaccination Act, 1898, will expire at the end of 1903, and the question of its renewal will have to be considered next year. In the mean-time, I do not propose to take steps for the repeal of the section referred to.

    Spread of Smallpox at Dartford.
    SIR W. HART DYKE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in the town of Dartford and surrounding villages, and district, the smallpox is spreading with great rapidity; whether he is aware that about 2,000 workmen have been lately employed upon new buildings at the Smallpox Hospital near Dartford, and that the said workmen are lodging in Dartford and the neighbouring villages, and causing thereby the spread of the disease in all directions; whether steps can be taken to secure accommodation for these workmen upon

    1273
    the spot where they work, and thus arrest the danger of contagion; whether any, and what, communications have taken place between the Local Government Board and the Asylums Board on this subject.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am aware that there have been numerous cases of smallpox in the localities referred to. It is a fact that about 2,000 workmen are being employed upon new buildings at the Smallpox Hospital near Dartford. Some of these men are lodging in Dartford and the neighbouring villages, but a large proportion of them sleep in huts built for them on the site. It is not expected that all would avail themselves of this accommodation, and if it were made compulsory for the men to live on the site, it is probable they would leave their work. It is most important that the buildings should be completed as soon as possible. I have been in communication with the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District on this subject, and I am pressing upon them to use every effort to secure that the workmen are accommodated on the site as far as practicable. I may add that every facility for vaccination is afforded to the workmen, and that as regards those employed nearest to buildings containing cases of smallpox, they were, some time since, required to be vaccinated.
    SIR W. HART DYKE: As this is a very grave matter, I feel I must put a supplementary Question. I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that a large number of these workmen, after their week's work, are in the habit of travelling to London to their homes by train and remaining there until Monday, and whether, in view of the certain risk of spreading the disease, not only as regards railway carriages, but as regards the Metropolitan districts, he does not see the absolute necessity of securing the detention of these workmen and providing accommodation for them on the spot.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I quite agree that it is a very serious matter, but I may point out that I have no power to secure that these men are kept on the spot. It is impossible to provide for them on the spot. It is most desirable that there should be no risk of spreading the disease outside the Metropolitan area. What is
    1274
    a much more grave question is that provision should be made for the cases within that area as rapidly as possible. If cases cannot be received in the hospitals, the risk of the spread of the disease will be great. Every effort is being made to provide for the men on the spot, and to secure that they shall be vaccinated; and I can only repeat that if the people in the districts concerned who fear infection will only be vaccinated, the risk will be largely diminished.
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEYasked whether another hospital ship could not be found. Would not that remove the difficulty?
    MR. WALTER LONG: It would not affect the matter in the slightest degree. It has nothing on earth to do with it. It is practically impossible to provide another hospital ship in time, and even if it were, a hospital ship could receive only a very few patients. The Metropolitan Asylums Board are endeavouring by the buildings they are erecting to double the number of beds they have at present.

    Continental and Colonial Co-operative Societies and the Price of Milk.
    MR. JOYCE (Limerick): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he could obtain any information from the Consuls in Denmark as to the average price per gallon which the Danish farmer gets for his milk from the Co-operative Societies; also what is the average price paid in New Zealand, Australia, and Canada per gallon for milk by the Co-operative Dairy Societies in those countries.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): I think that the kind of information asked for by the hon. Member would be useful, and if he will communicate with me as to all the details he desires, I will do my best to ascertain the facts.

    Coronation—Country Telegraph Offices.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it can be arranged for the country telegraph postmasters to have a half holiday on Coronation Day.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The question of keeping open country telegraph offices on Coronation Day must depend to some extent on the general order in Council to be issued on the subject of the observance of that day, which the Government is not at present in a position to issue.

    Telegraph Facilities in Northamptonshire.
    COLONEL STOPFORD-SACKVILLE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that during the last three months applications have been made on behalf of seventeen rural parishes in Northamptonshire for information respecting the establishment of telegraph offices, and that in only one case has anything beyond a formal acknowledgment been received from the Department; and can he hold out any hope that the information desired will be speedily given, and the wishes of those parishes met where a guarantee is given by the Parish Council.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The applications to which the hon. Member refers for telegraph offices at seventeen villages in Northamptonshire were duly received, and the necessary returns were obtained. The results, however, were so unfavourable that the Postmaster General decided to obtain further returns, in the hope that these might justify him in granting the offices in at any rate some of the cases. The further returns have now nearly all been received, and the Postmaster General will communicate with the applicants as soon as possible.

    Dewsbury Post Office.
    MR. TREVELYAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, since 4th March, an inspection has been made and report presented on the sanitary condition and accommodation of the Dewsbury Post Office; and, if so, can he state the nature of the report; and, if an unsatisfactory report has been made, what improvements are to be made.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A report on the subject has been received, and is under consideration.

    Damage to Telegraph System by Storms.
    MR. ORR-EWING: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the amount of money expended in repairing the damage done by storms to the telegraph system between London and the North during the year 1900 and during the year 1901; and, further, if he can state whether the strengthening of the line to insure it against damage, which has lately been announced, is a new departure, or if it has ever been attempted before.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The amounts expended by the Post Office in repairing the damage caused by storms to the telegraph system between London and the North during the years 1900 and 1901 were £12,930 and £25,542 respectively. The strengthening of the lines is not a new departure. It has been going on for some years; and it is steadily extending as renewals of the plant become necessary.

    Cable Communication—Inter-Departmental Committee's Report.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will now state when the final Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Cable Communications will be placed upon the Table.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Committee held its final meeting yesterday, and I hope that the Report will shortly be in the hands of Members.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOONwas understood to ask if the evidence would be published.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have not seen it yet, and should not like to answer the Question without notice. But I think that probably some of the evidence was of a highly confidential character, and could not be published. I will inquire.

    School Children and the Coronation.
    MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the

    1277
    Committee of Council on Education if he is aware that School Boards and Committees of Management of Voluntary Schools are considering the question of closing the schools during Coronation week; and if he can issue any statement on the subject which would re-assure School Boards and school managers as to the risk of such closing causing the number of school sessions to fall a little below the minimum number on which grants are paid.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,) (for Sir J. GORST): The Board of Education are of opinion that the provisions of the Code are elastic enough to admit of a proper holiday being given at the Coronation.

    War Office Buildings.
    MR. TREVELYAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the amount spent on behalf of the War Office in 1899–1900 on the purchase of the leasehold interest of two houses, Nos. 77 and 78, Pall Mall; and what sums have since been spent on alterations and adaptations for the use of the War Office.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The leasehold interest of these houses was purchased for £6,000. The premises, however, were not assigned to the War Office, as was at first proposed, as they were transferred to Her late Majesty as a Grace and Favour Residence, in exchange for Bushey House, appropriated for the National Physical Laboratory.

    Welsbach Incandescent Light Company.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether he will grant the Return relating to the Welsbach Incandescent Gas Light Company (writs issued), notice for which stands on today's Paper†
    † The following is the Return referred to:—"Welsbach Incandescent Gas Light Company (Writs Issued).—Return showing (1) the number of writs issued by the Courts (a) at the instance of the Incandescent Gas Light Company, Limited (now the Welsbach Incandescent Gas Light Company, Limited) against persons alleged to have infringed Welsbach British patents since 1890; and (b) at the instance of the Welsbach Incandescent Gas Light Company, Limited, against persons
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): No, Sir. I have made inquiry, and am informed that it would require the work of three or four men for a week, and considerable expense, to procure the information asked for, so far as it is possible to obtain it at all. As the matter relates to private litigation, I do not think that the Return asked for should be granted under these circumstances.

    Piracy of Musical Copyrights.
    MR. BOULNOIS: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the increase which has recently taken place in the sale of pirated copies of copyright songs by hawkers in the streets of London and other towns; and, seeing that the remedy by action given to the owner of the copyright by the existing law has been found in practice inadequate to stop sales of this nature, whether the Government will consider the advisability of bringing in a Bill to make the sale of pirated copies of copyright songs an offence punishable summarily by fine.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: My attention has been called to the subject, and undoubtedly the present state of the law is unsatisfactory. I may refer my hon. friend to the manner in which the point was dealt with in the Copyright Bill of 1900, in case he should himself propose to take any action in the matter, but I am not prepared to give any promise on be half of the Government.

    Irish Local Government Contracts.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Wexford, I beg to ask the Chief
    alleged to have infringed the 1893 Welsbach British patent since the 1st day of January, 1901. (2) Of all application made to the Judges of the King's Bench sitting in Chambers for committal to prison on the plea of contempt of persons alleged to have infringed Welsbach British patents (c) since 1890, and (d) since the 1st day of January, 1891, respectively, and of all orders made thereon, and names of persons arrested and committed. (3) The numbers respectively of manufacturers of incandescent mantles, and of dealers in, or sellers or users of such mantles, who have been served with writs, prosecuted, or committed to prison on the plea of contempt in connection with alleged infringement of the Welsbach British patents (e) since 1890, and (f) since the 1st day of January, 1901."—(Mr. Weir.)

    1279
    Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the grounds upon which the Local Government Board for Ireland hold that Article 27 of the Procedure of Councils Order, as amended by the Procedure of Councils Order of 1901, can only apply to new contracts; can he explain why the Local Government Board consider as new contracts only those entered into after 1st April, 1902; is he aware that a number of existing contracts originally made by Irish grand juries were made on the principle of half-yearly payments; and can he state why in these contracts the half-yearly system of payments should not be reverted to; and will he take steps to remove any difficulties standing in the way of the relief to the ratepayers proposed by the amending Act of last session in the Bill he proposes to pass this session. May I take the opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his return to the House?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): Thank you. Article 26 of the Order of 1899, as amended by the Order of 1901, reads as follows:—
    "Contracts may provide for payments to a contractor—where the contract is for a work of maintenance, and for a term of years at any period not exceeding six months for work executed during that period."
    It is, therefore, clear that the half-yearly payments must be provided for in the contract; and no such contract can legally be entered into prior to the 1st April next. There is no provision in the Order of 1901 enabling a County Council to vary the terms of an existing contract. Payments under maintenance contracts entered into by grand juries were made after March and July Assizes at periods of eight and four months respectively, and not at intervals of six months. I cannot undertake to introduce, in the Bill referred to, a clause such as suggested.

    Beleek Charitable Loan Fund.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the present financial position of the Beleek Charitable Loan Fund Society, County Fermanagh.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Debentures affecting the funds of this Society are claimed
    1280
    to the amount of £1,786. The Receiver has accounted for sums collected by him, amounting to £163 1s. 5d.

    Dundrum Central Lunatic Asylum.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that complaints have been made that tradesmen employed in the Dundrum Central Lunatic Asylum are compelled to do ordinary attendant's duties in addition to, and after they have performed, a day's work as tradesmen; and whether, seeing that a promise was made months ago to leave these tradesmen off this extra duty, can he say when it is intended to put this promise into practice.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The complaints of these tradesmen were investigated last year, and it was decided that no change could be made in the conditions of their service. No promise was made such as is alleged in the Question.

    Rioting at Blackskul, County Down.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police have made any report in regard to a riot at Blackskul, near Dromore, County Down, on the night of the 6th instant; whether he is aware that a public meeting, convened for the purpose of starting a co operative creamery in the district, was prevented from being held, by an organised crowd, two Presbyterian ministers and the Roman Catholic curate being assaulted, stories thrown into Mr. James Wilson's house, and three or four men being injured by stones thrown by the crowd; whether any person has been made amenable; and if the authorities will take steps to see that meetings for a public and legal object are not subject to mob treatment in future.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; full reports have been made of these disgraceful occurrences. The police did not anticipate disturbance at the meeting, and although one of the promoters had heard there would be opposition two days before it was announced to be held, he did not inform the police. When they arrived on the scene at midnight the rioters had dispersed. Two men have been identified as having taken part in the rioting, and

    1281
    every effort is being made to bring other offenders to justice. Ample protection will be afforded to persons attending such meetings in the locality in future. As I have stated, the police would have been present on this occasion had they been made aware of the intended opposition.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the men who are to be made amenable be taken in the ordinary course before petty sessions, or will the Crown send down a prosecutor from Dublin?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Every step will be taken to secure that justice will be done, but I cannot say the exact course which will be pursued.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will steps be taken to convince these people that there is no connection between separated milk and the Crown and Constitution?
    MR. MACVEAGH: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that this is the third meeting broken up in this district, the right hon. Gentleman will, by the erection of a police barracks or otherwise, afford some protection to life and property?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Templemore Police.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police are continually blocking the footways in Templemore; that the people returning from morning mass are forced to step into the roadway on account of the massing of these constabulary in front of the barracks; and will he explain why and by what authority the police on the 3rd and 4th instant compelled Mr. Patrick E. O'Donoghue, Georges Street, Temple-more, and other persons who pay for the making and maintenance of the roads, to move out on the roadway.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that the statements in this Question are absolutely without foundation.

    Irish Congested Districts Board—Earl of Shaftesbury's Qualifications.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether
    1282
    he can state the qualifications possessed by the Earl of Shaftesbury for the position of member of the Congested Districts Board, and when this appointment was made, and will he explain why the representations made by Kerry and Cork for the appointment of a member with knowledge of the needs of those counties were disregarded by the Government in making the appointment.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Government was satisfied of the fitness of the Earl of Shaftesbury to be a member of the Congested Districts Board. He was appointed by Royal Warrant dated the 6th instant. Before recommending his appointment I brought to Lord Shaftesbury's notice the representations referred to, and he undertook, if appointed, to visit Kerry and Cork with the object of making a special study of the needs in the congested portions of those counties.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to find some man in Kerry or Cork with a local knowdedge of the needs of the people, and not go to Belfast?
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Why was Lord Shaftesbury appointed in preference to the Bishop of Ross?
    MR. GILHOOLY: Is it the intention of the Government to leave the Province of Minister wholly unrepresented on the Congested Districts Board?
    MR. SHEEHAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received representations from public bodies in West Cork asking for the appointment of a local representative?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    [None of these Questions were answered]

    Suck Drainage Taxation.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the effects of the Suck Drainage taxation upon the tenants of land along the banks; and whether he will consider what steps can be taken, either by relieving them altogether of the burden or by extending the time

    1283
    for repayment to double the present period, or otherwise to lighten the burden.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask the hon. Member to refer to the answer which I gave to a similar Question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Galway on the 4th instant.†
    MR. ROCHE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some instances the taxes have more than doubled?
    MR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That does not arise directly out of the Question. I cannot answer without notice.
    MR. ROCHE: Can you answer the last paragraph of my Question?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN; No, Sir. As I said on a previous occasion, the time will not be extended.

    Congested Townlands in the Tuam Union.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that representations have been made on several occasions to the Congested Districts Board as to the condition of the people who live on the townlands of Ballinagur-rane, Currilane, Derrymore, Ballinapark, and Caherlistrane, in the Tuam Union, in County Galway, which townlands contain seventy-five families numbering 372 persons who have to live on small holdings, and the entire valuation of which townlands is only £224 13s.; and whether the Congested Districts Board propose to do anything in response to the representations made by way of enlarging the holdings, or otherwise improving the condition of these people.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The only representation received was a copy of a resolution forwarded by the Tuam Rural District Council, asking that the scheduled area of their district should be extended, and that grants in aid be made for the benefit of the district. The Council was informed that the period allowed under the Act of 1891 for altering the areas of congested
    † See page 362.
    1284
    districts had elapsed, and that this was impossible, but that the Board would be prepared to consider any scheme that might be brought before it for the benefit of the congested portion of the rural district.

    Tottenham Estate—Advance to James Fox.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Board of Works have advanced a sum of £55 on the security of his farm to a tenant named James Fox, Aughavanny, on the Tottenham Estate, County Leitrim; can he state how much has been repaid to the Board of Works on account of this loan; how much still is due to the Board of Works; and by whom have the instalments of principal and interest been paid to the Board since the eviction of Fox in 1892.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The loan of £55 was advanced in 1883 to Charles Fox. The repayments amount to £23 18s. 11d. No further payment has been made since 1892. The balance has not been remitted as against the borrower.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the Board of Works under his charge?
    MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member means that the Question should have been answered by the Secretary to the Treasury, I may explain that the information was sent to me, and I therefore replied.

    Dickson Estate—County Leitrim.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Dickson Estate, Tullaghan, County Leitrim, has been under the control of the Courts since 1884, and that the tenants have repeatedly expressed a desire to avail themselves of the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Purchase Acts, but have been unable to effect a purchase; can he state what is the obstacle to purchase by the tenants on this estate; and will he endeavour to facilitate a sale to the tenants on equitable terms.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This estate was listed before the Land Judge on Thursday last. The Land Judge granted an adjournment till June, in order that proceedings might, meanwhile, be brought to the stage at which a request could be issued to the Land Commission for an inspection under the 40th Section of the Act of 1896.

    Lamp Breaking by Soldiers at Kinsale.
    MR. CREAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two privates of the 4th Battalion of the Manchester Regiment, stationed at Kinsale, were arrested by the police on the 10th February last, having been caught in the act of breaking the public gas lamps; that the head constable arranged with the secretary of the gas company to attend at the following Petty Sessions Court to give evidence of the practice of the breaking of lamps since the arrival of this regiment in the town; and that the secretary of the gas company was informed by the head constable that the prosecution was not to be proceeded with, and was handed 3s. 8d., the value of the breakage, by the two men who had been summoned by the police; and can he explain why the prosecution was abandoned by the police, and by whose authority.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The police reported this occurrence to the gas company who declined to prosecute. The value of the breakage was remitted to the company by the officer in charge of the detachment. The police did not institute proceedings, consequently they abandoned none.
    MR. CREANasked who induced the secretary to the company not to prosecute.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There was only one lamp broken.
    MR. CREAN: If representations as to the conduct of the troops are made by respectable inhabitants—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot debate the question.
    MR. CREAN: I will send the correspondence to the right hon. Gentleman to prove that the statements I have made are correct.

    Kilkenny Land Courts.
    MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the reason of the delay of the Sub-Commissioners of the Land Courts of their visits to certain farms, regarding which cases were heard at Kilkenny on the 7th and 8th February, 1902, whereas cases heard on the 14th are already visited; whether he will state on what principle the order is arranged in which farms are visited by Sub-Commissioners; and whether these farms above referred to will be visited in the immediate future.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The inspections are arranged with regard to their relative situation, and not by the order in which they may have been heard in Court. There will be no delay in inspecting the cases referred to.

    Case of Daniel Creed, of Donaghmore.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a young man named Daniel Creed, of Donaghmore, was arrested on Thursday evening last by Sergeant John Harrington, of Ballinagree, and charged with the larceny of a horse and cart; that the Sergeant swore at the Special Court held on the following day in Macroom that he had no warrant for the arrest of Creed; and will he state by what authority this police sergeant arrested this man on a criminal charge, and detained him in custody without a warrant.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The police are empowered to make an arrest without warrant in a case of suspected felony. The case against Creed will be magisterially investigated today.

    Limerick Assizes.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state the number of cases which were tried in the Crown Court at the recent assizes in Limerick; in how many cases convictions were obtained; and what action will be taken in the cases in which a verdict was not obtained.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There were eight such cases. No convictions were obtained

    1287
    in any of these. The cases in which a verdict was not obtained have been adjourned to the next Assizes.

    Labourers' Cottage Schemes in Cork.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the recent inquiry under the Labourers Acts in the Cork Rural District an application was considered from Thomas Cundon for an additional half-acre on the farm held by the representatives of Honoria Donovan, in the electoral division of Greenfort; and seeing that no statutory disqualification was urged against the application, will he state on what grounds it was rejected by the Local Government Board.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The application of Cundon was opposed by the occupier on the ground that he never worked for him, and that he was constantly employed elsewhere. The Inspector did not see his way, therefore, to recommend the application, and the District Council has not questioned his decision.
    MR. SHEEHAN: And does the fact that the man never worked for the occupier disqualify him under the Act?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am not prepared to answer a general Question like that without notice.

    Tallow Conspiracy Case.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two pigs, belonging to Mr. Alexander Heskin, one of the traversers in the recent conspiracy case, were driven by the police from near his premises to the pound at Tallow, on the 24th ultimo; that the owner of the pound refused to give them up to Mr. Heskin on same date without consent of the police, although Mr. Heskin offered his name and address; and that the pound keeper then went to the police and was directed by the head constable not to give up the pigs until the police should be present; can he explain why the police declined to be present on that day, and again on the 27th ultimo refused to let the animals be given up or to attend at the pound,
    1288
    though requested by the pound keeper; and seeing that subsequently the same day the head constable and two constables consented to come to the pound, but would not allow the animals to be released unless a sum of 7s. was paid, will he cause inquiry to be made into the action of the police in this matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Heskin denied ownership of the pigs before they were impounded on the 24th February. The police did not decline to be present at the pound on the 24th, or any other date. The pound keeper did not request their attendance, until it came to his knowledge that Mr. Heskin proposed to remove the pigs by force. The animals were released by the keeper when the cost of their maintenance was paid to him. The action of the police in the matter was perfectly regular.

    Longford County Council Accounts.
    MR. J. P. FAERELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two half-year's accounts of Longford County Council remain now unaudited, and a third half-year closes on 31st March; whether the Local Government Board were applied to to send down an auditor, and stated it was impossible to do so for some time; whether arrangements could be made to have the accounts audited by the late auditor, who would be best able, from a long knowledge of the county, to deal with the large amount of work now to be done; and, in any case, can he state when the audit can be arranged for.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The auditor lately in charge of this district has retired from the service, and the duty cannot, consequently, be assigned to him. But the Board has made other exceptional arrangements to have the accounts audited at the earliest possible date.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when that "earliest possible date" will be?
    MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.

    Clogher Postal Arrangements.
    DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as

    1289
    representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the inhabitants of the townlands of Derryribbeen and Gortnaclassagh, in the Clogher, co. Mayo, postal district, who were accustomed to a daily delivery of letters, now get their letters delivered only on Saturdays, and can he give any reason for the change from a daily to a weekly delivery.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General will have inquiry made as to the arrangements for the delivery of letters in the townlands referred to by the hon. Member in the Clogher district, co. Mayo, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    Sunday Mails in South Donegal.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a train service will be substituted for the present car service in forwarding the mails for South Donegal on Sundays, having regard to the fact that the railway company is willing to carry the mails on Sundays for the amount of the subsidy at present paid to the mail cars.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In view of the statement in the latter part of the hon. Member's question, further inquiry shall be made on the subject, and a reply sent to him as soon as possible.
    MR. WILLIAM MOORE: Will the hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that South Donegal has the largest percentage of illiterates in the United Kingdom?

    Butter Standard—Cork Merchants' Resolution.
    Mr. FLYNN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a copy of a Resolution from the Cork Butter Merchants Association pointing out the great difficulty under which butter producers under the dairy system labour, and that any reduction of the standard of water in cured or salt butter under 18 per cent. would affect most injuriously an important and extensive Irish industry; and whether attention will be paid to these representations when the standard is about being fixed.
    MR. HANBURY: The reply to both Questions is—Yes.

    Belfast Magistrates Case.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has continued in the commission of the peace for the County of Antrim and for the City of Belfast a magistrate who has pleaded guilty, in the Belfast Police Court, to a charge of drunkenness preferred against him; and whether he can state the reasons why, shortly after pleading guilty to the charge of drunkenness, this magistrate was made a deputy lieutenant for his county.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): There is no information in the Crown and Hanaper Office bearing on these allegations. It has no means of identifying the persons to whom reference is made, or of ascertaining whether the matters are of recent or ancient date.
    MR. JOYCE: I will send the right hon. Gentleman the particulars.

    Commissioners of Irish Lights.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state who appoints the Commissioners of Irish Lights, and how the appointment is made and what are the qualifications, if any, that entitle persons appointed to act on this Board; can he explain why the Irish Ports have no representative on the Board; whether the Board is under the control of any Government Department; and whether their accounts are audited by a Government auditor.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Irish Lights, as established by the Dublin Port Act, 1867, and previous Acts, consists of five representatives of the Corporation of Dublin, and seventeen members who have from time to time been nominated or co-opted by that Board. No qualification is prescribed for a Commissioner, except that he is to be a "fit person." I am not able to say what reasons influenced Parliament in so settling the constitution of the Board. The Board is under the

    1291
    financial control of the Board of Trade, and their expenses are paid out of the General Lighthouse Fund, which is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

    Rock Angus Light.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say why the lighthouse on Rock Angus, at the entrance of Strangford Lough, was built, and, when built, why it was never lighted.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Commissioner of Irish Lights that the lighthouse on Angus Rock was erected in 1850 to indicate the entrance to Strangford Lough, but it was not lighted because it was found useless to vessels seeking shelter without leading lights to guide past the dangers at entrance and up to Audley and Cross Roads Anchorages. I am further informed that the whole question of lighting Strangford Lough was dropped on the decision to make Carlingford Lough the harbour of refuge between Dublin and Belfast.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that ships have been lost on that point in consequence of no light being there?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Was this useless lighthouse erected by the Irish Board of Works?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Waterford and Dundalk Pilotage Funds.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the omissions of the Waterford and Dundalk pilotage authorities to render statements of their accounts of their dealings with the pilotage funds (in accordance with Section 585 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894) for the years 1897, 1898, 1899, and 1900, in the case of Waterford, and for the years 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899, and 1900 in the case of Dundalk; and whether the Board of Trade will forthwith proceed to investigate the accounts of the pilotage funds of the ports mentioned, in accordance with the powers conferred upon them by the Act.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid there have been omissions both as to the receipt and presentation of some of these Returns. I will look into the matter, and communicate with the Waterford and Dundalk Pilotage Authorities.

    Private Members' Bills—New Standing Order 31.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that Bills introduced under the recent addition to Standing Order No. 31, after the customary notice, can only be backed by the name of the introducer, and that the only Bill so introduced by a non-official Member has been withdrawn on this ground; and whether he will consider the possibility of arrangements being made for other names being added, on such names being specified in the notice, or by any other means.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): My attention has been called to the difficulty to which my hon. friend refers in this Question. I need hardly say it was never the intention of the House, or of the Government, that the change in the rule should have this indirect and unexpected consequence. Of course, it is not for me to give an interpretation of the rule. Perhaps my hon. friend will himself confer with the Speaker.
    Subsequently MR. A. J. BALFOUR said: It would be for the convenience of the House if you, Sir, gave a ruling in regard to the names of others than the introducers being placed on the back of Bills.
    MR. SPEAKER: The new Standing Order does not itself deal with this matter; but it appears to be a convenient course, and one to which I see no objection, that the hon. Member who brings in a Bill under the new Order should be allowed to put upon it the names of those hon. Members who have co-operated with him in the preparation of the Bill, just as in the case of a Bill brought up from the Bar. If the House sees no objection, I will direct that this may be done. Of course the practice will be subject to the same conditions as in the case of a Bill brought up from the Bar. The number of names will be limited, and

    1293
    the hon. Member who puts them down will thereby guarantee that he has obtained permission to do so.

    Coronation Oath.—Royal Declaration Against Transubstantiation, etc.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the British mission, headed by Lord Denbigh, which recently waited upon His Holiness the Pope, was authorised by the Government to give any assurance that the Coronation Oath would be so modified as to contain nothing offensive to His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects.
    MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on a recent day petitions, signed by more than half a million of persons in all portions of His Majesty's dominions, were presented by a right hon. Gentleman at present in the House, praying that the House would not agree to any alteration in the King's Declaration or the Coronation Oath in the direction indicated in this Question.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am aware of the facts my hon. friend has just stated to the House, but they really have no bearing upon the Question upon the Paper. The answer to the Question on the Paper is in the negative.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Why was not this opportunity taken to give some such assurance?
    [No answer was returned.]
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I think I am entitled to an answer.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not think the Question required an answer, but I will give one. It was not an appropriate occasion.

Business of the House.
DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to resume the debate on the Procedure Rules before Easter; and whether, more especially for the information of North Country Members, he can state the probable date and duration of the Easter recess.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have very little hopes of being able to make substantial progress with the Rules of Procedure before the Easter holidays begin. I am afraid I cannot give any specific assurance to the hon. Gentleman as to the precise date when that will occur.
DR. FARQUHARSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the probable date of the Easter recess has already appeared in The Times.?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman asked me, not for the probable date, but the actual date. I could give him the probable date, possibly.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what course he proposes to take with regard to the Motion on the Paper for suspending the Twelve o'clock Rule. As far as I am aware, there is no disposition to prolong the debate beyond the usual time.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the House is aware, I only put down the Motion as a matter of precaution, not having been able to communicate with the Gentlemen with whom these matters are usually arranged. As I understand that there is no desire to prolong the proceedings on the various Reports down on the Paper after twelve o'clock, on that understanding I will not move to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule. Of course, it is understood that the discussion on the Consolidated Fund Bill will be on the Third Reading, which will be the first Order of the day on which it is put down.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they concur with this House in their Resolution, "That it is expedient that the London Water Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the amalgamation of the undertakings of the Buenos Ayres and Rosario Railway Company, Limited, and the Central Argentine Railway Company, Limited; and for other purposes." [Central Argentine and Rosario Railway Bill (Lords)].

FRESHWATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 100.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 100.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 122.]

SUPPLY— [28TH FEBRUARY]—REPORT.
Resolution reported:—
SUPPLY— [11TH MARCH]—REPORT.
Resolutions reported:

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1902–3.
1. "That a sum, not exceeding £782,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay, to Officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,160,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
3. "That a sum, not exceeding £350,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Pensions and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
4. "That a sum, not exceeding £246,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medical Services, including the cost of Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
5. "That a sum, not exceeding £17,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Martial Law, including the cost of Naval Prisons at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
6. "That a sum, not exceeding £101,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Educational Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
7. "That a sum, not exceeding £65,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Scientific Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
8. "That a sum, not exceeding £286,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expenses of the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Fleet Reserve (including Seamen Pensioner Reserve), and the Reserve of Retired Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1902–3.
9. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,190,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Staff for Engineer Services, and Expenditure for Royal Engineer Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad (including Purchases), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
10. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,786,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Retired Pay, Half-Pay, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers, &c., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
11. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,747,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals, and the In-Pensioners thereof; of Out-Pensions; of the Maintenance of Lunatics for whom Pensions are not drawn; of Gratuities awarded in Commutation and in lieu of Pensions; of Rewards for Meritorious Services; of Victoria Cross Pensions; and of Pensions, &c., to the Widows, and Children of Warrant Officers, Noncommissioned Officers, and Men, &c.,
1388
which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
Resolutions agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS— [11TH MARCH]—REPORT.
Resolutions reported:
1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the years ending on the 31st days of March, 1901 and 1902, the sum of £5,512,396 2s. 5d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
2. That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, the sum of £68,181,600 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
Resolutions agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by the Deputy Chairman, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
"To apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and one, one thousand nine hundred and two, and one thousand nine hundred and three," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next.

ADJOURNMENT.
Motion made and Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Mr. Balfour) —put and agreed to.
Adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Presented, and read 1a.
HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  BIRMINGHAM AND MIDLAND TRAM-WAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  MEDWAY AND THAMES CANAL BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
DEAL AND WALMER GAS BILL [H.L.],
  LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  HAMILTON GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.],
  House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received tomorrow.
  ABERCARN URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON AND BRIGHTON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],
  MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTONTRA M-WAYS BILL [H.L.],

    HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.],
    NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.],
    BIRMINGHAM AND MIDLAND TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.],
    EXETER AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.],
    SOUTH SHIELDS, SUNDERLAND, AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.],
    CROYDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL,
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
    Examiner's certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC

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

  1. Light railways in the city of Worcester and in the rural districts of Pershore and Upton-on-Severn, in the county of Worcester.

  2. Light railways in the boroughs of Jarrow and South Shields, in the county of Durham.

  3. A light railway in the county of Sussex between Northiam and Rye.

  4. Light railways in the parishes of Edgware, Finchley, Friern-Barnet, Hendon, Hornsey, Kingsbury, Little Stanmore Southgate, Tottenham, Wembley, Willesden, and Wood Green, in the county of Middlesex.

  5. Light railways in the county of Stafford, in the boroughs of Stoke - upon - Trent, Newcastle-under-Lyne, Longton, and Hanley.

  6. A light railway in the parish of Clifton, in the rural district of Barton-upon-Irwell, in the county palatine of Lancaster.

  7. A light railway in the urban districts of Pemberton and Ashton-in-Makerfield, in the county palatine of Lancaster.

  8. A light railway in the county of Southampton, from Lyndhurst to Lyndhurst Road.

  9. Light railways in the city of Worcester and the rural districts of Martley and Upton-on-Severn, in the county of Worcester.

  10. Light railways in the urban and rural districts of Dartford, in the county of Kent.

  1207

  11. Light railways in the county of Suffolk, from Lowestoft to Kessingland.

  12. Light railways in the county of Stafford, in the parishes of Wednesfield and Short Heath, and the abandonment of certain light railways authorised by the Essington and Ashmore Light Railway Order, 1900.

  13. Light railways in the counties of Southampton and Surrey, from Aldershot to Farnborough.

  14. Light railways in the county of Leicester, from Loughborough to Mountsorrel, and in the borough of Loughborough.

  II. The deviation of a light railway authorised by the Middleton Light Railways Order, 1898, and for other purposes.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
  Statutes made by the Governing Body of Jesus College, Oxford, on 6th December, 1901, amending Statute V. of the Statutes of the College and the schedule relating King Charles the First's Trust: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 29.)
PETITIONS.
  TEMPERANCE.
  Petition in favour of further legislation respecting; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to county courts in Ireland was presented by the Lord Ashbourne; read 1a to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next. (No 30.)

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (1901) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1—
VISCOUNT LLANDAFF*VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved the omission of Clause 1, which provided that Part II of the Sixth Schedule of the Act of 1901 should be amended by including in the list of factories and workshops,
1208
laundries carried on by way of trade or for the purpose of gain. He presumed that the intention of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was to make steam laundries factories, and all other laundries workshops. If that was his intention, the clause failed to carry it into effect, because the existing law in the Factory Act of 1901 only made an industrial establishment a factory when steam, water or other mechanical power was used in it for manufacturing processes. Laundry processes were not manufacturing processes. The result of the clause would be that all laundries, steam and otherwise, would be workshops. He objected entirely to the application in this way en bloc of the factory legislation to laundries. The Factory Acts were devised, in the first instance, for the great textile factories, and there had been included non-textile factories and workshops, but some manufacturing process was carried on in them. Manufacturing processes were capable of being carried on at any hour, continuously, and with perfect regularity. The consequence was that in a factory it was possible to have fixed hours for work and meals, in fact, perfect regularity. That was not possible in the case of an industry which was not a manufacturing industry.
There were four classes of industry, to which certain portions of the Factory Act had been applied, namely, docks, buildings, railways and laundries. In each of those cases Parliament had declined to apply the Factory Act as a whole, but had picked out certain provisions appropriate to the industry in question, and made those, and those only, applicable. In the case of laundries the application was more extensive. It was clear from the Bill that the clauses which the noble Earl wished to apply were those which regulated the hours of employment and the time for meals and holidays, which were precisely the clauses not suitable to laundries. The operation of this industry was not regular, like that of manufactures, but intermittent, varying greatly at different parts of the week. For these reasons it was thought right, in the Act of 1901, to leave considerable elasticity in the arrangements under which laundry work was allowed to be carried on. The laundry clause of the Factory and Workshop Act of 1901 was simply a reproduction of the clause in the Laundry Act of 1895. The latter clause

1209
was referred to the Standing Committee on Trade, which was strengthened by the addition of many Members. Mr. Asquith, the then Home Secretary, was added to the Committee, which also included the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and two other Members of the present Government. All these right hon. Gentlemen voted in favour of the hours which the present law prescribed for the laundry business, as against the hours prescribed in the Factory Act. Under the noble Earl's Bill laundries could only work for twelve hours—from six, seven, eight or nine o'clock in the morning to the corresponding hour in the evening. Out of that, one and half hours were taken for meals, whereas in the Act of 1901 the utmost latitude was allowed. Fourteen hours of work might be done at any period of the day and night, and the hours for meals were not fixed. All that was said was that there must be half-an-hour allowed for meals after every spell of five hours work. A maximum of sixty hours in the week for women was fixed in the existing Act, with the result that the whole of the work could be thrown on four days in the week. This was settled by the particularly strong Committee of 1895, after most elaborate discussion, and after receiving information from all parts of the country as to what would be most convenient for the laundry trade. Overtime was a small matter. The law, as fixed in 1901, allowed two hours overtime, whereas the Bill now before the House would only allow one hour. The Congress of Laundry Associations, held at Manchester on March 4th, adopted a resolution declaring that the interval of five hours between meals was much more convenient to the trade than the four and a half hours proposed in the Bill. It seemed to him that these changes, after so short an interval, were most vexatious.
With regard to convent laundries, in which he was very much interested, the Bill would entail inspection by three separate sets of inspectors. An inspector of nuisances under the local authority would enter to ascertain whether the sanitary arrangements were perfect; there would be a Home Office inspector to see that everything was done to prevent accidents; and, in London, the County Council would send an inspector to see that the
1210
means of escape in case of fire were adequate. How was the discipline of a home for the rescue of young women from evil habits to be maintained in such circumstances? He agreed that it was desirable that there should be some sort of security that these institutions did not take liberties which were not allowed to commercial laundries, but he thought this could be done in a better way than by putting them under the Factory Act, as proposed. Only a short time ago the Home Office issued a circular to these institutions, in which they were invited to say whether they would submit themselves voluntarily to Government inspection. The great majority of the institutions in London would, he had reason to know, assent to this inspection. It would be unfair and unreasonable, before sufficient time had been given for the answers to this circular to be received, and before the experiment of the Home Office had been tried, to allow a Bill to pass which handed over the institutions to the various inspecting bodies he had named. The numerous small cottage laundries, in which less than two outside persons were employed, would be likely to be killed by the Bill. No doubt the Bill would protect women in these small laundries from excessive hours; it would also have the effect of closing these laundries altogether, and of the two evils he thought it would be better that they should work long hours than have no work at all. He had very little sympathy with trade rivalry which masqueraded under the guise of philanthropy in this way. The larger laundries were trying to kill the smaller laundries. He had looked through the reports of the factory inspectors and could not find in any of them suggestions in the direction of this Bill. In fact, they said the operatives were highly satisfied with the Act, and he hoped their Lordships would not tamper with an industry of this sort without an inquiry. The Congress of Laundries Associations, at its meeting at Manchester, passed a number of resolutions, one of which urged the Home Secretary to appoint a Commission to inquire into the laundry trade and ascertain if any changes in the law were necessary. Another resolution condemned the proposed four and a half hours shift and suggested a five hours shift. He thought it would be undesirable to deal in this hasty

1211
way with a trade which specially interested the poorer classes in the community.
Moved, to leave out Clause 1.—(Viscount Llandaff.)
THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid he thought the speech of the noble Viscount was one which they might have expected rather at the Second Reading than at the Committee stage of the Bill, because he understood that this Amendment was nothing less than a Motion for the rejection of the whole measure. As the Second Reading was accepted without a division he was sure their Lordships would hardly reject the Bill now. The noble Viscount had argued from the intermittent character of the work in a laundry that it was unsuited to be treated as a factory, but the Bill provided for special hours, such as were allowed in only three other industries included in the Factory Act, and he considered that these would give sufficient flexibility to enable laundries to carry on their work without difficulty. The noble Viscount had told the House that the Act of 1895, which constituted the law on this subject at the present moment, received the assent of the Standing Committee on Trade and of a number of other high authorities. He believed that was the case, but reminded the House that the Clause in this Bill, which had been taken out of the Government Bill of last year, also received the unanimous support of the Grand Committee on Trade and of other high authorities in factory legislation. That fact showed that the intervening years had proved that the laundry industry had changed, and that its condition called for stricter legislation. As to the inspection of convent laundries, that would deal only with the laundry, and would not interfere with the institution itself. The noble Viscount had informed the House that he was unable to find anything in the reports of the factory inspectors for the years 1895 to 1900 which recommended a change in the direction of this Bill. He (Lord Lytton) had found a very large number of instances in which changes precisely such as were proposed in the Bill were recommended in the Factory Reports, and he had already given quotations in moving the Second Reading. There were no less than six pages devoted to this subject, and to a
1212
complaint of the existing legislation, in the Factory Report for the year 1901, and over and over again the factory inspectors had pointed out that the existing law was altogether unsatisfactory. The clauses in the Bill had already been brought forward by the Government last year. He hoped the Amendment would be rejected.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERdwelt on the fact that the Bill, with the exception of one clause, had virtually been accepted by the Government last year. The fact that in 1895 the Grand Committee on Trade, with so many important persons upon it, accepted what was then thought to be a desirable measure, and five years afterwards decided to change it, seemed to him to be the strongest possible argument in favour of the present Bill. On that Bench they admitted that a certain amount of inconvenience would be caused to those in charge of the institutions by the visits of the inspectors, but they were perfectly prepared to put up with that inconvenience on the ground of the larger interests involved. It must be remembered, too, that the visits of inspectors of sanitation and so forth were already allowed; and he had not heard of any difficulty having arisen in consequence. He ventured to hope that the House, having accepted the principle of the Bill, would reject the Amendment.
LORD BELPERthought it was hardly necessary to say, after the Government had assented to the Second Reading of the Bill, that they would not support an Amendment such as this, which was directed to the principle of the Bill. If the present Amendment and the others which the noble Viscount had put down were carried, there would practically be nothing left of the Bill. He had already stated that there were some provisions which the Government were not prepared to accept in the exact form in the Bill. An inquiry was now going on which the Home Secretary had good reason to suppose would lead to satisfactory results, and under those circumstances the Government were not prepared at the moment to move detailed Amendments, but if the Bill made progress it would be competent to the Home Secretary to move in another place whatever Amendments he might think necessary.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHwas glad the noble Lord had so clearly stated the intention of the Government to resist the Amendment. If there was one trade to which the Factory Act should be applied more than another, it was to the laundry trade. He did not think that because a laundry was under religious or charitable management, or was promoted for religious or charitable purposes, it should escape inspection. Indeed, history went to show that it was exactly in these institutions that it was desirable there should be the publicity sought in order to secure the institutions dealt with from suggestions of abuse, as such institutions were very likely to have these suggestions made against them. The question as to the arrangement of hours was a very proper one for Committee, and he was quite sure that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would be glad to consider any re-adjustment of hours which was thought desirable. He hoped the House would support the Government in rejecting this Amendment.
LORD STANMOREhoped, before the Question was put, that someone in authority would give the House a legal definition of what was a laundry. It appeared to him that if this Bill passed into law in its present form any old woman in a village who washed a pair of stockings and received threepence would come under its ban. If the noble Earl would agree to exempt from the operation of the Bill any place where washing was carried on only by the members of one family, or by the members of the same family and one assistant, he would cordially support the rest of the Bill.
THE EARL OF LYTTONpointed out that by Clause 111 of the present Act "domestic laundries"—laundries in which only members of the same family were employed—were already exempted. If this Bill passed, those laundries would still be exempted.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: But where a single agent is employed they fall under the Factory Act.
The EARL OF LYTTON: Yes.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid that after the decision of the House with regard to his first Amendment, it was not his intention to move the other Amendments standing in his name.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

BISHOPRIC OF SOUTHWARK BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

LONDON WATER BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, it will probably be in your Lordships' recollection that there was an announcement in the Speech from the Throne that a Bill would be submitted to Parliament for the better control of the water supply of London. In pursuance of that announcement, a Bill was introduced in the House of Commons by the President of the Local Government Board, and upon its being read a second time, a Motion was carried to the effect that it was expedient that the Bill should be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons. In order to carry out that Resolution, it will be necessary that this House should concur in it, and should appoint a Committee to act jointly with the Committee of the other House. Those who are the guardians of the procedure of your Lordships' House feel that' in order to give effect to the Resolution of the House of Commons, if your Lordships think right to concur in it, it is necessary to introduce a measure identical with that which has been read a second time in another place. If that were not done, it is felt that there would be nothing to refer, and that noble Lords, acting on the Joint Committee, without this Bill being before your Lordships' House, would be acting only as assessors. The first thing you have to consider is whether there should be joint action. The Government

1215
recommend that this would be a wise course to take. It is felt that, in the circumstances of the case, one inquiry is better than two. The inquiry must be one of great length, and must involve very great expense, and as some of the parties interested in the matter will, in the conduct of their case before the Committee, be spending the money of the ratepayers, it is felt that such expenditure should not be repeated by the holding of a second identical inquiry. This is a public Bill introduced by the Government, and, of course, under such circumstances you do not have a reference to a Select Committee, as in the case of private Bills. At the same time, you are dealing with private property, and therefore it is necessary, from that aspect of the Bill, that there should be an inquiry, the same as if the Bill had been introduced as a private Bill.
The procedure by Joint Committee seems to be not only advisable, but necessary. That being so, it is held that in order to give this House, as it were, the right position in the Joint Committee, the Bill should be introduced into your Lordships' House. The Bill has been introduced, and is identical with that read a second time in the House of Commons. But it is not intended to proceed with the Bill except so far as the purpose of its going before the Joint Committee necessitates its being proceeded with. The Bill of the House of Commons, after the inquiry by the Joint Committee, will be returned to that House, and, having been considered, will be sent to your Lordships' House to be proceeded with as though the Bill I now ask should be read a second time had never been introduced. The position and the rights of your Lordships, therefore, will not be in any way affected by what is now taking place. The Bill will be read a first time, a second time, and proceeded with in the usual way, the whole object of this procedure today being to avoid two inquiries. I have communicated with my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth, as representing the interests of the London County Council, and as having fully considered the Water question, and I trust there will be no opposition to the course proposed today, which is taken in the interests of those who will bear the
1216
burden of this inquiry—namely, the ratepayers—and is not a course taken in any political interest on the part of the Government. There are those who are very much interested in the proceedings before the Committee, and who will petition in order to be heard. I am desired by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees to state that parties wishing to be heard will not require to present two petitions, and that one petition to be heard will give every party petitioning a locus standi to place their views before the Committee. I think only one set of Gentlemen will be disappointed with the proposal I am now making, namely, the members of my own profession, the Bar. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord James of Hereford.)
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I am sorry my noble friend Lord Spencer is not here today, but he and I have talked this matter over, and I think I am able to convey to your Lordships what his views, as well as my own, are on this subject. The procedure is undoubtedly somewhat unusual. I do not pretend to be an authority on the practice of this House, but it does seem to me that the procedure is unnecessary. I believe that this House has a perfect power at any time to join a Committee of the other House for any purpose whatever, without the preliminary introduction of a Bill, as in the present case. I think there is a good precedent for that—not, it is true, in respect of public Bills, but in respect of private Bills. We have had two instances in recent years — the Dublin Corporation Bill, which originated in the other House, and the Amalgamated Railways Bill in 1890, which originated in this House—in which a Joint Committee of the two-Houses was appointed without the Bill being read a second time in the House in which it did not originate. So that, as far as private Bills are concerned, there is a precedent for joining in a Joint Committee without the necessity of reading the Bill a second time. If the authorities of the House have decided that it is desirable that the procedure suggested by the noble and learned Lord should be followed, we are

1217
ready to agree with it, with the caveat that we do not think it is a course which is absolutely necessary.
My Lords, I should like to say one word with regard to the Committee itself. I do not know what is to be the procedure in appointing this Committee. As I understand, the Members of the other House are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, and not through the "usual channels," and I hope I may take that as an indication that the Committee is to be an entirely impartial Committee, and not in any sense made up of partisan representatives. I think that for the purposes of this Committee the precedent of an ordinary Private Bill Committee should be followed, and that it should be composed of impartial Members acquainted with the subject, who will deal with it in an impartial spirit, doing full justice to all the interests concerned. What will be the points which the Committee will have to consider? First, the principle and constitution of the new Water Authority; and, secondly, the question as to what the powers of that Authority are to be, and especially whether it is to have the power, directly it is appointed, and before it has obtained knowledge and experience, of coming to an agreement by settlements with the Water Companies. That will be a point they will have to consider very carefully. It is provided that the question between the Authorities and the Water Companies should be settled by arbitration. I think there might be a little addition made on the financial side of the Arbitration Court, but that will be another point the Joint Committee will have to consider. Then there will be the question of the instructions to the arbitrators, and I hope the instructions will be as wide as possible, and that they will be allowed to go fully into all the circumstances of this question, which really should be kept clear of any political Party complexion. This is essentially a question which affects the health, the comfort, and the pockets of the inhabitants of London, and it should be considered free from all political Party bias, for really no questions are involved before the Committee which should lend themselves to treatment in that fashion. I assume that I have the assurance of the noble and learned Lord that the Committee
1218
will be appointed on the lines I suggest; that the reference to that Committee will be as wide as possible; that by assenting to the Motion this House is in no way whatever damnified with regard to its future proceedings on the Bill; that this Bill is brought forward pro formâ to satisfy the forms of the House; that when the Bill introduced in the House of Commons has been read a third time, it will come up to this House in the ordinary way; and that, with regard to the remaining stages of the Bill in this House, we shall have as complete power of dealing with this measure as with any other Bill coming from in the House of Commons. With that assurance, I assent to the Second Reading of this Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I wish to say one word on the question of procedure, especially with regard to the procedure adopted in the case of the Irish Acts referred to. A private Bill is quite different from a public Bill, inasmuch as a Second Reading of a private Bill does not necessarily carry the adoption of the principle of the Bill with it. The noble Lord behind me consulted me at the beginning of the session as to whether this Bill could be referred to a Joint Committee without having been read a second time in this House. That seemed to me impossible, because it would be referring a Bill to a Committee, whereas the House had had no opportunity, up to that time, of expressing any view on the principle of it. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack agreed with me that the only way in which this could be done would be to introduce what would be a transitory Bill into this House and then drop it and wait for the Bill brought into the other House to come up to your Lordships in the usual way. I have troubled your Lordships with these few remarks in order to make it clear why this novel procedure is necessary.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: It is rather awkward that we should be twice over asked to accept the principle of the Bill. The whole question of the principle of the measure can be raised when it comes up from the House of Commons, so that our assent today is rather worthless.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, if I might make the observation without impertinence on the speech of the noble Lord, I think that he did what he censures us for doing, and that was, made some very unnecessary protestations. He dwelt very much on the absolute necessity of guarding ourselves from any Party feeling in this matter. I confess, being an old Parliamentary hand, that I always hear with some suspicion when any person guards himself from the imputation of any political feeling. I assure the noble Lord that it is unnecessary, and I rather resent the imputation which, by what he said, he conveyed upon the ordinary Committees of this House, as though it was a very special and unusual privilege that we should approach any of the subjects committed to our consideration without strong Party feeling. I believe there is no justification for any such imputation on the Committees of the House, whether direct or implied; and I entirely repudiate the idea that we have made this arrangement in order specially to avoid the imputation of party bias. There were a great number of other protestations made by the noble Lord which I do not think were just to the ordinary procedure of this House. Of course, there will be entire freedom from any Party bias, entire freedom from leaning to one side or the other; but that will take place, not because we have adopted a special form of procedure in order to carry it out, but because it is the universal rule of all Committees, especially Private Bill Committees, in this House. I most heartily join with the noble Lord in not only wishing, but confidently trusting, that that will be the result, and I hope that nothing he has said will induce outside observers or critics of this House to say that it required his special and earnest and most enthusiastic interference in order to preserve the House of Lords from such a snare. We are in no danger of it. I hope that, whatever the interests at issue may be, we shall consider them quite impartially, with a solitary and single view to the interests of the public.
EARL RUSSELL: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill will forgive me for pressing him on a
1220
small point. I understood the noble Lord to say that the Bill is being read a second time pro formâ, and will then be dropped, and that in the ordinary course the Bill will come up from the House of Commons and be read a first time, a second time, and "so on," It is rather as to the "so on" that I should be glad if the noble and learned Lord would give me more information. Is it intended that the Bill should not be referred to a Select Committee, and should not go through any Committee stage in this House?
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: This reference to a Joint Committee will take the place of a Committee of the Whole House. When the Bill from the House of Commons has been read a second time in this House, I presume the House will not sit in Committee on the Bill.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Surely we are not to be deprived of the stage of Committee of the Whole House! It will be in the power of the Government to decide whether the Bill should go to the Standing Committee, but surely they have no power to omit the Committee stage.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I would venture to remind the noble and learned Lord of what he said with regard to the procedure of this Bill in the course of his statement today. He stated that the privileges and rights of this House would be in no way interfered with, and he pointed out that, if we assented to a joint inquiry, this House would be in no way damnified thereby or precluded from considering this Bill when it comes up from the House of Commons in the ordinary way. As I understand, this is merely a "dummy" Bill, because the noble and learned Lord has not described its merits. We are simply discussing the procedure, and I understand that if the House assents to the Motion now before it we shall be simply assenting to the Second Reading, not with any reference to the merits of the Bill, but for the purpose of joining with the other House in Joint Committee. I apprehend that as soon as we have done this, and appointed the number of Lords to the Joint Committee,

1221
the Bill will be withdrawn, or, at all events, will be withdrawn as soon as the Joint Committee have reported to the other House. Then the Bill which is in the House of Commons, and which will have been considered by this Joint Committee, will come up to this House; and after the Second Reading, if the rights and privileges of this House are to be preserved, as the noble and learned Lord has stated, of course it will pass through the ordinary stage of Committee of the whole House. If any other procedure is followed, the rights of this House will be most distinctly interfered with. Suppose any private Member were to propose this course, the Government would most strongly object to it. I am not expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the Bill, but I do say that this procedure is, so far as we know, absolutely without precedent. We adopt it simply for the purpose of public convenience, and I understood the noble and learned Lord to say that it would not in any way interfere with the rights and privileges of the House. In fact, he went so far as to state that when the Bill came up for Second Reading any Member of your Lordships' House would have a perfect right to move its rejection. If any noble Lord has a right to move the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading, why should the House not have the right to amend the Bill in Committee. I do not take any exception to this unprecedented procedure, but at the same time I do think we ought to have that right of expressing our opinion on the measure in principle and in detail which we enjoy with regard to any other Bill coming before us.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: It is quite true that this Bill is being read a second time formally today, and that we shall proceed on the House of Commons Bill when that Bill has been subjected to an inquiry by Joint Committee; has been returned to that House; has passed through all its stages there, and then comes up to your Lordships' House. It will be introduced and read a first time in this House, and will then come up for Second Reading, when a full debate can take place. As to the Committee stage, when I gave my previous answer, I regarded the private Bill aspect of the measure as controlling the procedure in this House, and I therefore thought that
1222
the Committee stage in the Whole House would be dispensed with, but I am now informed that the Bill, when it goes back from the Joint Committee to the House of Commons, will go through its Committee stage there, and that therefore, in the same way, when it comes up to this House, it will go through its Committee stage also.
On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
Then it was moved that the Commons Message of Tuesday, the 4th instant, respecting the London Water Bill (introduced in the House of Commons) be taken into consideration—(The Lord James of Hereford); agreed to; the said Message considered accordingly.
Moved to resolve, "That this House do concur in the following Resolution communicated by the Commons, viz.: 'That it is expedient that the London Water Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons';" agreed to; and a Message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith.

YEOMANRY—POSITION OF OFFICERS—RECRUITING, &c.
VISCOUNT GALWAYasked for some explanation as to the position of Yeomanry officers under the Militia Act, and as to the state of recruiting for the Yeomanry. He said that a Memorandum had been issued by the Commander-in-Chief suggesting that Yeomanry officers who were enlisted before August of last year should resign their commissions and accept new ones under the Militia Act. It was thought by some persons that the Memorandum implied that all Yeomanry officers who did not comply with the request contained therein and come under the new conditions would be compelled to resign and thus practically dismissed. He hoped the noble and gallant Lord the Under Secretary of State for War would be able to make a satisfactory statement on that point. It was felt by a large number of officers that before accepting a new commission they were entitled to be informed what the duties would comprise. For instance, he had been told that it would be possible for Yeomanry

1223
officers to be summoned to serve on Courts-martial, to be called up for duty with cavalry regiments, and to be detailed for any other duty by the General Officer commanding the district. If so, it would make it extremely difficult to get Yeomanry officers. He urged the Government, in forming the new Districts, not to interfere more than was absolutely necessary with the recruiting areas of the old regiments. A civilian who went to South Africa with the company which he (Viscount Galway) sent out in January, 1900, and who served with them until his return last summer, had written, stating that he would like to rejoin his Yeomanry regiment. But as he lived in another county he could not be recruited. Another man wrote, stating that his greatest friends were in Viscount Galway's regiment, and that although he did not reside in the county he would very much like to join that corps. It is very hard on Yeomanry commanding officers to prevent them getting efficient men by a restriction against a man who happened to be residing outside a particular recruiting area from enlisting within that area. There was another important consideration, if the Yeomanry was to be made popular, namely, the granting of facilities to Yeomanry officers to obtain commissions in the Line direct through the Yeomanry as through the Militia.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My Lords, there appears to be some misunderstanding of the Circular sent out to Yeomanry officers. The Commander-in-Chief is most anxious that officers now serving should accept new commissions in accordance with the terms of the Circular. It is obvious that inconvenience may result from two sets of officers serving alongside one another under different obligations and conditions. I am able, however, to assure my noble friend that there is no intention of compelling officers to choose between resignation and coming in under the new Act. A refusal to come under it will not necessarily involve resignation; but all the officers from whom replies have yet been received have agreed to come under the new
1224
conditions. I am asked by my noble friend whether the particular liabilities under the new Act will include liability to be summoned to serve on Courts-martial, to be called up for duty with cavalry regiments, and to be detailed for any other duty by the General Officer commanding the District. The answer on these three points is in the negative so far as officers who are not actually embodied or called out for training are concerned. The chief object of bringing them under the Militia Act is to make them, like Militia officers, subject to the Army Act all the year round as individuals for disciplinary purposes. It is necessary to have a certain power over them in the event of their committing any military offence during the non-training period. The position of the Yeomanry officer will be exactly the same as that of the Militia officer now, and even in the present emergency no Militia officer has been called out for any military duty except on embodiment without his own consent. With regard to recruiting, by the latest returns the enrolled strength on January 1st was 17,000, of whom 2,883 have joined during the preceding quarter and 7,000 since the summer of 1901. As to the re-adjustment of recruiting areas, the old force consisted of only thirty-eight units; they are now fifty-three, and it is hoped that they will eventually be fifty-nine. The result has been that, owing to the formation of the new regiments, some of the old regiments have been debarred from recruiting in areas in which they have hitherto been allowed to recruit. There is no objection whatever to a man outside a particular recruiting area enlisting within that area, but, of course, the travelling expenses or marching money will not be paid, and commanding officers will not be allowed to offer inducements to men outside their recruiting area. Arrangements have been made that all large centres of population should be regarded as a common recruiting ground for all regiments of Yeomanry within a reasonable distance. The towns, especially market towns lying near to the border, are to be regarded as the recruiting ground for both regiments, and it will be left to the General Officer commanding the District to say what towns come within that category. Every General Officer commanding has been furnished with a statement showing the

1225
recruiting area which it is proposed to assign to the Yeomanry units under his command, and instructed to report whether the arrangements will meet the views of those concerned. The question of Line Commissions is still under consideration.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKexpressed his satisfaction at hearing that it had never been intended that Yeomanry officers should be compelled to come in under the Militia Acts.
LORD HENEAGEsaid he hoped that the Government would not relax too much the regulation now in force by which men who wished to join the Yeomanry were compelled to join the regiments in their particular counties. In Lincolnshire they were in a difficult position in this respect. After much delay they had obtained permission to raise a regiment of Yeomanry in that county, but they found that between 120 and 150 of the yeomen of Lincolnshire belonged to regiments in other counties, and naturally, if the regulations were relaxed, pressure would be put on those men to remain with their regiments.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENinquired whether the inconvenience which the noble and gallant Lord the Under Secretary had stated would result from two sets of officers serving alongside one another under different obligations and conditions would not equally apply to non-commissioned officers and men.
LORD HARRISsaid, with regard to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, that there were three classes of men serving in the Yeomanry—the class who could only be called out on imminent fear of invasion, the class who could be called out as soon as the Militia were embodied, and the class who came under the new Act and could be called out at the same time as, or before, the Militia were embodied. When he received the Commander-in-Chief's Memorandum suggesting that Yeomanry officers should resign and accept commissions under the new Act, he replied informing the General Officer commanding the District that he thought it unreasonable to expect officers to comply with that invitation unless they were informed of the new conditions under
1226
which they were asked to serve. As a result of that, the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted, and they drafted a Memorandum setting forth the difference between the conditions of service previous to the passing of the Act of last year and the conditions at the present time under the Act. He was now in a position to inform his officers of the nature of the obligations they undertook by complying with the request of the Commander in Chief; but he submitted that this information ought to have been supplied in the first instance. A great many extra demands were being made on Yeomanry officers. He was at the present moment serving on a Committee at the War Office, which he had been ordered to attend; but he did not believe the Commander in Chief had any power to order him to attend a Committee. He regarded the new proposals, so far as they assimilated the Yeomanry to the Militia, as a very great honour. There was not a single force in His Majesty's Service in any part of the world which deserved so much the gratitude of the whole British Empire as the Militia regiments. He doubted, however, whether it was possible to expect from the Yeomanry precisely the same services as were rendered by the Militia, as not only the officers of the Yeomanry but a large number of the men were employers of labour. The Secretary of State had pinned his faith to a very large increase of the Yeomanry, and he hoped that increase would be obtained. But the men would be of a very different class from the old yeomen, who owned their own horses and could be depended upon to turn up at the place of mobilisation fully equipped in two days. If we were to get the intelligent men employed in clerical work in large centres of population, some change would have to be made as regards length of training. He hoped in the new regulations there would be some elastic provision which would enable regiments, if necessary, to do their squadron drill at their squadron headquarters, so that the number of days' training might be reduced to fourteen.
THE EARL OF CORKalso expressed the opinion, as an old Colonel of Yeomanry, that there should be more elasticity with regard to the period of training. He agreed that they must expect a very different class of men from the old Yeomanry. The old yeomen

1227
were generally farmers who rode their own horses, but the men at present being recruited had to hire horses, which would prevent their being mobilised, at a time of emergency, as speedily as would have been possible in former days. The number of days training ought to be reduced to fourteen. The present length of training had been very detrimental to recruiting in Somersetshire.
LORD WENLOCKsaid that if the Yeomanry were to be largely increased the Government would have to be more generous in assisting new regiments. He objected strongly to the system that had been growing up of leaving new Yeomanry to be formed with the help of private subscription. He thought the Government ought to be prepared to put down the money, making what conditions they liked as to repayment.
LORD RAGLAN: With regard to the point raised by Lord Heneage, it is impossible to put pressure on men to transfer from one regiment to another. The position will be exactly the same as it is now in the Militia. There is nothing to prevent a man from serving in a regiment outside his own county, but he is discouraged to the extent that he receives no travelling expenses outside the recruiting area of the unit to which he belongs. With regard to the question of two or more classes of men serving alongside each other, I am afraid the difficulty cannot be removed except by disbanding the old force altogether and starting an entirely new one. As to the period of training, I would like to point out that there is considerable difference of opinion. I have heard several Yeomanry officers suggest that it would be better to train a regiment twenty-one days and give a certain amount of leave during that time, in order to enable small employers of labour to go home on Saturday and Sunday, pay their workmen, and see that their affairs were going on satisfactorily. I will inquire into the point raised by Lord Wenlock.

ARMY REMOUNTS—HORSE-BREEDING IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the condition of the industry of horse-breeding in the United Kingdom. This subject
1228
has been so prominently brought to the notice of the country in connection with the question of remounts, that it is mainly, though not solely, on that ground that I wish to call the attention of the House to it, and to ask your Lordships to agree to the Resolution that stands in my name. I shall not, I think, be contradicted if I lay it down as a fact that the home-bred animal is, for military purposes, superior to any other. Among the many experiences, regrettable and other, of the present war is the very valuable knowledge acquired by actual experiment of the relative value of various breeds of horses. Basuto ponies, horses from Cape Colony, from Australia, New Zealand, America, Canada, Argentina, Hungary, India, and England have all been used in competition together, and, taking them all round, the English horse has proved itself to be the best. But I need not labour this point. The Report of the Assistant Inspector of Remounts, Colonel Birkbeck, is very instructive and conclusive. It may be summed up in one sentence, which I quote—
"Nothing has really come up to the English horse for cavalry and draught. Notwithstanding change of diet and climate, he has worked and stood hardship better than any other."
Of the quality of British horses there is no doubt; unfortunately for us, in quantity they were deficient. The registration system worked well, and we were enabled to send out from home a very considerable number of horses, not more, however, than about 20 per cent. of the total number of horses shipped to South Africa. The bad quality of a great number of the foreign horses is proved in the reports of the Assistant Inspector of Remounts, and is, in fact, generally admitted; and it is deeply to be regretted that we were unable to supply a larger number of superior animals from home.
If one fact has been demonstrated more clearly than any other during the progress of this war, it is the value of mobility. Now, mobility is mainly a question of horseflesh, and I do not think any military authority in this House will deny that if we had been enabled to supply a far larger number of suitable horses from this country, our

1229
military operations in the field would have been greatly facilitated. I take it, therefore, as proved that in the United Kingdom we have the best source of supply in the world, but that the supply is inadequate for our needs. And why is it inadequate? The United Kingdom is certainly the best horse-producing country in the world. Of that there can be no question. Why is it that our supply of suitable horses is not larger? The answer is very simple. The very excellence of our horses has proved our own undoing. For many years past foreign Governments have expended large sums of money and made every effort to possess themselves of our best sires and mares; and have succeeded, with the natural and inevitable result. The Royal Commission on Horse Breeding puts the matter very clearly. In their first Report in 1883 they say—
"Private enterprise was formerly sufficient to produce and keep a breed of horses in this country that was unrivalled in the world, and that pre-eminence was successfully maintained until the Governments of foreign countries became alive to the importance of acquiring an equal advantage for themselves. The foreign haras which were established for this purpose in various countries on the Continent created a most serious drain upon our resources in this country. There is no record, unfortunately, contained in any of the official statistics of the number of stallions which have been annually exported from the country, but it is a matter of common notoriety that year after year the United Kingdom has been swept by the agents of foreign Governments for stallions and mares best suited for their purposes. And they have been bought with public money, and taken from the country, frequently at prices with which it was impossible for private enterprise successfully to compete. The consequence of this has been, that, with the exception of the highest class of stallions and mares for the breeding of race horses, this country has been left for the most part with the inferior and even unsound animals which the foreign agent has rejected, and the result has been a gradual but marked deterioration in the general breed for which England was at one time famous."
The Viceregal Commission on Horse Breeding in Ireland speak in their Report to the following effect—
"Owing to the eagerness of foreign buyers to purchase good mares, and other causes, such as the serious depression in agriculture, the country has been practically drained of mares suitable to breed hunters, high-class harness horses, and cavalry remounts. Over large districts farmers cannot afford to pay a fee of more than a few shillings for the service of a stallion, and the number of private persons sufficiently well off to provide a valuable stallion at an unremunerative fee, for the public
1230
benefit, is exceedingly small. These causes, namely, the constant exportation of good mares, and the inferiority of the country stallions, must, unless checked, tend to the gradual deterioration in the produce."
Those Reports place the condition of the industry and the causes of its decline clearly before us. Foreign Governments spend very large sums of money. They offer prices for sound mares and suitable sires which the farmers, often impoverished, cannot resist. They have buyers all over the country, with the inevitable consequence that, in spite of private effort, and the collective efforts of societies and associations, a great national industry is going gradually to decay. From the military point of view, we have enabled foreign Governments to mount their cavalry and horse their artillery with the best material, and have deprived ourselves of the opportunity of doing the same thing. What our actual requirements are, is not easy to estimate. In normal times of peace they have amounted to about 2,500 or 3,000 horses annually, but I think I should not be gainsaid in stating that that amount was never really sufficient to thoroughly horse our Artillery or mount our Cavalry. A Cavalry Regiment, to be considered effective, ought to have its full complement of trained horses, and some reserved trained horses to cover the waste of a voyage and war. We shall in any case require a good many more remounts in the future. Our Field Artillery and Horse Artillery are to be increased; we have, or are to have, more Cavalry; and a comparatively new branch of the Service, the Mounted Infantry, has come into favour. Should I be over-estimating our peace requirement at 7,000 or 8,000 horses a year? If that is near the mark, we shall find some difficulty in satisfying it. It is still more difficult to say what our requirements during war would be. It would, of course, be absurd to keep a reserve of horses based upon the experience of this war, for this war is exceptional in a great many ways, which I need not now specify. But it must be borne in mind that in future wars we may be engaged in, it is highly improbable that we shall again have the whole world to draw upon for horses and other transport animals.
If the mounted branches of the service are really to be efficient, it cannot be denied that a large reserve of horses

1231
suitable for Cavalry remounts and for Field and Horse Artillery are necessary. This, then, is the state of the case—an increased and increasing demand, a decreased and decreasing supply. Differences of opinion may exist as to the legitimate functions of the State towards a decaying industry as such, but surely no difference of opinion can exist as to the duty of the State in the case of a sick and languishing industry, upon the health of which the efficiency of the military forces of the Crown depends. What steps ought the State to take? Speaking broadly, I am not in favour of following the continental system and of instituting horse breeding establishments on a large scale. That would be very expensive and quite unnecessary, and, in fact, would be attacking the evil from the wrong direction. Being so admirably designed by nature as a horse-producing country, all that the State can be asked to do is to give adequate encouragement to the individual breeder to produce the description of animal that the State requires. I do not mean, of course, to suggest that thousands of horses should be kept unemployed ready for the possible eventuality of war; that would be absurd. It is not necessary to do anything of the kind. It is not necessary, either, to attempt to produce a breed of horses in any sense unnatural to the country. All that is required is to perpetuate, to prevent from falling into decay, a breed of horses which is natural to us, indigenous to the soil. The United Kingdom naturally produces horses admirably suited for draught. That is the class of animal from which the Artillery horse is drawn. It naturally produces the best hunters and high-class carriage horses of the world. It is the misfits of these classes that make the best Cavalry remounts—the horses bred for hunters, but not quite good enough. These animals have breeding, bone, courage, and endurance, and make the ideal remount. That class of animal can be produced naturally in large quantities in this country, and would be produced if sufficient steps were taken to counteract the action of foreign countries. It is in that direction that our efforts should be concentrated.
It has been suggested that the assistance of the Colonies may be called in, and to that there cannot be the slightest objection. I should be the last man in
1232
the world to object to anything which tends to increase the community of interest between the mother country and her children. But we must look at the matter from a common-sense point of view. It would never pay the Colonies to breed to supply us in peace time, and it would never pay us in peace time to pay the freight for the horses; and in time of great demand in war, it is doubtful whether the capacity of the Colonies is sufficient to supply us with suitable horses in any very large number. Whatever may be done in that direction, it is certain that we must rely largely on home production; and the question is, how is the home industry and the home production to be rescued from decay and developed? We have the Reports of various Commissions, and the action of various Societies and Associations, to guide us. The Royal Commission was founded in 1887. Its functions were very limited; it was to report how the amounts previously given in Queen's Plates could best be expended in horse-breeding, the amount being only £5,100. They reported in favour of giving premiums to thorough-bred sires suitable for getting half-bred stock. They acted on that Report, and have continued to expend the small amount of money at their disposal in the same way ever since, and with very considerable advantage. But they have earnestly impressed upon us the necessity of offering premiums for mares so as to give a distinct inducement to owners to keep their best young mares in the country. In 1890 they made a point of that, and in their Report regretted—
"That the sum now voted by Parliament is totally inadequate to enable us to enlarge the field of usefulness of the Commission. The question of improving the quality of mares in this country is (they added) one of great importance, and continues to have the careful consideration of the Commissioners."
It is satisfactory to know that the question of improving the quality of mares occupied the careful consideration of the Commissioners, but what is the use of consideration without money? And what can the Commissioners be expected to do with such a paltry sum as £5,000 a year at their disposal? The Hunters Improvement Society has done most excellent work. Their aim has been to establish a breed of hunters, true to type, and they

1233
have been fairly successful. They have established a Hunters Stud Book, containing a register of mares suitable for breeding hunters, and of sires, particularly half-bred sires, with three strains of thorough-bred blood. The Society has done most excellent work, and should not in any way be interfered with, but the problem they have to face is infinitely too large for the means of any private society, and the same may be said of other associations connected with, horse breeding.
In Ireland the Royal Dublin Society long ago recognised the necessity of establishing a Stallion Register, and subsidising mares, and has to the best of its ability worked on those lines, with great benefit to breeders in Ireland. In 1897, the Viceregal Commission, of which I had the honour to be chairman, took a great deal of evidence on these points. The principal recommendations of that Commission were—
"That a system of registration of stallions, similar to that now in operation in the Royal Dublin Society's scheme, should be established of a very extended form; that money should be spent in distributing stallions where wanted throughout the country, and giving premiums to private owners of suitable sires; that substantial premiums should be given to owners of brood mares, especially those between the ages of three and six; that additional prizes should be given in the early spring to yearlings."
All these recommendations have been more or less acted upon by the Irish Agricultural Department. A register of stallions, thorough-breds, Clydesdale, and shire, has been established, and a certain sum of money is given yearly to each County Council to be expended by its Agricultural Committee, the sum being dependent upon the amount raised locally. In the county with which I am best acquainted, County Limerick, we receive this year from the Agricultural Department £600 and the Council raises £600. Of this money £400 is devoted to horses, £240 goes to premiums for mares, and £160 to prizes for young stock at local shows. The Royal Dublin Society spends its funds on premiums to stallions. This arrangement appears to be working very well.
All this experience points in one and the same direction, the necessity of either licensing or registering stallions, and of giving sufficient inducement to farmers to breed from good mares by offering
1234
premiums for mares and for young stock. All these societies have, in my opinion, been working on the right lines, but the funds at their disposal are not by any means sufficient for the purpose. Money is wanted, and it is not at all likely that, in a matter so important, the country will grudge it. The nation is waking up to the danger of its position. Last December the Devon County Council passed the following resolution—
"That in view of the national importance of an adequate supply of sound horses, this Council is of opinion that legislation should be introduced empowering County Councils to prohibit the use, for hire within their districts, of stallions suffering from hereditary disease."
This resolution has been adopted by the County Councils of the West Riding of Yorkshire and of Cornwall. It has been referred to Committees of other Councils and has been rejected by, I think, only two County Councils; and it has been endorsed by the Council of the Hunters Improvement Society and by the Royal Agricultural Society. The money that the State expends upon this most important national industry is utterly insignificant as compared with what other nations find it advisable to spend. France spends £86,000, exclusive of the cost of keeping up the breeding establishments, Prussia £192,000, and Austro-Hungary £303,000, while we are content with £5,100 in England, and about £8,000 in Ireland. As to what sum ought to be expended, I cannot, of course, express an opinion; nor do I wish to express any opinion as to the details of expenditure. The general lines upon which I think money should be expended I have mentioned in my Resolution. They are the lines which have been proved to work well. Stallions should either be licensed or registered. In all foreign countries it is a punishable offence to offer to the public an unlicensed sire. That might possibly be considered too stringent an operation in this country, but powers in that direction might possibly be given to local bodies. At any rate, sires should be registered, and registered sires should be provided in sufficient numbers, so that breeders could have access to them. A registered sire fifty miles away is of very little use to small farmers, who should at any rate have the choice of sending their mares to a sound sire. What is certainly equally important, a sufficient inducement should be offered to them to breed from

1235
good mares instead of selling them to the foreign buyer and breeding from mares not good enough for the foreigner to take. Possibly, also, something might be done, at an infinitesimal expense, by presenting to suitable breeders and farmers—under, of course, proper conditions—Artillery or Cavalry mares past their work, but suitable to breed from. As to details, I offer no opinion. All that I want is that the whole subject should be submitted to experts. It would be impossible to put together a body more capable of considering and reporting on this most important matter than the Royal Commission on horse breeding. If they were enabled to draw up a scheme of what they consider necessary, and an estimate of the annual sum required to carry out that scheme, I feel sure the country would have every confidence in their decision, and I should be well content to leave this most important national question in their hands.
Moved to resolve, "That, in view of the difficulty that has been experienced in finding horses suitable for military purposes, it is desirable that the Royal Commission on Horse-breeding should report on the steps which should be taken to encourage horse-breeding in the United Kingdom; and, in particular, as to (a) the establishment of a register of stallions, and as to the desirability of licensing stallions; (b) encouragement to farmers to keep sound young mares to breed from; (c) the amount of money required for the purpose."—(The Lord Kenry E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
THE EARL OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I was under the impression that the Royal Commission did put forward certain suggestions and proposals, I think in 1888 or 1890, and in this report they asked the Government to deal with their suggestions, but nothing has been done on the lines of their recommendations. Now that it is becoming evident that the supply of horses is diminishing, I sincerely hope the Government will take some steps to rectify matters. It would be absurd to shut our eyes to the fact that foreign nations have deprived us of some of the finest stock that could be purchased in this country. The stallions are bought
1236
and taken away for the American and foreign markets, and unless the animals have value enough for racing purposes, no one is willing to pay the necessary sum to retain in this country the stallions invaluable for breeding half-bred stock, but not of necessity stallions that are maintained for racing purposes as racing stallions. Very considerable benefit would be derived if the Government could see their way to purchasing so many of the very best stallions per year that would in the ordinary course be bought by foreigners, and, perhaps by means of a Stallion Department, a judicious distribution of these stallions could be made all over the United Kingdom, by which a very considerable advantage could be derived by England and other parts of His Majesty's home dominions.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: As a member of the Royal Commission, but speaking only in my individual capacity, I should like to say a few words on this subject. The real key of the situation is in the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, from our experience of Chancellors of the Exchequer, it seems likely to stay there. If the Government could see their way to buy horses a little younger for the public service and give a rather better price, I am certain that they would have more horses bred. The Royal Commission have told you exactly the position of horse politics in this country, and that, with the money at our disposal, we cannot really do all we would like to do. We have pointed out that we have no possible means of securing the best mares or of competing with the foreigners who are taking the best stock out of the country. But not the slightest notice has been taken, and, speaking for myself, I see no advantage in inviting the Royal Commission to merely repeat what they have told the Government every year since their appointment in 1888, unless, before they are asked to give their opinion on certain points, it is distinctly understood that a certain sum of money will be placed at their disposal to carry out their recommendations.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I regret that I had not observed

1237
this Motion on the Paper, but if I had, I do not know that it would have occurred to me that I should be expected to take any part in the discussion. It appears, however, so far as I am able to ascertain, that there is no member of His Majesty's Government who considers that it lies with his Department to reply to the observations which have been made on the subject. I can quite understand that the noble Duke the Master of the House, who would have been most competent to address your Lordships on the subject, should be unwilling to do so, because, as President of the Commission, it might be supposed that he was committing that body further than he was justified in doing without directly consulting them on the subject. For the reasons I have stated, I am afraid I can say very little except to recognise the importance of the subject. A good deal has been said about the actual deterioration of the breed of horses in consequence of the drain to which we have been for many years subjected by the purchase by foreign Governments of many of our best mares. I cannot help thinking that if this drain is, as has been alleged, an evil, and has tended actually to the deterioration of the breed, it is an evil which must have a tendency to work its own cure, because the demand which is alleged to have taken place on the part of foreign Governments must tend to establish a market for these animals, and make it better worth the while of farmers and breeders to breed the animals which foreign Governments require. I can well understand that it is very possible that foreign Governments may think it worth while to give a price for horses which our own Government has not yet seen its way to do, and that is a matter well worth the consideration of the Departments concerned. Reference has been made to the want of funds. I should think it would probably be found that the most effectual means of improving the supply of horses would be if the Secretary of State for War, with the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could see his way to increase the price which is given for remounts. That, I should think, would probably be a more effectual way than could be arrived at by any system of giving premiums for stallions or mares. I will take the
1238
opportunity of consulting those members of the Government who are chiefly interested—the Secretary of State for War and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and also of taking the opinion of my noble friend who is at the head of the Commission as to whether any specific reference could usefully be made to that Commission. It has been admitted that if there is any recommendation to be made, there is no body which is likely to be able to give more valuable assistance than that Commission as it is at present constituted. The Commission has been constituted for the special purpose of distributing a certain small fund, which, as has been said, is totally inadequate to give much result. The Government will, however, consider whether the question brought forward by my noble friend could, with any advantage, be remitted to the Commission, and whether it should be suggested to them that they should make any definite recommendation on the subject.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I presume that after the noble Duke has consulted his colleagues on the subject, we shall be informed of the decision arrived at. I can only express my regret that the noble Duke did not observe this Motion on the Paper, but I am not responsible for that. I regret still more that no Department of His Majesty's Government appear to think it worth their while to take any cognisance of so important a national matter as horse-breeding. My noble friend Lord Ribblesdale said it would be very little use to ask the Royal Commission to formulate any scheme unless a definite sum of money was decided upon to be spent. I do not agree with him. Up to the present, the Royal Commission have never made any definite proposition. They have said that premiums ought to be given to mares, and so on, and have asked for more money; but they have never laid down a definite scheme or plan showing what steps should be taken for the benefit of this important industry, and what expenditure would be required. That is what I should like to see done. I do not think the country would grudge the expenditure of a few thousands a year in this direction, but they would like to know what the body of experts who constitute the Royal Commission

1239
Consider the best way in which the money should he spent. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I gather from the speech of the noble Duke that the Government would be inclined to adopt the recommendation of the Committee, even though it might involve expenditure. If effect would be given to any recommendation we might make, I think it would be worth while that we should be called together.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till tomorrow, half past Ten o'clock.