Sitting of 13 April 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER, owing to indisposition; Whereupon Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
London and North Western Railway Bill. As amended, to be considered tomorrow.
Midland Railway Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Brixham, Coventry, Liverpool, Ripon, and Southwark, and the Bromley and Beckenham Joint Hospital District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law). Bill to confirm a Provisional order of the Local Government Board relating to the Stourbridge Union, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Brixham, Coventry, Liverpool, Ripon, and Southwark, and the Bromley and Beckenham Joint Hospital District," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]
Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government
74
Board relating to the Stourbridge Union," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]
Amersham, Beaconsfield, and District Water Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP F).
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS informed the House that the Committee on Group F of Private Bills not being appointed to meet until Thursday, 14th April, the parties opposing the Thames River Steamboat Service Bill had appeared before him and proved that the evidence of Colonel R. T. H. Law, Royal Engineers, and Captain R. Owen, Mercantile Marine, was essential to their case, and that their attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House.
Ordered, That Colonel R. T. H. Law and Captain R. Owen do attend the Committee on Group F of Private Bills on Thursday, 14th April, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  CANAL TRAFFIC BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  FALSE STATEMENTS (COMPANIES) BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  HALL-MARKING OF FOREIGN PLATE BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Petition from Aberdare, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alterations of Law: from Faringdon; Chelsea; Baillieston; Pontypool; Barton-upon-Irwell; Weston; Eccles (three); Crumlin; Wandsworth; Darwen; Worsley; Northampton; Leyton: Radstock; Battersea; Bolton; Kinross; Aspull; Penzance; Dollar; Denholme; Cowbridge; Cardiff; Brithdir (three); Barmouth; Hatherleigh: Buckie; and Grays; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, in favour: to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, in favour: to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Waltham Cross; Stamford; Romford; Woolwich; and Plumstead; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADES UNIONS AND TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADES UNIONS AND TRADE DISPUTES (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ALIENS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 15th March; Mr. Cochrane]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 124.]
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County Palatine of Lancaster, altering certain Polling Districts in the Clitheroe and Westhoughton Parliamentary Divisions [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF HERTFORD).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of Hertford altering certain Polling Districts in the Western or Watford Parliamentary Division [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BRITISH COTTON CULTIVATION.
  Copy presented, of Report to the Board of Trade on Cotton Cultivation in the British Empire and in Egypt, by Professor Wyndham Dunstan, F.R.S., Director of the Imperial Institute at South Kensington [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Medical Attendance on Paupers in the Highlands.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will say what system, if any, is adopted by parish councils in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland to acquaint the medical officers of the sickness of paupers, more especially those situated at a considerable distance from his residence; are the rules as to medical relief of the poor strictly adhered to by parish councils in remote parishes in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, or are these local bodies permitted by the Local Government Board to place limitations on them to suit the convenience of the general public, and, if so, will the

  77
  Board take steps to satisfy themselves that a laxity with regard to their rules is to the advantage of the paupers; are the medical officers required to visit the houses of paupers throughout the parish at short intervals to ascertain if the paupers are ill, or is it the duty of inspectors of poor to intimate to the medical officers when the paupers are requiring medical or surgical attention.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The matters touched upon in the Question of the hon. Member are dealt with in the Report (already submitted to the House) of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Local Government Board for Scotland to inquire into the system of poor law medical relief, etc. That Report will shortly be available and I beg to refer the hon. Member to the recommendations contained in it.

  Accommodation for Convalescent Officers at Osborne
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESTo ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many convalescent military and naval officers respectively are now accommodated at Osborne; and for how many in all is accommodation provided.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) Fifteen convalescent military officers are now accommodated at Osborne. Two of them are accompanied by their wives. There are not as yet any naval officers at Osborne. The accommodation provided is for thirty-eight unmarried officers, and for five married officers accompanied by their wives.

  Official History of the South African War.
  MR. ELLIOT: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what arrangements have been made, if any, for the completion of the Official History of the South African War, begun by the late Colonel Henderson.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.)The Official History of the South African War is being compiled by Major-General Sir T. F. Maurice, with the assistance of a staff of officers. It is hoped that the work will be completed within three years time.

  Deaths from Plague in India, Bombay, and Bengal.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he can give the number of deaths from plague in India and the Bombay and Bengal districts respectively for the four weeks ending 26th March.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Except as regards the Bombay Presidency, the returns of plague deaths in India received up to to-day do not go beyond the week ended 19th March. The totals for the three weeks ended on that date are 13,187 for Bengal, 24,390 for the Bombay Presidency, and 102,962 for the whole of India, including the above. The number of plague deaths in the Bombay Presidency alone during the month of March was 35,416.

  Irish Magistrates—Case of Dr. Tierney
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of Dr. Tierney, J. P., in adjudicating at Petty Sessions at Clones in cases where he had already acted as medical adviser to and had accepted fees from, one of the parties; whether a specific case was brought before the Lord Chancellor on 2nd January last; and, if so, whether any notice has been taken of Dr. Tierney's conduct.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) This case was brought to the notice of the Lord Chancellor, who, upon consideration of all the circumstances, arrived at the conclusion that official action in the matter was not called for. Steps were taken, however, to convey to the Justice named an intimation that the Lord Chancellor considered he had been guilty of an error of judgment in adjudicating in the case in question.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Courts Martial—Powers of Judge Advocate-General.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if'he will state whether, at present, the

  79
  quashing by the Judge Advocate-General on behalf of His Majesty of convictions by Courts-martial is obligatory upon military authorities and is final; and whether, under the proposal of the War Office Committee that a Judge Advocate should report to the Army Council, it will be competent to the Council to reject or disregard such report either wholly or in part; and whether the opinion of the present Judge Advocate-General has been, or will be taken before the Report of the Committee is adopted as to the expediency of depriving soldiers of the legal protection afforded by the supervision of the administration of military law by a competent judicial authority independent of military and War Office control.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNCLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The quashing of the proceedings of a Court-martial by the Judge Advocate-General is at present final and obligatory on the military authorities As the whole subject is receiving careful consideration, I am not now in a position to reply to the rest of the Question; but the views of the Judge Advocate-General will naturally be sought.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the present Judge Advocate-General been consulted?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have been in communication with him.

  South African War Rewards.
  MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will ascertain if all Lord Kitchener's recommendations of rewards for services rendered in the South African War have been carried out; and, if not, whether he is prepared to give effect to the same
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As far as I am aware all Lord Kitchener's recommendations with regard to rewards for services in the South African War have been carried out.

  Chinese Labour in the Transvaal— Religious Observances.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether arrangements have
  80
  been made to provide for the Chinese indentured labourers during their stay in the Transvaal the ministrations of the priests of their religion and the due celebration of the ceremonial rites of that religion; and, if so, what is the nature of these arrangements and on whom will the expense necessary thereto fall; whether arrangements have been made for the proper observance in Chinese temples of the Chinese festivals of the New Year, the Dragon Boat, the Full Moon, or the Winter Solstice, which, under the provisions of the Ordinance, are declared to be holidays; and will suitable Chinese temples be erected in the compounds; and whether any, and, if so, what, provision has been made to secure that on the voyage between China and South Africa the Chinese indentured labourers shall have the means of celebrating their religious rites, and at whose expense will their idols be provided.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): With every desire to assist the hon. Member in his somewhat technical inquiry, I am not in a position as yet to add anything to my previous answer to this Question.†
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But the right hon. Gentleman promised to procure the information.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I promised to do so if the hon. Gentleman continued to take a very keen interest in Chinese ritual.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I do.
  MR. MACVEAGH: In case of the provision of idols, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that they shall be made in Birmingham?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Child Labour in Mines.
  MR. FENWICK: On behalf of the hon. Member for Gateshead I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to Sections
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxii., 834.

  81
  3 and 9 of The Employment of Children Act, 1903, and the powers of variation by the inspectors of mines, he will state to what extent the inspectors can vary the provisions set forth in Section 3; and whether the hours therein mentioned can he changed to any other of the same duration.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I am advised that the inspectors of mines have no power under the Act in question to vary the hours during which the employment of children under fourteen is prohibited by section 3. Nor can those hours be varied by any other authority in respect of employment in pursuance of the Mines Regulation Act.

  Limerick Postal Staff.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that out of a staff of six officers employed in the postmaster inquiry office in Limerick three hold superior appointments, he will increase the superior appointments in the same proportion in the telegraph and sorting departments at that office.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The officers referred to by the hon. Member act as the personal assistants of the postmaster for all classes of work, and include the chief clerk, who is practically the deputy postmaster. They are in no sense limited to the work of inquiry. I have made inquiry as to the requirements of the office, and there appears to be no necessity at present for increasing the number of superior appointments.

  Limerick Telegraphists.
  MR.JOYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will explain why several telegraphists at Limerick who do duty on the postal side are invariably employed or, minor duties in the sorting office; and whether he will arrange that these officers are afforded an opportunity of qualifying in counter and other duties, and of joining in the general rotation of duties.
  LORD STANLEY: The officers referred to have been employed on such postal duties as they had qualified themselves to perform. The postmaster has been instructed to give them full opportunities to prove their willingness and ability to perform higher duties in turn with others

  Irish Estates Commissioners' Returns
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the promised six-monthly Return of the Estates Commissioners will contain particulars with reference to each county, giving the names of landlords and tenants, number of years purchase, and other details in each case.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Return will give full information, by counties, in respect of estates sold; the number of tenants to whom advances have been made, distinguishing between judicial and non-judicial tenancies; the average percentages of reduction in each class; the average amounts advanced in terms of years purchase; and other particulars.

  Evicted Tenants in Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will state how many applications have been received by the Estates Commissioners from evicted tenants in the Ossory Division (Queen's County), giving the names of landlords and tenants, and also details of the steps, if any, which have been taken for their reinstatement.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Two such applications have been received and will be duly considered. The names of the parties have been communicated to the hon. Member.

  War and Finance.
  MR. J. F. HOPE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the bearing of the existing financial system of the country on efficient warlike preparation in times of crisis, and to

  83
  report whether, by the establishment of a money reserve or otherwise, any changes in that system are desirable.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J BALFOUR,: I have considered the question to which my hon. friend called my attention before the recess. I think I can convince him that nothing could be gained by the appointment of the Committee which he suggests. Perhaps my hon. friend will communicate with me, and if he is not satisfied with my answer privately he can then put another Question publicly.

  Marine Insurance Bill.
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will say when the Marine Insurance Hill will be reintroduced.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This Bill will, I hope be introduced, either in this House or the other, at an early date, but at present I cannot fix a day.

  Regulations for Foreign Ships
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state when it is proposed to proceed with the Motion standing in the name of the President of the Board of Trade for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire as to the application of British statutory requirements to foreign ships trading to and from ports in the United Kingdom.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am very anxious that this Committee should be appointed, but, as my hon. friend is aware, no opportunity has presented itself for doing so. I hope some evening I may be able to move the necessary Motion and to set the Committee to work.

  Health of the Army.
  SIR JOHN TUKE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the University of London, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether opportunity will he given to discuss in the House, before action is taken, the portion of the Report of the War Office (Re-constitution) Committee
  84
  which bears on the health of the Army.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Army Medical Vote is down for to-morrow and it might be possible to discuss this matter on it. I only throw that out as a suggestion.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman had promised us distinctly a direct opportunity of debating this question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD HUGH CECIL: I desire to ask when the Bishoprics of Southwark and Birmingham Bill will be taken for the Second Reading.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am anxious to proceed with the Bill, on its merits no opposition is offered to it, and it is desirable that it should be passed, but I cannot promise to fix a day for the Second Reading.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: What will be the course of business tomorrow, and when is it proposed to take the Licensing Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not propose to take the War Office Vote tomorrow. Votes for warlike stores and buildings will be taken first, and the other Votes to be taken in their order will be 10, 2 (Medical), 6 (Transport), 7 (Provisions and Forage), and 8 (Clothing). Votes 14, 15, and 16, which are non-effective Votes, will also be taken. If the preliminary stages of the Budget can be disposed of on Tuesday next, I shall propose to take the Licensing Bill on Wednesday.
MR. BROADHURST: In one sitting?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes. I should have thought that sufficient for the introduction of the Bill.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
John Edward Bernard Seely, esquire, for the County of the Isle of Wight.
STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMENS PANEL).
Sir JAMES FERGUSSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel, That they had appointed Mr. Laurence Hardy to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in the place of Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice; and Mr. Stuart Wortley to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in the place of Sir Thomas Esmonde. Report to lie upon the Table.
NEW BILL.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TREASURY POWERS) BILL.
  "To transfer to the Local Government Board the Powers of the Treasury under enactments relating to Local Authorities," presented by Mr. Victor Cavendish; supported by Mr. Grant Lawson; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

  EAST INDIAN REVENUES (TIBET).
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): I rise to move "That this House consents to the revenue of India being applied to defray the expenses of any military operations which may become necessary beyond the frontiers of His Majesty's Indian possessions for the purpose of protecting the Political Mission which has been despatched to the Tibetan Government." I rise to move the Motion standing in my name in accordance with the Government of India Act, 1858, which provides that "Except for preventing or repelling actual invasion of Her Majesty's Indian possessions, or under other sudden or urgent necessity, the revenues of India shall not, without the sanction of both Houses of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operation carried on beyond the external frontiers of such possessions by Her Majesty's forces charged upon such revenues." In some quarters the question has been addressed
  86
  to us, why, when this Mission, which is row in Tibet accompanied by an armed force, was first despatched from India, His Majesty's Government did not come to Parliament and ask under the statute for the authorisation to be given by this Motion. We carefully investigated that subject, and, under legal advice, we found that no such authorisation was necessary for the despatch of a Mission accompanied by an armed protecting force. I think it is obvious on the face of it that that decision will commend itself to laymen as well as to lawyers; for everyone who is aware of the circumstances of a region such as Tibet, or Bhutan, or any other place on the confines of our Indian possessions, knows that, when a Mission for conducting negotiations or for the demarcation of a boundary is sent out by the Indian Government, it is almost invariably accompanied by an armed force for protection in a region where protection could not otherwise be afforded. There is a precedent for such action even in the case of the suzerain Power; for the delegate of China, whose journeys in our opinion, has been unduly prolonged, has been accompanied throughout, we understand, by an armed escort to ensure his safety in a country the suzerain of which he is the representative of. If there was no legal necessity for our asking for such support from Parliament, there was every reason from the point of view of Imperial politics why such a demand should not be made. To ask for authority to carry on military operations in a country in which we had had no desire to carry on any military operations, in support of a Mission which was above all things a peaceful Mission designed solely to secure peaceful intercourse between Tibet and those States for whose relations on the borders of Tibet we are responsible, a Mission which was to take no hostile action, a Mission which was to proceed with a view solely to negotiations—I say to ask for sanction to carry on military operations in such a case would have been to change the whole character of the Mission and to excite those very fears which we were most desirous to allay. The whole situation has recently been changed. The encounter which took place at Guru, on 31st March, on the day after Parliament

  87
  adjourned for the Easter recess, has changed the whole position and has undoubtedly brought about, to a limited extent, those military operations for which we are bound to ask the sanction of Parliament. We may all regret that it should have been necessary for the Indian troops, acting as they did under great provocation, to shed blood on that occasion. Whether it was right to send troops in support of the Mission, or whether it was right to send the Mission at all, are questions which we may discuss. But it must have been clearly understood by all those who read the telegrams that, under the circumstances of the attack by a large body of Tibetans, unless our own troops had used the arms that were in their hands there would have been no alternative to the entire annihilation of the Mission.
  Those of us who have most desired to maintain throughout the peaceful character of the Mission can hardly have Sailed to be impressed both by the statements in the Blue-book and the accounts of the attitude of the Tibetan Government, between whom and the Tibetan people I venture to draw a wide distinction, in respect of the vehement feeling against foreigners, or at all events against the Indian representatives, by the Lamas of Lhasa, and the ignorance which was shown of the Power with which they had to deal. Unless some encounter which proved the superiority of modern arms took place, the indisposition to enter into negotiations, which has prevailed unfortunately for many years past, would have remained. I make that remark because I have it in my power to make an announcement to the House as TO the present situation which will show that, lamentable though the loss of life on 31st March may seem, and undesirable as it was that there should have been any encounter at all, the result of that encounter has been that the further progress of the Mission has not been hindered, and that it has attained the goal which it desired to attain. I received an hour or two ago from the Viceroy the following telegram from Colonel Younghusband, who is himself at Chalu, dated 13th April—
  "Gyangtse," 11th, by Chinese courier. General Macdonald has brought Mission here without the loss of a single man. Tibetans
  88
  who opposed us highly demoralised. This valley is covered with well-built hamlets; cultivation everywhere, numerous trees. Inhabitants mostly fled, but few who remain say this is on account of heavy demands of their own Government. News just arrived that Tibetans are fleeing from fort. Two Tibetan generals have left. Chinese delegate Ma has come in. Ma says Amban will come as soon as he can arrange with Dalai Lama, and four Tibetan delegates, of unknown position, are on their way. Jongpen is in great fear, and will doubtless surrender fort to-morrow."
  I think that telegram will be satisfactory to the House. As the result of previous events the Mission has reached the point to which the Government determined to send it in November last, without further opposition; and what is of still greater importance is that the Chinese Amban, who has hitherto been so dilatory, is himself to meet the Mission, and the Dalai Lama is sending four Tibetan representatives to meet Colonel Younghusband and to carry on the negotiations.
  Such being the present position, I presume that the House will wish me to lay before them in some little detail the reasons for sending the Mission to Tibet, Those reasons are detailed in the Blue-book, which covers the negotiations with Tibet through a long series of years. The despatch of this Mission was not the sudden act of an impatient Government or of an aggressive Viceroy. For fifteen years past the difficulties with the Tibetan Government have been increasing. It is certainly an anachronism that we should have within 300 miles of British India the capital of a State which not only refuses us political relations and trading facilities, but with whom no written communications are possible on the subjects which must arise between neighbouring States on frontier and other questions. Such a condition of things is practically unknown anywhere in the civilised world; and we have exhausted every effort with the suzerain Power to obtain a settlement of the questions which have inevitably arisen between the two Governments. The Blue-book shows that the history of this question since 1890 is one in which for fourteen years the Indian Government have been endeavouring to arrive at a settlement of subjects which they could not neglect, and in which the Tibetan Government have attempted to circumscribe their relations

  89
  with the Indian Government, while at the same time they have been attempting to open relations with another Power at a much greater distance. In 1890 there was concluded between Her late Majesty's Government and the suzerain Power a Convention which laid down the boundaries between Sikkim and Tibet. That Convention has been constantly violated by the Tibetans. Up to two years ago the Tibetans were in possession of and were using as pasture, ground in the neighbourhood of Giaogong, which was a recognised corner of Sikkim and was within the line of demarcation laid down by the Convention of 1890, to which the Tibetan Government, through the suzerain Power, were parties, the Indian Government endeavoured, with all the regard for the Tibetan Government which could be shown to any European Power, to arrange with them for the erection of pillars so that the boundary might be clearly defined and the opportunities of dispute reduced. But the Tibetan Government were unwilling to allow their officers to co-operate with our officers for that purpose, and when we had set up the pillars they were knocked down, even in the most unfrequented places, obviously by preconcerted action. In 1893 the Indian Government, during, I think, Lord Lansdowne's Viceroyalty, came to an agreement with the Tibetan Government on the question of trade. Free trade was practically established between India and Tibet except with regard to certain articles. A trade mart was agreed upon at Yatung, with free passage for our subjects to that mart. In addition to that, arrangements were made as to trade disputes. All those provisions were flagrantly violated by the Tibetans.
  I cannot help calling as witness a gentleman whose name has been a good deal before the public in connection with the Tibetan question during the last few weeks—I mean Sir Henry Cotton. Sir Henry Cotton has written with great knowledge and with great resource on this subject, but with an entire want of sympathy, apparently, with the objects of the Viceroy and the Government of India. Sir Henry Cotton, when this commercial treaty was agreed upon, was Chief Secretary to the Government
  90
  of Bengal; and I find that on 25th June, 1894, he was the signatory of a very important despatch which is found in the Blue-book, and in which he points out that, although free trade as between Tibet and India had been guaranteed by the convention, the Tibetans had levied a 10 per cent. ad volorem tax—[OPPOSITION cheers]—I am glad to find that that fact is received with so much sympathy from the other side of the House, and that the Indian Government, which has hitherto been a free-trade Government in the efforts which they are making to prevent the door from being shut upon them, will have, at all events, the sympathy, if they do not have the support, of Members on the other side. But this 10 per cent. tax was not enough for the Tibetan Government. They went further and drew a cordon which prevented all Tibetan merchants passing through Phari. Consequently, as no Tibetan merchant could have reached Yatung, they might have spared themselves the trouble of putting on the tax. Sir Henry Cotton, in very pregnant language, points out that this was inconsistent with the terms of the treaty and was a matter for very seriousconsideration. Trade facilities are important, trade facilities are exceedingly desirable, for without them the whole of the long stretch of the northern frontier of India is closed to natural intercourse and commerce with foreign Powers. But, as a matter of sentiment, of feeling, and of authority, the next point in which the Tibetans violated the treaty is still more important. The privilege of entering the Chumbi Valley had been enjoyed by the inhabitants of Sikkim for many hundreds of years. No difficulties had been placed in their way in free intercourse with their neighbours in the Chumbi Valley. That has been arrested by the Tibetan Government, no one being allowed to enter the Chumbi Valley from Sikkim. That, again, Sir Henry Cotton characterises as a very serious matter in his despatch of 25th June, 1894. And no wonder, because to the people, of Sikkim the effect of coming under the protection of Great Britain had been that they were debarred from privileges in regard to association and trade with their neighbours which they had enjoyed for many hundreds of years. I see that

  91
  in some of Sir Henry Cotton's writings now he finds fault with the Viceroy for ignoring the Chinese Government and going straight to the Tibetans themselves by letters to the Dalai Lama. But in this very despatch the Government of India is urged to consider the weakness of the Chinese authority in Tibet, and in a subsequent letter it is laid down under the authority of Sir Henry Cotton that Mr. White, who was then demarcating the frontier, should proceed to do so without regard to the Chinese representative. Therefore, although all weight should be given to the opinion of a distinguished public servant, we must realise that, so long as he was the man on the spot, the man who is now frequently engaged in impugning the action of the Viceroy—he was the man, perhaps, of all others, who was most engaged in calling the attention of the Government of India to the serious nature of the position at which matters had arrived.
  What has happened since then? Very nearly ten years have passed, and I do not think it can be urged that during those ten years the Government of India and the Government of this country have shown anything but a desire for patient consideration and conciliation in their treatment of Tibet. During all this time no arrangement has been made for trade facilities, and the treaty has been rendered nugatory by the Tibetans. The Convention of 1890 has remained violated, the boundary pillars have been knocked down, and our protected subjects in Sikkim have been excluded from rights which they had previously enjoyed. The present Viceroy has made attempt after attempt to bring home to the Dalai Lama the serious nature of the complaints which we have to make. By letters, which have been returned, by invitations to negotiate, by every means which the representative of one State could bring to bear on the representative of another State, attempts have been made to secure some peaceful solution of this difficulty. But while the Tibetan Government by ignoring their treaty obligations with us, by encroaching on our territory, thwarting our trade, destroying our pillars, and refusing to negotiate with regard to any one of these questions, were showing themselves more
  92
  difficult than they had ever been in regard to their neighbours, at that very time a deputation from the Dalai Lama was sent to St. Petersburg on a so-called religious mission, to which, it was perfectly clear from the statements in the Blue-book, the Tibetans attached very considerable political signifiance. I wish to deal as delicately as possible with this question, as it affects the relations between Great Britain and Russia. The whole subject was threshed out between Count Benckendorff and Lord Lansdowne, and the result is shown in the Blue-book. The representations which were first made by the Russian Government as to their interests in Tibet were subsequently placed in a different light, and assurances, which were regarded as satisfactory by His Majesty's Government, were received from the Russian Government with regard to their action in that country. We, on the other hand, put clearly before the Russian Government the limits which we had assigned to the action of the Government of India in Tibet.
  I would have the House realise this question as regards the influence of the Russian Government. Lhasa is not a place in which we are moved by any jealousy of a foreign Government, or by the desire to establish anything at the expense of a foreign Government. But we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that Lhasa is within 300 miles of the. Indian frontier and that Tibet does not touch any portion of the Russian frontier at a distance of less than 1,000 miles, going over country which is, perhaps, the most inhospitable and inaccessible which could be found. And it is a historical fact that since. British dominion has existed in India, Tibet has had relations with only three Powers—with the Chinese Government, which is her suzerain, with Nepal, which is largely politically connected with the Indian Government, and with the Indian Government itself—and His Majesty's Government could not acquiesce in any change that would result in a change in the political status quo in Tibet. If any Power were to establish, or attempt to establish, a predominant interest in Tibet; if any Power were to send a mission to Lhasa which enabled them to influence or to give advice to the Tibetan Government, or to control in any way

  93
  the action of the Tibetan Government; still more, if any Power were to propose to establish a protectorate over Lhasa—all these operations are operations on which His Majesty's Government could not look without concern. Any one of them would accentuate in a high degree those border difficulties from which it is the object of every Indian administrator to free himself as far as possible. Any one of them would cause considerable unrest in Nepal, Bhutan, and Sikkim; and I cannot imagine anything that would be less desirable than that, in any portion of the Chinese Empire which abuts on British territory, we should be exposed to those negotiations through a more or less inanimate third party which have so far occupied the diplomatic mind of Europe in some other portions of the Chinese Empire during the last few years.
  Therefore, a point arrived, in February of Last year, when my predecessor intimated to the Viceroy that, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, everything having been tried in the way of patience and conciliation without effect it was now desirable to advance the Mission to Khambajong, and there endeavour to carry out the negotiations which we could not carry out within our own frontier. That advance was originally agreed to by the Chinese Government on 19th July. The Chinese Government accepted Khambajong, and the Dalai Lama named two delegates and sent credentials to enable them to meet the British delegates, on 13th August, after further negotiations, the Chinese Government acknowledged warmly the desirability of a meeting of delegates, which would be proceeded with at once. I think His Majesty's Government after that had real reason for complaint over the very ridiculous position in which our delegates were put at Khambajong. The Chinese Government had accepted the meeting and directed the Dalai Lama, as suzerain, to send delegates. He sent delegates, and the Chinese representative started early in December, 1902. He was within Chinese territory in July. The British officer who was with him in Chinese territory in Jam was at Colonel Younghusband's camp at Khambajong in July. The Chinese Amban, whether from his own fault, or, as there is reason
  94
  to think was the case, from being delayed by being refused transport by the Dalai Lama, having started in December. 1902, reached Lhasa in February of this year. We have every reason to suppose that, had it not been for the advance of Colonel Younghusband to Gyangtse, the Chinese Amban would still be pursuing his journey. On the other hand, the representatives of the Dalai Lama turned up with unfailing precisian at the moment they were expected. They had credentials and they presented them but, having paid a formal visit and received a visit in return, they declared that they were not there as Chinese envoys in any shape or way and that they would take no messages whatever to the Dalai Lama. They shut themselves up, and further proceedings were indefinitely postponed, In serious matters of this kind it is necessary for a Power to prove that its earnestness is not to be mistaken or trifled with in such a fashion. The Government, who were adverse to any advance, found that the position was getting worse instead of better. The Tibetan people showed themselves friendly and anxious to sell supplier and declared that they would cooperate in every respect, but the Tibetan Government used force and prevented the provision of supplies or any intercourse with the people of the country. In the meanwhile two British subjects were arrested and imprisoned at Gyangtse, and a request to release them met with a refusal. The circumstances therefore pointed to its being absolutely necessary, it any answer was to be obtained at all to the numerous representations which had been made, that further steps should be taken. The Government of India most clearly showed the necessity of advancing to Gyangtse. His Majesty's Government considered that question; and on 1st. October while my noble friend was still Secretary of state, a message was sent authorising an advance to Gyangtse, if negotiations were broken off, on 6th November a further telegram was sent actually authorising the advance, but strictly limiting the objects for which we were going to make the advance. Those objects were to obtain by negotiations satisfaction for the past, and a modus vivendi for the future. I think it is conclusively shown that, reluctant as we might be to take strong measures it was

  95
  absolutely necessary for both of these objects that some measures should be taken. I do not think that I could express the state of things better than it was expressed by the Government of India in the despatch written in November last, to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite thought we ought to have sent an answer. Their statement was that it was necessary to impress the Tibetan Government with a sense of our earnestness in these negotiations, and of our power to carry them through; that we had no quarrel whatever with the Tibetans, and no desire to occupy their country—and we have no such desire—that we had no wish to establish a permanent mission in Tibet—and we have no wish to do so. For fourteen years we have had to acquiesce in the denial of all those relations which exist between other civilised States or other neighbouring States in Asia, and last year, in addition to that, our accredited representatives were met by accredited representatives from the other side, who were not willing to do business with them. They have arrested two of our subjects, who are still not released. They made an attack on the transport supplied to us by Nepal. If we are to retain the confidence of the people of Nepal, of the people of Sikkim, of all those who cannot move without our authority, if we are to preserve our own authority and avoid a recurrence of these continual disputes, a settlement must be arrived at. That, and that only, is the object of our undertaking.
  I have said, and I believe it would not be contested from the Blue-book, that His Majesty's Government have throughout shown the greatest reluctance to embark on any mission or expedition outside the frontiers of India. Nobody who has read the Blue-book could doubt that. But I have seen it suggested in various quarters that His Majesty's Government have been impelled forward and unduly hurried into action by the acquisitiveness of the Viceroy. The period of office of the present Viceroy has already exceeded the ordinary period. He has been, I think, five years and four months in the country. It is to be alleged against Lord Curzon that he has in any respect shown a desire for expeditions, for foreign entanglements, for incitement to trouble in regard to our
  96
  neighbours, for the undue assertion of British interests at the expense of neighbouring States, I think that the record of the last five years with regard to expeditions on the Indian frontier, or beyond it, should be realised in Lord Curzon's favour. Dealing as we do with a number of tribes, who are not directly under the control of their rulers, on our frontier and with States which are themselves not ruled with anything like European accuracy or consideration, it is inevitable that there should be from time to time small expeditions. It is also inevitable that at times there should be danger of much larger entanglements on the frontiers or India. I look back on the last four Viceroys. During Lord Dufferin's period of office, from iSS4 to 1889, there were five considerable expeditions, including the annexation of Burma, and 43,500 troops were engaged on them. During the period of office of his successor there were seven expeditions, none of them of great magnitude, but involving the employment of 36,200 troops. During Lord Elgin's five years of office there were nine such expeditions, including the Tirah expedition, on which 34,000 troops were engaged, and Chitral, on which 19,000 troops were engaged. In all, 87,000 troops were employed during his period of office. With regard to Lord Curzon, in the first year of his period of office there was no such expedition, in the second year there was none, in the third year there were two small expeditions, and in 1902 another small expedition. The whole of the troops engaged in these expeditions, one of which was merely a blockade, were a little over 9,000 men. I believe that that result is largely due, not merely to a determination to avoid trouble of that kind and consolidate resources at home, but to the frontier policy which Lord Curzon instituted and which he himself described in a speech the other day as a policy of military concentration as against diffusion and of tribal conciliation in place of exasperation. This is not the place, nor is it the time, for me to attempt any appreciation of Lord Curzon's career as Governor-General of India.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.),who was received with Ministerial cries of

  97
  "Order," said that by a Rule of the House they were not allowed, except on a special Motion, to criticise the Viceroy. Having regard to that, he did not think that the appreciation of him which the right hon. Gentleman was about to give, and which did not come within the terms of the Motion, should be allowed.
  THE DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is perfectly open to the hon. Member to criticise the policy of the Viceroy of India.
  MR. BRODRICK: I was going to say that I do not propose to occupy the time of the House with any appreciation of the general policy of Lord Curzon; but I do say that while, daring the five years in which he has controlled the Government of India, almost every department of that Government has been overhauled and reformed by the immense labour and knowledge which he has brought to bear upon his work; while he has shown an unquenchable desire for justice in his administration in India, he has also shown as full a regard—anil a fuller regard than would have been expected of any man so strongly imbued with Imperial instincts—for peace on the frontiers of India. It is in these circumstances that we have to come to Parliament to ask for authority for the military operations, if military operations they be called, which may be entailed upon the Mission and the force supporting the Mission. In asking for this we do not desire to diverge in any degree from the policy of patience and conciliation which we have pursued in the past, and which we desire again to pursue, but we ask for it because we are conscious that that policy, as interpreted to the Tibetans, has failed to secure its object, which is the removal of the questions which have caused difficulty in the past. It is because we found that the suzerain Power was unable to obtain for us that consideration, or even that actual exchange of views between us and Tibet, which even the suzerain Power desired to enforce. It is because we found that the Tibetans mistook patience for weakness, and conciliation for want of power. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I do not for a moment wish to say anything which would cause the smallest
  98
  feeling between this country and Russia with regard to these operations; but the Blue-book teems with admissions, not of what Russia proposed to do, but of what the Tibetans were under the impression they would obtain from the Russian Government in the way of support against the legitimate demands of His Majesty's Government. It is absolutely important, if we lay down that any Power is to be dominant in Tibet, that that Power must be the British; that that should be known to those chiefly concerned—namely, the Tibetans themselves; and that it should be realised that in regard to all the ordinary commerce of nations—questions of boundary, questions of demarcation, and questions of trade—that consideration which is due to a pacific, but at the same time powerful, neighbour must be allowed to the British Government as it would be to any other nation. I think that we may congratulate ourselves that, despite the episode of 31st March, our Mission has now reached Gyangtse, a place where, being on one of the main trade routes in Tibet, it is likely that the delegates who are now accredited will be allowed to treat with our Mission. That being so, I trust the time may not be far distant when a satisfactory arrangement will be entered upon. His Majesty's Government adhere to the policy laid down in the various despatches to the Indian Government. We ask for no more than a fair adjustment of the subjects of difference between us, and we ask also for some machinery which will enable us to address representations to the authorities of Tibet such as nations address to each other. In so doing, with the support of this House, we shall, I think, have taken a long step, by timely agreement, to secure for many years to come the peaceful condition of the north-east frontier of India.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House consents to the revenue of India being applied to defray the expenses of any Military Operations which have or may become necessary beyond the frontiers of His Majesty's Indian Possessions, for the purpose of protecting the Political Mission which has been despatched to the Tibetan Government."—(Mr. Secretary Brodrick.)
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman was happily able to make one announcement to the House which will be received with satisfaction in every part of it—namely, that this mysterious Mission—as to which we have had very little information so far as its definite ultimate object is concerned—has reached without the further shedding of blood or opposition, the point to which the Government have authorised it to go. But the right hon. Gentleman, I am sorry to say, failed altogether to tell us that which we require to know before we can assent to this Motion namely, what is the immediate definite policy of the Government in the matter. Does the short despatch. No. 132 in the Blue-book, express the policy which is to be pursued by the Government? of one thing we are certain, and that is that that despatch does not express or convey the policy approved and suggested by Lord Curzon. It is in distinct conflict with that policy in many most important particulars; and what the House of Commons and the country are entitled to know is which is to be the master, the Imperial Government or the Viceroy of India. The right hon. Gentleman indulged in a long encomium of Lord Curzon; and there is much in what he said that will attract our approval. There is no question of the industry, the knowledge, and the capacity in all respects that Lord Curzon has shown. But I think no one can read this Blue-book without seeing that Lord Curzon, at all events in his despatches, is often too apt to be led away by his rhetorical powers, a failing which we, have found in other parts of the Empire also. Lord Curzon exaggerates, for the purpose of what he may consider a great stroke of policy, events of comparatively small importance; he sometimes trenches very nearly upon very delicate ground, and he uses phrases which may have an evil effect on the relations of this country with some of our neighbours. It is from this point of view that I wish to examine the position of affairs. The right hon. Gentleman has said for one thing that we had no quarrel with the people of Tibet, that the people of Tibet were not the same as the Government of Tibet. I have known other
  100
  countries of which an observation of that kind can be truly made. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of the poor villagers of Tibet who had abandoned their homes and fled to places of comparative security because of the heavy demands of their own Government. Here, again, we have a somewhat familiar picture.
  MR. BRODRICK: The language was not mine; it was a quotation from the telegram.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That does not interfere with the truth of the analogy. Let us consider the questions which the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward as being the dreadful cause and origin of all this difficulty. There is the question of pasturage. We are told that sometimes the sheep trespass on the Sikkim side, and that sometimes the sheep from the Sikkim side find themselves on the other side. Really, to say that we are to undergo all this cost, this difficulty, and this danger to our relations with other people on any such account is ridiculous. Then some demarcation Pillars have been removed. But the Viceroy of India at the time they were pulled down told us that he was satisfied it was not done by any official authority. In that wild country with no policeman on the beat to take care that the pillars are not interfered with, one may readily imagine that a new and conspicuous pillar would attract the attention, and possibly the antipathy, of some of the simple-minded herdsmen. Then there has been the difficulty of compelling the Tibetans to trade. A mart has been opened; but, although the water is there, the horses will not come to drink, and that is made a ground of complaint. The Tibetans have been for centuries a very exclusive people. They are a protective people, and like to keep other people and other people's goods out of their country. They are not enamoured of aliens. Therefore to open up avenues of trade is not all that is required to make people come and trade with you; and, indeed, I cannot imagine anything less likely to conduce to that purpose than an invasion of the country and the slaughter of hundreds of its inhabitants. We are also told that letters have been sent to the Dalai Lama

  101
  and that they have been returned unopened. But why were they returned? Because they should have been addressed to the suzerain Power. I notice that the suzerainty of China over Tibet is differently spoken of according to the purpose for which it is referred to. The noble Lord the late Secretary for India said—
  "Strong measures on the part of the Government of India would be viewed with much disquietude and suspicion, and it must be remembered that Tibet is politically subordinate to China."
  But then Lord Curzon says—
  "We regard the so-called suzerainty of China over Tibet as a constitutional fiction, a political affectation"—
  there is the rhetoric coming in—
  —which has only been maintained because of its convenience to both parties."
  And the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs adopts the view that the Chinese Government are a broken reed to lean upon in this respect.
  Lord Curzon says—
  "China is always ready to break down the barriers of ignorance and obstruction, and to open Tibet to the civilising influences of trade, but her pious wishes are defeated by the shortsighted stupidity of the Lama.
  In the same way Tibet is only too anxious to meet our advances, but she is prevented from doing so by the despotic action of the suzerain."
  Lord Lansdowne endorses that as a perfectly accurate account of the value for all practical purposes of the suzerainty of China when you come to attempt to make it the basis for dealing with Tibet. It is not discreet or wise to use contemptuous language of that kind of those two Powers, one great and one small, with whom we are endeavouring to put ourselves on good relations; and, above all. I do not think that the use of such language, as well as the whole action of the Government in this matter, has been at all likely to strengthen our position—away from India altogether—in another quarter of the world, where the integrity of China and the goodwill of China are after all of some value to this country. Hut I was going over the grievances; there were also two British subjects who were said to have been tortured and
  102
  killed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he knows what has become of those two British subjects. As he said they were lying in prison I presume that the worst, at any rate, that was said of them is not true. The right hon. Gentleman, leaving these things and turning to Russia, says that Russia, to put it plainly, has been coquetting with Tibet: and Lord Curzon, in summing up, as he thinks, the necessities of the case, says our interests are seriously imperilled by the absolute breakdown of the treaty arrangements hitherto made through the medium of China by the obstructive inertia of the Tibetans themselves, and still more by arrangements freshly concluded with another great Power to our detriment. Now we are entitled to ask, Does His Majesty's Government endorse that? Do the Government accept that which is put forward here in some sort of crescendo scale among the grievances supposed to be behind the action of the Indian Government in this matter? I should hardly think the Government do, because I find that Lord Lansdowne accepted the assurances of the Russian Government—assurances which really might be supposed to be hardly necessary by anyone who reads Mr. Sven Hedin's account of his travels through Russian Mongolia down into Tibet: and here is Lord Lansdowne meeting the Russian Ambassador on 17th November last and expressing astonishment, almost indignation, at the effect which the advance of the Mission had made in Russia. He said—
  "I expressed my great surprise at the excitement which the announcement seemed to have created. I had, I said, already pointed out to his Excellency that Tibet was, on the one hand, in close geographical connection with India, and, on the other, far remote from any of Russia's Asiatic possessions. Our interest in Tibetan affairs was therefore wholly different from any which Russia could have in them."
  That is the view which Lord Lansdowne takes; and therefore, I ask, Is it the opinion of His Majesty's Government, as is stated by Lord Curzon, that the Russian Government have established relations with the Tibetan Government which are intended to be to our detriment? We want to know what the policy of the Government is. The policy of Lord Curzon, which evidently broke down the scruples and hesitations of the home

  103
  Government, is fully explained in the Blue-book—
  "We do not think it possible that the Tibetan Government—which we dissociate entirely from the Tibetan people—should be allowed to ignore its treaty obligations, to thwart trade, to encroach upon our territory, to destroy our border pillars, and to refuse even to receive our communications. Still less do we think that, when at last an amicable arrangement has been arranged for the settlement of these difficulties, we should acquiesce in our Mission being boycotted by the very persons who have been deputed to meet it, our officers insulted, our subjects arrested and ill-used, and our authority despised by a petty Power which only mistakes our forbearance for weakness, and which thinks that by an attitude of obdurate inertia ii can once again compel us as it has done in the past, to desist from our intentions. We have already had to pay a heavy penalty for past mistakes in this respect."
  and again—
  "Our proposal, therefore, is that, assuming it to be decided by His Majesty's Government to respond in a favourable sense to the overtures of the Wai-wu-pu, the Chinese Government shall be informed that we can undertake the negotiations nowhere else than at Lhasa, and that a British commercial mission will start for that place at a suitable date in the forthcoming spring, there to meet the Chinese Resident and a duly-appointed high official of the Tibetan Government. We propose that the negotiations should cover not merely the small question of the Sikkim frontier, but those others of which I have been speaking,"
  and he speaks in one place, as the culmination of the whole policy, of the establishment of a permanent agent in Lhasa.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON (Middlesex, Ealing): As the right hon. Gentleman has read from lord Curzon's despatch, will he read the Government's reply?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am going to. Lord Curzon speaks of our having had experience of the like kind before, and the consequences. We have had experience before, and the associations connected with the name of Cavignari do not seem to invite us to undertake a similar policy again. Here is the reply of the Government, dated 6th November, 1903—
  "In view of the recent conduct of the Tibetans, His Majesty's Government feel that it would be impossible not to take action, and they accordingly sanction the advance of the Mission to Gyangtse."
  104
  that is the place where the Mission has arrived at.
  "They, are, however, clearly of opinion that this step should not be allowed to lead to occupation or to permanent intervention in Tibetan affairs in any form."
  a satisfactory and sweeping statement.
  "The advance should be made for the sole purpose of obtaining satisfaction, and as soon as reparation is obtained a withdrawal should be effected. While His Majesty's Government consider the proposed action to be necessary, they are not prepared to establish a permanent Mission in Tibet, and the question of enforcing trade facilities in that country must be considered in the light of the decision conveyed in this telegram."
  The concluding words leave me in some doubt, but that is the policy, I presume, or the Government to-day. The House will see that it is diametrically opposed to the policy of the Viceroy. That is the crucial point. To Gyangtse and no further, no further interference in the affairs of Tibet, and no Resident in Lhasa. Lord Curzon, on the other hand, wishes to review the entire question of our future relations, commercial and otherwise, with Tibet. And "otherwise" is rather a wide word; but I think that that leaves us in a position to doubt which is the stronger of the two, which is the more powerful magnet—the Government of the King in this country or Lord Curzon and his Government in India.
  I think that in all the circumstances, as we desire to see this Mission safely withdrawn from the position in which it has been placed with as little difficulty as possible, perhaps this Motion might be qualified by some such words as these—it is a mere suggestion which I throw out, because we have so little time to consider this matter:—"That this House consents to the charges for the armed escort accompanying the political Mission in Tibet being defrayed from the revenues of the Government of India, subject to the undertaking given by His Majesty's Government in their despatch of 6th November. 1903."Or you might say more explicitly, "subject to the undertaking given by His Majesty's Government that so soon as satisfaction has been obtained for specific infractions of the convention the expedition will thereupon be withdrawn from Tibetan territory." I can assure hon.

  105
  and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that we do not wish to do anything which will either endanger the Mission or the escort, or, on the other hand, diminish the dignity and authority of the Indian Government and the Imperial Government in that quarter of the world. Speaking for myself, I disapprove of the whole expedition, as far as I can judge it; but, as it has been sent, and as it has advanced to this point, it would be desirable, in the least difficult and most effective way, to withdraw it without damage from the position in when it has been placed. Therefore, I hope that in the course of this debate some such words as these will be adopted. While they would secure the safety of the Mission and secure our Empire from any damage on account of its position, they would, at the same time, be a guarantee and pledge, not to this House and the country only, but to the great States which we have brought into the matter, or are interested necessarily in the mutter—Russia and China—that the undertakings of the Government were seriously given and were meant to be fully discharged.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has realised the nature of the difficulties with which Lord Curzon and the Indian Government have for some years had to deal in connection with the action of Tibet. It is easy to say in this House. "It is only a matter of a few sheep straying over the border, a few pillars being knocked down and one or two persons being imprisoned, and of letters being returned." The right hon. Gentleman and those who acted with him are, I suppose, in favour of the maintenance of peace, not only in Tibet, but throughout the world. What is the foundation of peace throughout the world? Is it not the observance and maintenance of treaties? If Tibet, because she is a weak and impotent country, is allowed deliberately to snap her fingers at us and refuse to fulfil conditions into which she had entered, and we were to tolerate such conduct, are there not many other nations more powerful than Tibet who might be encouraged to follow her example? The gravity of the situation is
  106
  that Tibet has wilfully and deliberately for nearly ten years past ignored and repudiated a treaty which, with the utmost deliberation, was entered into on her behalf by the suzerain Power, the Government of China. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the people of Tibet have always been an exclusive people. On the contrary, our relations with Tibet in the time of Warren Hastings were satisfactory. Little by little the Tibetans have adopted a more exclusive policy, acting under the influence of a certain clerical sect at Lhasa, and about thirteen years ago the position became rather serious. It was impossible to allow Tibet to go on violating our territory and inflicting injuries on our subjects, and it was necessary to send an expedition there. The result was that an armed collision took place and the Tibetans were repulsed with considerable slaughter. The Government of India were most anxious to prevent the repetition of such encounters, which must necessarily degenerate into mere slaughter and desired to negotiate a treaty with Tibet to put an end to these disturbances. With great difficulty they induced the Chinese Government to agree to negotiate, a treaty was made, and certain points were reserved. Two and a half years later these reserved points were settled, and anybody who has read the Blue-book will see that the Government of India made concession after concession to China and Tibet in order to come to a reasonable and fair arrangement with Tibet. The treaty was ratified by both parties, and from that day to this the Tibetans have deliberately ignored its provisions. The Blue-book shows that the Government of China had no power to compel the Tibetans to respect the treaty which they had, on their behalf, entered into. What was to be done? Our territory was not seriously, but constantly, invaded, the pillars which marked the boundary were thrown down, our trade arrangements were absolutely ignored, every letter of expostulation which the Indian Government sent to the Tibetan Government was returned unopened, and the messengers who conveyed those letters went in danger of their lives. Was such a state of things to be tolerated? We brought pressure to bear

  107
  on the Chinese Government, and it was finally agreed that there was to be a meeting between the representatives of the Indian Government, the representatives of the Chinese Government, and the representatives of the Tibetan Government, and they met at a certain place. The first thing that the representatives of the Tibetan Government did when they arrived at the place of meeting was to shut themselves up in a fort, and for three months they declined to hold any communication whatever with the British representatives. We cannot withdraw the Mission. The light hon. Gentleman suggests that if the Government would give a guarantee that the Mission is to be withdrawn, the Opposition might assent to the Resolution which is before the House. But we cannot withdraw the Mission; we must come to a definite arrangement with Tibet.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I suggested that the Mission should be withdrawn "as soon as satisfaction has been obtained for specific infractions of the convention."
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: We want something more than that. We want, not merely satisfaction for what has been done, not merely that reasonable arrangements should be entered into, but we must have some guarantee that whatever arrangements are entered into will be carried out. That being so, I think the Government have acted with great moderation. Certainly, while I was at the India Office I think we perhaps erred on the side of patience and forbearance. I am not at all sure that it was not mistaken for weakness. On the very day that I resigned the position developed, and it was necessary to take a forward move; and, although the telegrams which went in my name were sent subsequently to my resignation, I entirely agree with their purport. I should have suggested communications of that kind being sent to the Indian Government.
  I quite admit that some incidents occurred which rather added to the difficulty and embarrassment of the Indian Government. We received information from a number of quarters
  108
  widely distant, but all corroborative, that there were underhand negotiations going on between the Tibetan Government and, if not the Russian Government, certain persons who were supposed to represent the Russian Government. I have never been one of those who have looked with great jealousy and suspicion upon the advance of Russia in certain parts of Asia. I believe that Russia has her mission just as we have in Asia, and that there is room in Asia for the legitimate extension of the influence of both Empires. But if there is one spot in Asia which is absolutely outside the sphere of Russian influence it is Tibet; and the Russian Ambassador, authorised by Count Lamsdorff, has admitted more than once that it is outside the legitimate, sphere of Russian influence. I wish it were possible to come to some arrangement with Russia as regards the spheres in which Great Britain and Russia should respectively exercise their influence in Asia; but I confess that in later years my hope of coming to such an agreement has diminished. It is exceedingly difficult to accept without reserve the assurances which we receive from Russian high officials. Whenever Russia has entered into a convention with us she has, so far as my knowledge goes, honourably adhered to that convention, and any one of the statesmen who are the heads of the various departments of the Russian Government who gives an assurance to our representatives does so in perfect good faith. But the Russian Government is curiously constituted. Its members are not individuals who have Cabinet responsibilities. Each head of a department is responsible only to the Emperor, and no one has any right to interfere with or even to know what is going on outside his own department. It happens again and again that an assurance is given by the Minister of one department of which the Ministers of other departments are utterly unaware. Now, assume for a minute that some irresponsible agent of Russia in Lhasa hoisted the Russian flag there, would not the position become very difficult? It is easy enough for a great country like Russia to undertake not to hoist her flag; but if one of her officials does hoist it it becomes very difficult to remove it; and, if the Russians did not do so, the Tibetans

  109
  would suppose that they had the support of the whole power of Russia, and then no doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite, if such an incident occurred, would call for censure on our Government for being so short-sighted as not to have prevented such a contingency. Under these circumstances the Indian Government, very properly I think, insisted on pushing forward the Mission to show they were in earnest; and it must be remembered that although the encounter which took place the other day and resulted in heavy loss to the Tibetans—and which might also be decribed as a massacre of Tibetans—yet, on the other hand, if it had not been for the extraordinary courage and coolness of our officers and their Sikh escort, the massacre might have been the other way.
  Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition wants an assurance from the Government as to the limits beyond which they do not intend to push their policy. While I think it is necessary for us to insist upon arriving at a reasonable arrangement and to obtain guarantees from the Tibetan Government, I am strongly opposed to any movement which would in any way result in the annexation of any portion of Tibet or of making ourselves responsible for any portion of the administration of that country. So far as I know that is the view of the Prime Minister and the Government; therefore, if the Leader of the Opposition wants such an assurance, I believe he can get it much more effectively from the mouth of the Prime Minister than by anything embodied in a Resolution. My own view is we have quite as much territory in Asia as we can manage, and, although it may be necessary here and there to round off our frontiers and possibly to extend our political influence, it must always be borne in mind that the extension of territory and the incorporation of it in the Empire must necessarily involve increased military establishments and expenditure. There is no reason whatever why any movement of that kind should take place in regard to Tibet. The Buddhist religion is not aggressive, the Tibetans are easily governed, and the attitude of the monkish clique at Lhasa is not in accordance with the views of a large portion of the population of Tibet.
  110
  Hon. Gentlemen are naturally anxious to prevent a repetition of a collision between our troops and the Tibetans. What would be the most effective method of bringing about their desire? By unanimously passing this Resolution. If it receives the unanimous assent of the House, and if it is associated with an undertaking given by the Prime Minister, that beyond securing a reasonable arrangement with the Tibet Government there is no intention of making any further forward movement, I believe the House will feel it has done a good afternoon's work. We shall have shown the world generally that we decline to allow any foreign influence to enter into or interfere with Tibetan affairs, that we have no wish to impose any heavy penalty upon the Tibetans, or to ask them to enter into any arrangement that is not reasonable. But for this we must contend. I hope my suggestion may be acted upon, and that when the Question is put the Government, as I have no doubt they will, giving the assurance asked for as to the limitations of their policy, will receive the unanimous vote of the House.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he did not think the right hon. and noble Lord who had just sat down had really appreciated the position of affairs. Nothing that had recently occurred had excited such a profound feeling of regret as the unfortunate incident reported on Good Friday morning. The whole country has received with the most profound feeling of remorse the news of the slaughter of 600 or 700 practically unarmed men by disciplined soldiers armed with the most modern weapons of precision. In regard to that slaughter the House must have been glad to hear the views of the right hon. and noble Lord; but the right hon. and noble Lord had not helped the case of the Government very much. The Leader of the Opposition had put the matter very plainly, and they were all greatly indebted to him for doing so. The right hon. Member for Stirling Burghs asked the question, "Are the Government still bound by the despatch of 6th November. 1903, in which Lord Curzon was instructed not to take any steps which would lead to the occupation of Tibet or permanent intervention in Tibetan affairs in any form? The late

  111
  Secretary for India had justified the Government for going a little further by a reference to a speech by Lord Lansdowne in which he said that the Convention of 1890 had not been observed by the Tibetans. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that that convention was not complete or clear and that the settlement of the difficulty in regard to the grazing lands in Sikkim had been left over for after consideration. The Tibetans claimed a right to these grazing lands and that claim had been admitted by the Indian Government. That had not been sufficiently borne in mind. There was another point—the establishment of a trading centre to which the Indian merchants should send their goods to be exchanged for Tibetan produce—a sort of free port in the desert. But such markets were very difficult to establish. For these two reasons it was not very easy for the Tibetans to observe the clauses in the convention strictly. A third point was the pulling down of the boundary posts. The Leader of the Opposition when alluding to these posts suggested that they had been put up by the Indian Government for the purpose of provocation. What took place was that when the difficulties about the grazing lands in Sikkim were constantly recurring, the Indian Government sent a Mission to go along the frontier and, as a means of testing the question of the boundary, to set up a series of pillars to shut out the Tibetans from the grazing lands. That was why the posts were pulled down by the Tibetans. These were the trifling details which the Leader of the Opposition mentioned as the only grounds for sending an armed Mission into Tibet.
  But a new ground had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, who quoted the very expression used by the Viceroy of India, viz., that "arrangements had been freshly concluded by the Tibetans with another great Power to our detriment." Now, was it because Russia had done something to our detriment or was it because of a frontier difficulty that this armed political Mission had been sent into Tibet? The House ought to get from the Government full information as to whether we were inaugurating a policy against a great European Power.
  112
  Russia was now engaged in a very serious war. She observed a very correct attitude when this country was at war a few years ago; and therefore, no imputation should be made regarding her conduct which could not be sustained. There was in the Blue-book a very circumstantial account of the visit of certain Tibetans to Russia. They appeared to have been a mysterious body of Buddhists who went to solicit subscriptions from other Buddhists in Russia. Then the attention of the Russian Press was attracted to the visit and great things were expected from it. The Blue book contained extracts from the Russian Press from which it appeared that the mission carried a letter from the Chief Lama to a Russian official stating that the Dalai Lama was well and hoping that the official to whom the letter was addressed was in good health also. The Foreign Office immediately asked the Russian Ambassador for an explanation; and was informed by the Russian Government that the mission was wholly of a religious character. There was no suggestion that the Russian Government had any interest in the matter; and he thought that the Government ought to speak with greater plainness on the subject. Did the Government accept the statement of the Russian Government, and also Lord Lansdowne's statement, that the only object in view was the rectification of the frontier. The military character of the enterprise was to be deplored. The late Secretary of State for India said, What else could be done? The Chinese might be pressed to secure a settlement of the difficulty. Why not wait a year or two? What was the use of hurrying? What was to be gained from the policy that was being pursued? It all, of course, depended on what the policy was; but it had not been explained.
  MR. MOONsaid it was quite clear that the Tibetan mission to Russia had produced a considerable effect in that country. The following summary, dated 17th June, appeared in the Blue-book—
  "The reappearance of the Tibetan Mission in Russia, according to the Nove Vremya, proves that the favourable impressions carried back by Dorshieff to his home from his previous mission have confirmed the Dalai Lama in his intention of contracting the friendliest relations

  113
  with Russia. This is not astonishing; those acquainted with the Far East must know that in those lands news travels, if not with the speed of lightning, at any rate much faster than it does by Russian telegraph; and therefore it cannot be wondered at that the news of the events at Pechili, the capture of the Taku Forts, of Tientsin, and Peking, the Russian victories in Manchuria, the taking of Mukden, etc., have penetrated to the Lama of Tibet. Under these circumstances, a rapprochement with Russia must seem to him the most natural step, as Russia is the only Power able to counteract the intrigues of Great Britain, who has so long been endeavouring to obtain admission, and only awaits an opportunity to force an entrance. It would also be only natural if other Central Asiatic and West Chinese nations were to aspire towards a similar friendship with Russia, who has won the respect and confidence of all who own her sway."
  It was quite clear that one of the objects of this country was to protect its prestige and honour in that part of the world; another was to resume trade; and a third to protect India against attack. Lord Curzon, during the discussion on the Indian Budget, used the following striking phrases—
  "India is like a fortress with the sea as a moat on two sides, and mountains on the third. Beyond the walls is a glacis of varying breadth and dimensions. We do not want to occupy it; but we cannot afford to see it occupied by a foe. We are quite content that it should remain in the hands of allies and friends, but if unfriendly influences creep up and lodge under our walls, we are compelled to intervene, because danger would thereby grow up and menace our security. This is the secret of the whole position in Arabia, Persia. Afghanistan, Tibet, and Siam."
  The mission from Tibet to Russia was of a rather suspicious character. The leader was a person named Dorshieff, who had since been raised to a very high position. The Times correspondent telegraphed from Tuna on 2nd April as follows—
  "M. Dorshieff, who is now at Lhasa, apparently exercises a predominant influence. He has been made Master of the Ordnance and Treasurer to the Dalai Lama, a post technically known as the Dzasak, one of the highest offices of State."
  What right had the Russians to take the line they appeared to have taken. This country was bound to see that facilities, advantages, and opportunities in Tibet were not given to any other European Power which were not given to itself. His hon. friend the Member for Bethnal Green, whose knowledge of India they all
  114
  recognised, obtained a Return which showed that the Tibetans had a considerable amount of valuable commodities which they could offer in exchange of trade. Hon. Members on the other side of the House would recognise that both for our own prestige and honour, and also for the strategical advantages which would accrue to India, this Mission must be sanctioned.
  MR. TREVELYANthought that sufficient attention had not been given to the way in which the House had been treated by the Government in regard to this matter. Prior to the Easter vacation the House bad had no real opportunity of discussing it, and had been in fact treated in a very cavalier way, having regard to the importance of the question. Now, however much the House might object to this Mission its power over it had been altogether nullified. It was impossible now to turn the Mission back, and all the House could do was to raise its protest; it could do nothing to cure the past and exercise very little influence over the future. This question ought to have been brought to their notice on some previous occasion. The Government were under a constitutional obligation to obtain the consent of Parliament to any military expedition outside the frontiers of India. There had been debates on previous occasions as to whether it was necessary to obtain the previous consent of Parliament, and the Government of the day had sometimes taken the line that it was impossible in times of emergency and at times when the House was not sitting as in the cases of the Afghan and Burmese wars. But in this case the circumstances were entirely different. Here the, policy had been deliberatedly decided on; Parliament was actually sitting; and for weeks and months the military expedition was waiting to advance into Tibet. The only thing that was said was that it was a political Mission, but it was accompanied by an armed force of 1,000 or 2,000 men; whilst in the despatches from the Indian Government there were constant statements that they expected there would be resistance although it would not be serious. Obviously the expedition was a military expedition and it was playing with words

  115
  to call it a political Mission, and it was not treating this House in a proper way to preclude them from discussing the reasons for this expedition before it was entered upon.
  Those in authority who had spoken to-day had chiefly laid emphasis on the fact of the excuses which had been made from time to time by the Tibetans. A good deal had been said as to the various ways in which they had thwarted our trade. No one would suggest that the trade between Tibet and India was a great trade, but it was a steadily increasing one. Imports from Tibet had risen from seven lacs of rupees in 1890 to nineteen lacs in 1902, whilst the exports to Tibet had risen from four to seven lacs in the same period. So that could hardly be a reason for this expedition, and the question of the removal of the boundary pillars could hardly be alleged as a reason. The House had not yet heard from those in authority very much about Russia, but it was only fair to assume that the chief reason why the Indian Government had brought this question to the front was their alarm at the action of Russia in Tibet. It was the Russian relations which were the real cause of our advance into Tibet, and the realgist of the matter was whether Russia had such relations with Tibet which would justify our Government in believing they had designs of establishing themselves there in such a way and in such a force as would constitute a dinger to the Indian Empire. There was only one definite allegation with regard to the Tibetan relations with Russia, and that was the Tibet in mission to St. Petersburg. The hon. Member for St. Pancras had referred to it and had called attention to the fact that certain Russian newspapers had shown that it was evidence of a strong desire on the part of the Tibetan people to enter into friendly and intimate relations with Russia. But the Russian Government, in reply to Lord Lansdowne, had characterised as ridiculous the conclusions drawn by the Russian Press that this mission had had any diplomatic character. At page 116 of the Blue-book a despatch from Sir C. Scott said—
  "With reference to my despatch of the 1st instance I have the honour to transmit herewith in translation further extracts from the Russian
  116
  Press referring to the arrival in Russia of a so-called Tibetan mission. Count Lamsdorff in the course of conversation with me yesterday characterised as ridiculous and utterly unfounded the conclusion drawn in certain organs of the Russian Press that these Tibetan visitors were charged with any diplomatic or political mission."
  The mission was similar in character to that which was sent out by the Pope to the faithful in foreign countries. Count Lamsdorff's statements had been accepted by our Foreign Office as sufficient, and it was going a little too far ahead when explicit declarations had been accepted by the Government that the Russians wanted nothing in Tibet, to tell the House that if another Power were to establish itself in that country it would be a serious thing for India. Lord Curzon justified the action of his Government; he summed up the view of the Indian Government in these words—
  "In our view any country, or Government' or Empire has a right to protect its own interests, and if those interests are seriously imperilled, as we hold ours to be in Tibet, by the absolute breakdown of the treaty arrangements hitherto made through the medium of China, by the obstructive inertia of the Tibetans themselves, and still more by arrangements freshly concluded with another great Power to our detriment, we hold that the first law of national existence, which is self-preservation compels us to take such steps as will avert these dangers and place our security upon an assured and impregnable footing."
  Yet in spite of the high-flown rhetoric it was admitted that no Russian agent or Russian treaty existed at Lhassa, and in the very despatch in which this statement occurred the Indian Government used the following words in regard to the distance of Tibet from the Russian frontier—
  "It is unnecessary for us to remind your Lordship that the Russian border nowhere even touches that of Tibet, and that the nearest point of Russian tendon, is considerably more than a thousand miles short of the Tibetan capital, which is situated in the extreme South, and in close proximity to the northern frontier of the Indian Empire."
  If Russia was at such a distance and had no agent in or treaty with, Tibet, where was the danger? It seemed to be a very long way off -certainly too far off to justify rushing into war for the purpose of putting a British agent in Tibet to watch Russia, who as far as we knew were doing very little in that country.

  117
  All the House could do, on the present occasion, was to press for further information as to the intentions of the Government. What were the Government going to ask for now? Possibly that the boundary stones should be re-erected, or that the wall which had been built in Yatung should be broken down. But that was not much for so large an expenditure of money and life. Was it the intention of the Government to ask for a British agent to be permanently established at Lhasa? If so, that was a very disputable proposition. Such an agent, separated from India by a great tract of country, which at certain seasons of the year was very difficult to pass, would be placed in an extremely awkward position. Was he to be left absolutely alone amid this strange people, or was a military force to be left there to guard him? In either case this country would be in a difficult position in regard to its future relations with Tibet, and it seemed to him that the House ought to have a very explicit account of what the Government expected to get out of what he could not help regarding as a somewhat ignoble little raid.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the debate dealt, first of all, with the question of whether or not the India Government Act of 1858 had beer broken. In his opinion it had been, and the revenues of India had been applied to what was now for the first time admitted to be a military operation beyond the frontiers of India. The expedition had never been anything else than a military operation; it was an armed entry into a friendly State without the consent and against the desire of that State. It was necessarily and inevitably a military occupation; according to the Blue-book it was clearly recognised as such, and resistance was not only expected, but was actually announced to have taken place as far back as October last. Therefore it was in its beginning, it had continued to be, and it still was, a military operation beyond the frontiers of India. This was not the first time the question of legality had been raised in regard to this subject. He was aware that it had been held by a legal authority—who was probably instructed by the person desiring
  118
  the opinion—that a subsequent consent of the Houses of Parliament was all that was required, but that, in his opinion, made nonsense of the Act of Parliament. He greatly regretted that the Government had not thought fit at an earlier period to ask for the consent required by the India Government Act of 1858, and that they should have awaited the action or massacre at Guru before applying for that sanction.
  Another aspect of the matter, which was even more important, turned on the question of whether or not there was room in Asia for both Russia and England. He thought there was. Even in Persia, where the interests of the two Powers touched in the most exciting fashion, where questions which might lead to great divisions between them were constantly arising, and where, in fact, for the last fifty years a struggle had been going on between Russian and English influence, he believed it was possible to come to such an agreement as would enable both Powers not only to work in amity, but to assist each other. Persia was the most crucial case in which Russian and English interests clashed in Asia. Nevertheless, his firm conviction, based on a certain amount of knowledge, was that opportunities had again and again arisen of coming to an agreement with Russia in regard to Persia, but those opportunities had been neglected or thrown away by successive British Governments. If an agreement was possible in Persia, how much more possible was it in regard to Tibet! Tibet was not, like Persia, coterminous with both frontiers, being a thousand miles from the Russian boundary. It was, perhaps, the most inhospitable country on the face of the earth, and had no attractions either from the point of view of what it produced or on strategic grounds. As with Afghanistan, so with Tibet; the object of the Indian Government should be to keep out of the country. He admitted that it should be the object of the policy of the Government to keep Russia out of the country also, but in his belief there was not the slightest danger of Russia trying to cross the thousand miles which intervened between her frontier and Tibet for the purpose of occupying the latter country.

  119
  Therefore, with regard to Tibet he contended that it was far more possible than with regard to Persia to come to an agreement, if necessary, with Russia. He doubted, however, whether any agreement was really required. It was impossible to avoid mentioning Russia in the matter, as the whole Blue-book showed that a fear of Russia was at the bottom of the business. There was an embassy to Russia, but the envoy turned out to be a Russian subject who desired to make a religious collection. Then there was a pretended Russian secret treaty, which was now absolutely denied, and the suggested terms of which were such as Russia would be most unlikely to ratify.
  Why did the Government hold themselves driven to this "forward" policy in Tibet? A great deal turned on the character of the Viceroy. He remembered Lord Curzon declaring from the Treasury Bench that if Russia advanced her troops to the waters of the Oxus, England would have to advance hers and meet Russia on that river He had been greatly relieved to find that his residence in India had to a large extent converted the noble Lord from his belief in the "forward" policy; in almost every respect he had shown that forbearance and discretion which were best calculated to serve the interests of the Empire. One of the greatest proofs that Lord Curzon was a statesman lay in the fact that he was able to learn on the spot and to follow a policy which he was not prepared to adopt before going to the country. Notwithstanding the description given by the noble Lord the Member for Ealing of the manner in which Russian Ministers conducted their departments, he believed the only thing they had at heart was the progress of Russia in the East, and it did not seem reasonable to suppose that on either strategic or political grounds they would make any particular sacrifices to advance Russian interests in the East by occupying Tibet or by taking more than the smallest part in its affairs. A further important consideration was the fact that the man who controlled Tibet controlled the head of the Buddhist religion. The country that commanded the Dalai Lama, the re-incarnation of Buddha, must
  120
  necessarily command great allegiance from the countless millions of Buddhists who swarmed in China and other parts of Asia, and that, he shrewdly suspected, was at the bottom of the desire to exercise influence in Tibet which was entertained to some extent by Russia, and very strongly by the present Viceroy of India.
  The Blue-book was extremely instructive, and it showed that from the first Lord Curzon was anxious to advance to Tibet and make an invasion of that country. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex constantly resisted that policy, and he was surprised that the Leader of the Opposition did not quote the reply of the noble Lord, who set forth strong objections to any such expedition and gave the grounds on which he entertained those objections. He would pass over the intervening stages and come to the last stage. The hon. Member opposite had asked what the objects of this expedition were? In Lord Curzon's words they were—
  "At the same time the most emphatic as surances might be given to the Chinese and Tibetan Governments that the Mission was of an exclusively commercial character, that we repudiated all designs of a political nature upon Tibet, that we had no desire either to declare a protectorate or permanently to occupy any portion of the country, but that our intentions were confined to removing the embargo that at present rests upon all trade between Tibet and India, and to establishing those amicable relations and means of communication that ought to subsist between adjacent and friendly Powers."
  It was in that despatch that he advocated that the object of the Mission should be—
  "The appointment of a permanent British representative, Consular or diplomatic, to reside at Lhasa."
  That was in January, 1903, but both the late Secretary for India and his right hon. friend the present Secretary for India had come to the conclusion that this Mission should be restricted in its operation in the manner which had been described in Lord Curzon's words. He believed that restriction to be most wholesome and necessary if it could be carried out, but it would be most difficult to carry it out after what had occurred. The official determination of His Majesty's Government as telegraphed by the

  121
  present Secretary of State for India on the 6th November, 1903, was that—
  "The advance should be made for the sole purpose of obtaining satisfaction, and as soon as reparation is obtained a withdrawal should be effected."
  Nothing was said as to security for the future. The same telegram proceeded—
  "While His Majesty's Government consider the proposed action to be necessary, they are not prepared to establish a permanent Mission in Tibet."
  Lord Curzon's desire had been agreed to on the condition that the Mission was to be confined to removing the embargo that at present rested upon trade between Tibet and India and to establishing amicable relations between His Majesty's Government and adjacent and friendly Powers. It had been laid down that there was to be no annexation, no declaration of a protectorate and no permanent occupation of any portion of the country. If the Government could give the House the assurances suggested by the noble Lord that, having obtained satisfaction and secured the removal of the embargo on trade, they were then prepared to withdraw the Mission without annexing territory, without declaring a protectorate, and without insisting on the establishment of a permanent Mission at Lhasa, he thought it would be the duty of the House to pass the Resolution. But it seemed to him almost impossible for the Government to give such an undertaking after what had occurred. Let the House consider the situation. There had already been a very serious engagement between the Indian troops and the Tibetans, attended with a very great and unfortunate slaughter of the latter. Under these circumstances he wished to know what extra security they would have in carrying out the policy which had been laid down, beyond what they I had at the present time, for the observance of the new treaty? It seemed to him that they would have no extra security. His fear was that, having entered upon this undertaking and having sent this armed Mission, which had met with resistance, and which had repelled that resistance with considerable slaughter, the Government would be absolutely driven to the establishment of a permanent Mission at Lhasa and they
  122
  would have to annex a portion of Tibetan territory. That was the danger upon which His Majesty's Government might be able to give him some assurance. If the right hon. Gentleman would give the House such an assurance then it would be the duty of hon. Members to pass this Resolution.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: There is one criticism which I should like to make with reference to the Blue-book, and that is the singular silence that has prevailed in the last two months with reference to any communication from the India Office to the Indian Government in India. My right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, I think, yesterday put a Question to the Secretary of State as to whether a reasoned despatch has been sent out to India in reply to Lord Curzon's elaborate despatch of the 5th or 6th November, and I understood that the right hon. Gentleman conveyed the idea that no such reply had yet been made. That is a very long time, even in the India Office, for a despatch of that magnitude to lie without a reply from the Secretary of State himself; but I can readily understand that there are reasons for it. But what I do not understand is this: The House will find in the index to these Papers that the first communication from the present Secretary of State was dated 3rd December—merely an official communication as to the Chinese Minister being informed of what had transpired—and then down to 31st January there is a long succession of communications from the Viceroy to the Secretary of State, and not a single reply from the Secretary of State to the Viceroy. Some one once said that India was governed by the private correspondence that passed between the Secret try of State and the Viceroy, and I think there is some truth in that remark. But if I may expand it, I should say that India is governed also by the telegrams constantly passing between these two officials. Now, I cannot but think that these various important communications from Lord Curzon have not passed unnoticed by so diligent, so faithful, and so consistent a hard worker as the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I wish he had let us know not only what Lord Curzon said, but also

  123
  what he himself said with reference to many of those questions.
  But I want to say a word or two on the policy of the Government with reference to the future. I think there has been a full discussion this afternoon of the points relating to the history of the expedition to Tibet. I have nothing to add to the criticisms which have been passed on the causes and the policy which resulted in the present unfortunate state of affairs. I still think, notwithstanding the eloquent and just defence which the Secretary of State made for the. Viceroy, that this correspondence discloses the fact that there have been two currents of opinion on this question, and that there has been one current at Whitehall and another at Calcutta. And once or twice, I am bound to say—though no one has a higher opinion of Lord Curzon than I have, and no one would offer a more cordial tribute to the great services he has rendered to India during his Vice-royalty (but he has the temptation of all great men not to minimise his own power)—I am bound to say that he indicates a slight impatience in reference to what I suppose no Viceroy likes particularly well, viz., the constitutional position of the Viceroy of India, which is that he is subordinate to the Secretary of State in Council, and that is the only way in which the Parliamentary Government of India is maintained. The powers of the two officials are clearly laid down in the Act which transferred the Government of India from the East India Company to the Crown. The supremacy of Parliament overall Indian affairs through the Secretary of State is there laid down. It is to the House of Commons that the Secretary of State is responsible, and if we weaken that and allow quasi-independence to pervade the policy of a great pro-Consul we shall commit a great blunder. There is a distinct constitutional principle involved, and that is, that his discretion and his powers should all be under the control of Parliament.
  I will not labour the differences which have been mentioned this afternoon with reference to what Lord Curzon desired and which, no doubt from the highest motives, he conceived to be the true policy which the Indian Government ought to pursue.
  124
  What we want to know is—What is the policy of the Government to be n the future? I am bound to say that the speech of the Secretary of State for India was not satisfactory from that point of view. He referred with some qualification to the important despatch of 6th November, 1903, which has been again and again called to the attention of the. House, and which we understand contained a statement of the principles on which the Government intend to act. I may say in passing that the principle that there would be no annexation, no interference with Tibet internally, no appointment of any Resident, and no protectorate, laid down in that telegram, was also next day repeated by Lord Lansdowne to our Ambassador in China. He was informed that as soon as reparation is obtained a withdrawal should be effected, the Mission having been undertaken for the sole purpose of obtaining satisfaction. That is a distinct utterance, and what we now want, if I may say so respectfully, is that the Prime Minister, without any qualification, and without any doubt, should lay down the line which he intends, so long as he remains in office, to follow with reference to the question of our position in Tibet. A good deal has been said in this debate about our relations with Russia. Now, I must confess that I am in entire accord with the noble Lord the Member for the Ealing Division of Middlesex on that point. I agree with the advice he gave when he was Secretary of State for India, and also with the advice given by that great statesman, whom we have recently lost, when he was Secretary of State for India. Lord Salisbury recommended his own followers to look at a large map. I think that in many of our foreign relations in connection with India it would be desirable to look at a large map. Asia is vast enough for Great Britain and Russia. Each can do a great deal of good work in Asia if they will pursue it peacefully among the people over whom they exercise influence.
  I suppose there is not an Englishman throughout the world who is net delighted at the steps which have recently been taken to produce good relations between Great Britain and France. Is such a thing impossible with

  125
  reference to our relations to Russia? Of course there will be dfficulties. There have been difficulties not for twenty-five but for fifty years with reference to France, but it has been shown that it is possible for two great nations to settle difficult questions between them without waiting for them to be cleared up by some great war. I do not believe that Russia has any serious aggressive designs on India. I do not believe in the Russophobia which has been displayed in certain sections of the Press. If we would do to Russia as we would wish to be done by a great deal of this bad feeling, which is so mischievous, might be avoided, and some settlement with regard to Asiatic matters might be come to. There is no reason to fear any aggression from Russia as far as Tibet is concerned. We ought to clear our minds of that idea. But there is another point. The Resolution before the House is to authorise military measures to be taken for the protection of Englishmen who are now in Tibet by the orders of their own Government and in the service of their King. This country will not allow them to be deserted. Whatever view may be entertained with regard to the wisdom or unwisdom, the necessity or the futility, of the present political Mission, we are bound to see that those who have gone on that mission are rescued with all the power we can put forward. We now ask the Prime Minister to tell us whether he adheres to the despatch of 6th November. If that policy is adhered to we shall have done our best to avoid the dangers which have been pointed out. If the Government at home are firm in that policy, the Indian Government can carry it out without much difficulty, all danger of friction with other owers will be avoided, and those difficulties which have long perplexed the Indian Government with respect to Tibet will be materially diminished.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down dealt with the caution and the moderation which we should all expect from him, partly owing to his native character and partly owing to the high and responsible
  126
  office which he has filled, with the criticisms on the policy which the Governments of India and of this country have adopted in reference to this Mission. Indeed, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has associated himself with any of the criticisms which have been passed by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House on the original inception of this Mission, and I think the right hon. Gentleman was right. Because if hon. Members will divert their minds for one instant from the legitimate desire to attack His Majesty's Government and will in imagination put themselves in the place of those who here and in India are responsible for the government of that great dependency, they will feel that no other course than that which was adopted was open. There was on the part of the Leader of the Opposition and of other Gentlmen, apparently, a disposition to minimise the causes which had produced this Mission in Tibet. They regard the pulling down of boundary pillars as a small matter, and the occupation of fragments of pasture land as a tiling that can be passed over, and they have demonstrated that nothing has occurred between Tibet and India which is worth the cost and risk involved in this Mission. That kind of political arithmetic is rotten from the beginning. You cannot by merely summing up the matter dealt with by diplomacy say that this or that course ought to be pursued. Is it suggested that we were indefinitely to allow the Tibetan Government and its subjects to violate the solemn treaties entered into by them? There is no chance of a Tibetan invasion of India. Nothing that they could do unassisted is going to imperil our rule in India; and, therefore, I presume, hon. Gentlemen suppose that no cause of offence that ever could be given by the Tibetan Government to the Indian Government could be more that that the letters written by the Indian Government to the Tibetan Government should be returned unanswered. You cannot conduct the affairs of contiguous States in that manner; and if the Indian Government, who, after all, depend absolutely on the opinion held of them by their own subjects, are to allow themselves to be openly flouted in this way by a neighbouring State, it is inevitable that sooner or later the view

  127
  now rightly entertained of the Government in such places as Sikkim and Nepal will suffer decay. We shall be thought to be a people incapable of maintaining our obvious and admitted rights, and not only Orientals, but all men turn to those whom they think will maintain the rights which it is their duty to safeguard.
  Therefore we could not allow the thing to remain as it was, and if we could not, how was it to be remedied? Does anyone assert that we have rushed hastily into action in this matter? Are fourteen years of fruitless negotiations so small a thing that we are to be considered as rash invaders of other people's territories because we at last lose patience? I do not think that will be contended. If negotiations were to solve the difficulty could they have been conducted more patiently or in a more conciliatory spirit, or in any better fashion than that in which we have conducted them? My hon. friend asked what would be said here if the French sent an armed diplomatic mission to discuss affairs between the two countries. My hon. friend was perfectly relevant in making that metaphor, but it did not contain the first element of a good metaphor, it did not illustrate any question with which we are here concerned. The case is that unless the Mission were sent into Tibetan territory no negotiations were possible at all. Tibetan methods, unlike Western methods, put an impenetrable wall between those responsible for the Tibetan Government and the Indian Government. Unless you traverse that wall negotiations become impossible. If contemporaneously with (he impossibility of negotiation, you absolutely shut off Tibet from all relations with India, I do not know personally that I should greatly regret it. Rut the moment the Tibetans traverse our frontiers, occupy our pastures, and imprison our citizens on the one side and are impenetrable even to remonstrances on the other—that is a condition of things which I do not think should be allowed to subsist. The Mission had to be sent into Tibetan territory, and was it to be accompanied or unaccompanied by a force to ensure its safety? The Member for the Elland Division, who spoke of this as a military expedition, shut his eyes to the facts of
  128
  the case. The Mission had to be sent for purely diplomatic reasons; it had to be defended and accompanied by an armed force, because that diplomatic object could not be successfully attempted in safety unless those you Bent were protected from the attacks of natives. Therefore it had to be armed. It is quite true that the possibility of opposition to that Mission was anticipated by the Indian Government; but the fact that that opposition was thought of as possible is no reason for regarding this as a military expedition; and the fact that opposition has unhappily occurred, though it requires this House to pass the Resolution before it, does not alter either the objects with which this Mission was originally sent, or the methods by which we mean to carry them out.
  A great deal has been said about the relative positions of Russia and England in Asia. That is a very large, complicated, and delicate question; and it is not, therefore, a question which I think I should be doing any public service by discussing either briefly or at any length on the present occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton seems to think that it is a matter of comparative ease for the two countries to come to some arrangement as regards Asia, which should for ever prevent serious disputes or serious collisions between them in Asia—some such arrangement as we have come to with France, and which I hope, and firmly believe, will for ever prevent collisions between these two countries in connection with any region dealt with in the great instruments which have just been signed by the Foreign Ministers of the two countries. Sir, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman greatly underrates the peculiarity of the Central Asian position; the character, I will not say of the ambitions of the Russian Government, but of the ambitions of many of the officers who deal with the interests of Russia in the far outlying portions of her great dominions. He also, perhaps, underrates the relations in which we respectively are to the independent but relatively powerless States which still divide the two great European Powers.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I said it would be a difficult task, but it would be worth trying.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman means that it is an object in itself enormously desirable, if it can be attained, I agree absolutely with him. My ideas are that, from the nature of the case, it will not be so easily attained by any instrument, by any series of articles drawn up and signed by the Foreign Ministers of the two Powers, as he seems to suppose. At all events there are special difficulties in the way; and I frankly admit that I am not one of those who in the year 1904 think the Central Asian question can be so easily disposed of by a reference to the large maps as it was in the year 1874. Thirty years separates us from the date to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred; and if he considers the position of these two great countries in Central Asia as it was in 1874 and as it is in 1904, he will see that the problem, whether soluble or insoluble, is at all events a very different problem from what it was then. I do not know that I have done much good by referring to these international affairs in Asia. Central Asia is outside the much narrower issue with which we have to deal this afternoon. That issue is whether we shall or shall not, unanimously pass a Resolution which must be passed if our Mission in Tibet is to have that protection which every man in the House desires to give it. Now we are all agreed that the Mission is to be protected, but what the right hon. Gentleman fears is that there may be differences of opinion as to what are the ulterior objects of the Government. I can assure him that he need have no such fears. The telegram of 6th November, 1903, which does not stand alone in the Blue-book as representing the views of His Majesty's Government, but merely repeats, in very precise terms, the general policy of His Majesty's Government indicated throughout the whole—that telegram was most carefully considered by the Cabinet before it was sent. It represented a policy—not merely a departmental policy of the Secretary of State in Council, but it also represented the carefully thought out views of the Government. It represented those views on 6th November, 1903; it
  130
  represents those views in April, 1904. No change whatever has occurred; and I do not think that any change is likely to occur. We, of course, live in a world where absolute prophecy is impossible; and it would be folly for me to do more than state what are the desires, the wishes, and the intentions of the Government, on the facts as far as we know them. And these wishes, desires, and intentions are most explicitly stated; they have been stated more than once; and we do not see any reason to depart from them. My hon. friend who spoke last but one seems to think that circumstances will be too strong for us, and that we shall be driven on from one stage to another, until nothing short of permanent annexation is reached. Well, I contemplate no such unhappy contingency; and were it to occur I should consider it one of the greatest misfortunes that could possibly happen to the Indian Government or to this country. My noble friend the late Secretary of State for India said that oar position—I think he said everywhere—
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: In Asia.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should not have dissented from even the larger proposition of my noble friend—that our possessions in Asia, and the responsibilities which these possessions entail, are surely as great as any of us can desire. And that is absolutely the admitted fact. But it must be distinctly understood that if Tibet were, by any unhappy accident, to become the centre of intrigue and influence of any Power other than Tibet, our difficulties and our responsibilities would not be diminished, but greatly increased by leaving Tibet alone. I do not contemplate that position, and I am glad to think that there is no reason for believing in that contingency. I admit everything that has been said as to the impossibility of invading India by way of Tibet. I believe such a military project is intrinsically absurd, and that any Power which has the strength to invade India would find much easier routes for doing so than over the snow-clad "Roof of the World." But that does not alter the fact that though no army is

  131
  likely to penetrate our northern frontier from Tibet, it would be a serious misfortune to the Indian Government, and a danger to our northern frontier, should Tibet fall under any European influence other than our own. I should greatly deplore if it should fall under our influence. I do not want anything to do with the Tibetans in a political sense. Let the Tibetans manage their own affairs. Let them keep themselves to themselves. I desire nothing better. But if their wish to exclude foreign influence is to be used against us, but is not to be used against others, then it will be admitted by every hon. Gentleman in the House who has seriously considered this problem that a very different state of things presents itself than that with which we have to deal at the present time. As appears from the Blue-book, Russia, at the present time, has absolutely declared not merely that she does not mean to occupy Tibet in a military sense—of which I am not seriously afraid—but that Tibet is outside her sphere of influence, and that she does not desire to have a Resident there, or to exercise power, or authority, or influence there. Sir, I accept absolutely that statement; and, that being so, I am nor able to imagine a contingency which would compel the Government to abandon that policy which has been so clearly expressed in the despatch of 6th November last. Our wish is to live at peace with Tibet; to leave Tibet independent: to have no responsibility as regards the internal affairs of Tibet; not to keep a Resident in Tibet, with the responsibility which inevitably attaches to keeping a Resident there. Though that be our view; though that is the view which we have consistently and constantly held, as the Blue-book shows, throughout the whole period in which this controversy has become acute; though we have never varied from
  that, and do not vary from it now, that does not cast the smallest reflection, in my judgment, on the steps which the Indian Government have taken in order to see that our treaty engagements are not made the laughing stock of the Oriental world. That we cannot tolerate; that we do not propose to tolerate. While this Mission, we trust, will result, without further bloodshed, in putting the relations between India and its northern neighbour on a permanently satisfactory basis, while it will prove for all time to the Tibetan Government that they cannot treat us with the contempt with which they have treated us in the last thirty years, I do not believe it will add one iota, one grain of sand, to the already heavy responsibilities which weigh on the Indian Government. The House may absolutely rely upon it that the last thing which His Majesty's Government desire is to have an addition to our frontier responsibilities, stretching from Baluchistan to the Chinese and Burmese frontiers. We do not want to add any further responsibilities to the difficulties which are constantly weighing upon the statesmen who have in their charge the destinies of our Eastern Empire. Among those statesmen there is no name which I think will shine out in history with more lustre than that of the present Viceroy of India. Though there have not been what I may call attacks made upon him this afternoon, there have at all events been criticisms passed upon him; but I am confident that this House may rely without a moment's misgiving in his loyally and ably carrying out a policy which this House and His Majesty's Government are agreed is the proper policy to pursue in this long-standing and difficult question.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 270; Noes. 61. (Division List No. 76.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjam'n

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bignold, Arthur

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Bigwood, James

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Bill, Charles

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir, H.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Bond, Edward

  Austin, Sir John

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Bowles, Lt. Col. H.F.(Middlesex)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

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

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Brigg, John

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Bull, William James

  Grant, Corrie

  Moss, Samuel

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Caldwell, James

  Gretton, John

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C

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

  Groves, James Grimble

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G.(Midd'x)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Partington, Oswald

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Percy, Earl

  Coddington, Sir William

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Henderson. Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Bandies, John S.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Horner, Frederick William

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham)

  Renwick, George

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Denny, Colonel

  Jessel Captain Herbert Merton

  Robertson, Herbert Hackney

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Kerr, John

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Doughty, George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)

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

  Edwards, Frank

  Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N.R.)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Elibank, Master of

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lee. A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Skewes-CON, Thomas

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Spear, John Ward

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc

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

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stroyan, John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Tuff, Charles

  Garfit, William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tufnel, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Ure, Alexander

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

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

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

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.(Sheff'd)

  134

  135

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Wyndham-Quin. Major W. H.

  Wallace, Robert

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

  Younger, William

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Field, William

  O'Mara, James

  Ambrose, Robert

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Shee, James John

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hammond, John

  Reddy, M.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Harrington, Timothy

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Blake, Edward

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Russell, T. W.

  Roland, John

  Joyce Michael

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sheehy, David

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Leamy, Edmund

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Burns, John

  Lundon, W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Tomkinson, James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Clancy, John Joseph

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Mooney, John J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Crean, Eugene

  Murphy, John

  Whitley. J. H. (Halifax)

  Cullinan, J.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

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

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

  Delany, William

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the main point which had to be made with respect to this Bill was a most curious one. The Army Act was amended each year by such a Bill as this, but the Act itself was not reprinted, and the result was that it was constantly wrong and could not be found anywhere in a proper form except in the Government Orders and books issued by the War Office, and then it was not per feet At the present moment the latest reprint of the Army Act in any form at all did not contain the Amendments made in it by Army Annual Bills of recent years; but the latest reprint was contained in "The Manual of Military Law" which contained the Amendments which had been made up to the year 1889. Those made since 1889 had not been printed in any Act, and the Amendments it was proposed to make by this
  136
  Bill were not applicable to any printed Act and were therefore utterly unintelligible. By the courtesy of one of the librarians of the House he had a copy of the Manual of Military Law which contained in red ink the Amendments made in recent years, but that did not carry the matter much further, because it did not show where the Amendments went into the text, it being impossible to do so for the reason that in many cases the Amendment altered the lines of the Act as printed. Frequent requests had been made to the Government by Members of the House to have the Army Act reprinted whenever it was changed by Amendments made, and if a promise was given by the right hon. Gentleman that that should be done it would not be necessary to say anything further on the subject. The necessity for it being reprinted was shown by what had taken place in Canada. Sir Frederick Borden, in introducing the new Militia Act of Canada, which consolidated all the military laws of Canada, asserted that that Act, with all the changes that might be made from time to time in this House, was part of the law of Canada, and such a

  137
  suggestion must be news to many Members of the House. Many debates had taken place both in this House and in another place which went to show that the War Office itself had never very carefully followed the law as laid down by the Army Act.
  The Bill now before the House contained, and in some degree amended, the law with regard to Courts of inquiry. Courts-martial, and matters discussed in the House as recently as the previous year. He would not enter into the details of the cases discussed: it would be sufficient to say that the two discussions which took place in another place in regard to the Kinloch case brought to light the extraordinary want of knowledge of the law in all who took part in those discussions. In the Kinloch ease it was assumed that the whole of the provisions of the Army Act were applicable to the proceedings, and the debate in the House of Lords was carried on with hardly a reference to the fact that the provisions of the Act were utterly inadequate to the case and had no bearing on it whatever: that the inquiry was not in fact such an inquiry as was contemplated by the Act. The Courts of inquiry which had attracted the most attention were not under this Act; not, in fact, legal Courts of inquiry at all. Members of both Houses of Parliament who had heard of regulations being amended by these amending Bills year by year, and applied to Courts of inquiry, were naturally under the impression that every military Court of inquiry to which attention had been drawn, was held under those regulations, and when they found there were grave breaches of the law based on Statutes or upon regulations based on Statutes, they naturally jumped to the conclusion that some illegality was being practised, whereas these Courts of inquiry were not constituted under the Army Act at all. There had been frequent discussions as to whether it would be possible to simplify that state of things and to get rid of that alarmed public opinion which was excited by the unfounded belief that in these cases the law had been violated, by having only formal Courts of inquiry—by reducing the proceedings in all such cases to statutory proceedings under these Acts. The difficulties of applying the principles of
  138
  the Army Act to Courts of inquiry in time of war were insuperable. In time of war it was essential for commanding officers to take action quite apart from formal Courts of inquiry which could not be held because of the impossibility of bringing all the witnesses together. It was difficult to say that a commanding officer who was going to take such action should not take such means as he thought proper to inform his own mind as to the action which he was going to take. But as regarded times of peace the late Secretary of State, the present Secretary of State for India, declared to the House in 1901 that it was the desire of the Government to discourage the holding of prerogative Courts of inquiry and it was hoped, said the right hon. Gentleman, in times of peace to hold Courts of inquiry only in the formal manner prescribed by the Act. With regard to the case which he (Sir Charles) had mentioned, the point was that both Houses of Parliament were under the impression that the law had been violated, but what had in fact occurred was that the form of a Court of inquiry had been observed in a proceeding which was not a Court of inquiry at all. The same difficulty which had arisen with regard to military Courts of inquiry had arisen in regard to a matter which it was not in order to discuss on this occasion.
  Considerable difficulty arose in similar cases of Courts-martial relating to the Auxiliary Forces. In time of war, when the Auxiliary Forces were incorporated with the Regular Forces, they were amenable to the military law under the Army Act, but not otherwise. In times of peace the Volunteers were dealt with under a wholly different series of Statutes, their Courts of inquiry being held under the Volunteer Act of 1863. Nevertheless the rules of procedure by which those Courts were regulated were drawn under the Army Annual Acts and largely followed the language of those Acts. It was an extraordinary fact that Volunteer Courts of inquiry appeared to be in the habit of taking evidence on oath without having authority to do so, unless the authority was to be found in the Army Acts. Nor had they power to pronounce sentence, and yet this also had been done. In the correspondence between the persons affected in two such cases and the War Office, it was laid

  139
  down by the Department that the rules of procedure based on the Army Annual Acts were applicable to Volunteer Courts of inquiry, but that idea was not conveyed by the legislation itself. This was a point to which he invited the attention of the Attorney-General, his suggestion being that it was entirely illegal for these Courts to take evidence on oath unless the power was directly given by Statute. He could not help thinking that if they had a Judge Advocate-General in the House—a proposal which he heartily supported—these matters would receive more attention than at present. In a case referred to by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool a lieutenant had been declared by a Volunteer Court of inquiry to have been guilty of insubordination, and he submitted that the Court had no legal power to give such a decision. If it was pretended that such a power existed it could be only under the Army Act, which was not applicable to Volunteers in times of peace when they were not subject to military law.
  The only other subject to which he desired to refer on the present occasion concerned the language of the Bill and of the Amendments for the present year. The proposals with regard to protectorates dealt with a delicate and difficult subject, because there was no general law and no general status of protectorates. No two protectorates were exactly alike. The point he wished to urge was that the words placed in the Bill were directly opposed to those rendered necessary by the Interpretation Act, and that the language of the Statute as altered by the present Bill would conflict with the language of the Interpretation Act. These protectorate cases were extremely difficult, and there was a direct conflict between the highest authorities on the subject. Sir Henry Jenkyns had distinctly stated that a protectorate was not dominion, whereas in the case of the Jameson Raid the jury found that the Bechuanaland Protectorate was a portion of the dominions of the Crown. He suggested that in this Statute it would be wise to follow the language of the Interpretation Act, which was good enough for every other purpose, and ought to be good enough for the War Office in this matter.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEcomplained that there was no copy of the reprint of the Act available to Members later than that authorised by the House in 1893, and as there was only one copy in the library, it was absolutely impossible to make sense of the Amendments proposed by the Secretary of State or to ascertain exactly what the position of the Army Act really was. He hoped the Secretary of State would take steps to remedy that state of things. According to the preamble the Act was brought into force at several different dates. Doubtless when the Act was originally introduced, there was good reason for such an arrangement, but the reason no longer existed, as steamships and the electric telegraph had annihilated distance, and rendered it perfectly possible to bring the Act into force on the same day throughout His Majesty's dominions. He suggested two reasons for the proposed alteration in Clause 5: one was the question of recruiting, and the other was that put forward in the official explanation. It was clear that if the Department had power to transfer men, in lieu of imprisonment, to some other portion of the force, certain recruiting difficulties in some of the corps would be surmounted, but some good reason from a military point of view ought to be given for these compulsory transfers. The proposed changes in Clause 7, on the question of deductions, were doubtless intended to regularise a practice already in existence. Illegal deductions were constantly made, and they were acquiesced in by the officers for disciplinary reasons. On Clause 8 he asked why the Secretary of State proposed to double the amounts which might be stopped from the pay of non-commissioned officers and men for the maintenance of their wives and legitimate children.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that this measure was a very old friend of his. The Army Annual Act was, he believed, first passed in the year 1881. What they intended to do was to renew that Act year by year by a renewing Act. But almost every year since 1881 it had not been a question of renewing the Act and the powers of the Government, but of amending it, and the result was that they had all these Amendments which had

  141
  now to be read into the original Act, and it almost surpassed the power of any ordinary human being to understand the Act, because it was necessary to read some thirteen or fourteen Acts of Parliament in order to get to know the actual state of the law. This was another example of legislation by reference, against which ho had so often protested. It was allusive, illusive, and elusive legislation, and the House was being asked to pass an Act which was absolutely unintelligible. The simple remedy was to let the Army Act be reprinted in full every year, an I then they would have before them some intelligible form of the Act. He asked that the Government should reprint the Army Annual Bill as it stood at present, with an addendum if they so desired; but at any rate let them have the Act in a shape in which they could understand it. Clause 13 imposed a fresh obligation upon keepers of victualling houses, and he wished to know why that was necessary at the present time. They were now required to provide one extra bed, and he wished to know if any addition was going to be made to the sum allowed to them, because they should not be called upon to provide an extra bed for the soldiers for nothing. He did not know why a provision of this sort was necessary when barrack accommodation was very much greater than it had ever been before. The practice of referential legislation was being carried to an undue extent in this Bill.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the alteration now proposed was much larger than usually took place in this Act, and when there was such a large number of alterations he thought the Act ought to be reprinted. At present, great inconvenience was caused to those who had to use the Act, for they had to stick in slips of paper from year to year. This was a very serious matter for all those who had to deal with the Act, and therefore it ought to be reprinted. This year this was especially necessary. He trusted that some explanation in regard to the point raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean would be given, because it seemed to be a very serious drawback and some provision ought to be inserted in order to remedy it. It was always difficult, in dealing
  142
  with the Volunteers, to have such uncertainties existing, and if they remained Volunteer discipline would be Made still worse than it was at the present time. The changes now proposed were not mere details, but considerable alterations. He did not see why such a question as was now provided for should be asked in the case of the forfeiture of the pay of the soldier, and the very reverse was done in the case of officers. In Section 4 the alteration was that the soldier was to be told that he might demand a Court-martial, but in Section 12 certain offences deprived the officer of the right of a Court-martial. It was quite true that as a rule these stoppages had been very often made illegally, but he did not think it improved the case at all to insert a section to make it legal, for they were cases which ought certainly to go before a Court-martial. An officer had a right to demand a Court-martial when a heavy penalty was put upon him. The alteration proposed in Section 12 was a very serious one and ought to be looked into, and more explanation ought to be given beyond the mere fact that officers had been mulcted illegally. He thought that custom ought to be stopped. He did not think Section 7 was necessary, and perhaps they would have some better explanation of it than was given in the note. He did not see that such a provision was necessary at all, for the officer had a right to ask for a Court-martial. It was quite unnecessary to make such an alteration, because officers ought to be tried by a Court for such offences and not by some authority at the War office. The question whether the damage had been done by the negligence of the officer was not one which ought to be decided by an official but by a court. With reference to paragraph 12 he did not see why the schoolmaster was not to be reduced because he did not enlist as a private. In his opinion the schoolmaster ought to be reduced in the same way as other men in the Army and he did not quite see what this section was meant to do. The schoolmaster ought to be treated In the same way, and there ought to be the power of reducing him just the same as in the case of other people who committed offences. He considered the printing of the Act was so serious a matter that they

  143
  ought to insist upon having some definite pledge from the Government upon this point.
  COLONEL WELBYsaid he strongly supported the proposal made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that this Act should be printed. He had tried himself to fit in the Amendments to the Bill this year with those of previous years, but he had entirely failed to understand them. No doubt there were many difficulties about printing the Act. There were so many difficult questions affecting the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Army, contained in the Army Annual Act that before passing Amendments the House ought really to know what they meant. They should also be confident that those who represented the War Office did themselves know what would be the effect of the Amendments. In regard to Clause 4 referred to by the hon. Member for Lichfield, his recollection was that, when he was a commanding officer, whenever a man had his pay forfeited he had the right of appeal to a Court-martial. He did not see why that should not be enforced and made clear by the Amendment now proposed. It seemed to him that the introduction of the Amendment on Clause 7 might possibly lead to great injustice being done to officers in future. He thought the House ought to have full proof of the necessity for this alteration. Those who remembered the Army years ago knew that if there was a nail hole in a wall for which an officer paid 2d., that officer would find the hole still there if he returned to the barracks ten years afterwards and again paid for it. It was a source of permanent income to the barrack master. The tendency now was to have more in a barrack room than bare walls, a coal-scuttle, a table, and two chairs. The rooms were going to be furnished and a charge made. Under the new system of administrative districts and Commanders-in-Chief there might be very heavy charges against officers on account of the furniture from both these authorities. Were these charges to go simply to the Secretary of State for War and was he to have absolute dictum in saying that an officer was to pay whatever was charged
  144
  against him? Was the officer to have no appeal to a statutory Court of inquiry or to a Court-martial? The Amendment would open the door to very great wrong and injustice. The Secretary of State could not be expected to look into every individual case, but surely an officer who was aggrieved ought to have the right of appeal to his own peers. Before this was passed into law they ought to have strong proof that it was necessary. Reference had been made by the hon. Member for King's Lynn to the provisions in regard to a bed for each soldier. He could tell the hon. Member that if it had been his fortune to march as a cavalry soldier through Ireland he would think that the Amendment was very necessary. He had known cases in which three or four men had been compelled to sleep in one bed, and sometimes that bed was a very dirty one. In some instances, the men had preferred to go to the stables and sleep on a little straw rather than occupy the beds which were provided for them. He thought it was absolutely necessary that the officer in command should be able to say that every man who was billeted should have a bed to himself.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he hoped the Secretary of State for War would give some answer to what was brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean. The Secretary of State for War was doubtless aware that there was a very marked difference between an ordinary Court of inquiry, which was really a prerogative Court, and a Court of inquiry under the Statute. What did they find? Invariably a Court of inquiry was held, and he was perfectly certain that nine-tenths of the officers in the Army were not aware that there were two distinct Courts—one a prerogative Court, which was not properly a Court at all, and the other a statutory Court which carried very much greater weight. The Courts of inquiry which took place during the recent war in South Africa were practically not Courts at all. They were Courts held purely on the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief, or other superior officer, for the purpose of gleaning information. He was sure that the Attorney-General would agree

  145
  with him in saving it was of supreme importance that they should know where the law ended and where prerogative began. He suggested that there should be schedules of those matters which should be dealt with by Statute. Those who had served in the Army were aware that there were numerous cases in which it was absolutely necessary for the commanding officer to obtain certain information before he ordered a Court-martial. He was not an advocate for ruling out altogether the prerogative Court-martial, but he thought it ought to be laid down clearly in this Act so that officers might know what their powers were. He asked the Attorney-General to give the House some information as to the Courts of inquiry which had been taking evidence on oath with reference to the Volunteers. It appeared to him that the Courts which had been dispensing justice in connection with the Volunteers had not been acting legally During the war in South Africa the suggestion was frequently made that officers in the Army should be dealt with in precisely the same way as officers in the Navy, namely, that they should have the power under all circumstances of demanding a Court-martial. He thought it would be well to lay down definitely that officers should have that power. As to charges made for barrack damages, he could state that these were very irritating to officers, non-commissioned officers, and men. There was a feeling on the part of private soldiers that they were mulcted in considerable sums which found their way into the pockets of certain officials.
  COLONEL SANDYSsaid it seemed to him that the question of the position of the Courts of inquiry was somewhat imperfectly understood, and the few words he wished to address to the House were founded on personal experience. It should he clearly understood that formerly there were two Courts—a Court of inquiry, and a Court martial. The object and raison d'étre of the Court of inquiry was to ascertain whether or not, in a particular case a Court-martial should be held or not. The general officer commanding directed the Court of inquiry to assemble. But now there had cropped up what was called a statutory
  146
  Court of inquiry, which seemed to be sort of inferior Court-martial. He hoped that under no circumstances would the House consent to the original Court of inquiry being done away with. It could assemble and take evidence in time of war, and he therefore hoped that this prerogative Court would be fully recognised. It was always an understood thing that a Court of inquiry could give no decision in a case before them, but should confine themselves to obtaining evidence. The law, however, was in such a confused state that nobody could understand it.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,)said it had been pointed out by his hon. friend that there was an accumulation of Amendments, but he ventured to trespass on the indulgence of the House by asking it to give consideration to these Amendments, inasmuch as they were likely to lead to the advantage either of the officer or of the soldier. There was no object beyond a benevolent intention contained in the clauses he had submitted as Amendments to the Army Act. The complaint which had been made was quite unfounded as to the form in which the Act was presented to the House and to the Army. He had anticipated the wishes of the House and had made arrangements for a reprint of the Act in its amended form. It would be advisable, he thought, to distinguish, not only the. Amendments which might be passed this year, but in some other way the Amendments made in the Act since the last general reprint had been issued.
  COLONEL WELBYasked whether the clauses affected by these Amendments could be printed before the House went into Committee on the Bill.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he thought the clauses affected by these Amendments could be printed in extenso in the form of an addendum. He might say that as soon as he became aware of the condition in which the law stood he had taken steps to give effect to the intention which all hon. Members had at heart by the amendment of the law which had so important a bearing on

  147
  the liberties of the soldier. The hon. and gallant Member for Bristol had asked, in reference to Clause 5, why there had been a diminution of the period of six months limiting the right of transfer of a soldier from one unit to another. He could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there had been no sinister design imported into that clause by the recruiting department. It was desirable to have that power of transfer, but he was satisfied that it would have to be done with the full assent of the House as a matter of principle. Some attention had been called to the operation of Clause 7, which regularised the existing situation in respect of reduction of officers' pay. The practice was already sanctioned by Royal Warrant, in the interest of officers. Furniture was now supplied for the officers quarters: and it was thought desirable that the power should be exercised under Statute. He really believed the effect of the provision would be for the protection of the officers, but cases might arise where officers would have these questions adjudicated upon without the formality of a Court-martial. A question had been asked in regard to schoolmasters, and as to why a difference was made between classes of schoolmasters. There were two classes of schoolmasters in the Aimy—those who had enlisted as soldiers, and had been promoted as schoolmasters with the rank of warrant officer; and those who had entered the Army as schoolmasters from civil life, and who also held the rank of warrant Officer, In the first place, it had been felt that it was an injustice to the soldier, and was not in the interest of discipline, that one man should be exposed to one set of penalties, and the other to another set of penalties. Thus, they were regularising the situation by putting the two classes on the same footing. Attention had been called to the question of Courts of inquiry. He should like to point out that he did not think there was any ambiguity, as had been suggested, with reference to these Courts of inquiry. The nature of a Court of inquiry was described in Part II. of the Rules of Procedure of the Army. There was laid down quite clearly what the nature of a Court of inquiry was, and
  148
  what were the limits of its prerogatives. It was stated that;—
  "A Court of inquiry is an assembly of officers directed by a commanding officer to collect evidence and report with respect to a transaction into which he cannot conveniently himself make inquiry."
  Such a Court, therefore, had not in strictness any judicial power; it could only collect evidence. It would undoubtedly be a great gain if Courts of this kind were not to express opinions affecting the character of officers, but should confine themselves to matters of fact; and he hoped there would be no ground in future for the complaint that these Courts exceeded their powers. The hon. Member opposite had referred to the last clause of the Amendment dealing with the day on which they would come into force. It was a most reasonable suggestion that the Act should come into force everywhere, if possible, at the same time. He would not give a pledge on the subject until he had obtained an expression of opinion on the matter. It was necessary, however, that there should be an interval between the date of the passing of the Act and its being put into operation here, and, say, its promulgation in such distant places as Hong-Kong. He would make inquiry as to whether the period could not be shortened in view of the better means of communication which prevailed since the Act was originally introduced.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he had asked a specific Question in regard to Volunteer Courts of inquiry.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was aware of the case to which the right hon. Baronet referred. He understood that these Courts of inquiry had proceeded as if they were constituted under the Army Act. That was not the fact. They had no power to administer an oath or pronounce a sentence. He could understand that if an endeavour had been made to administer an oath to any person coming before a Court conducted by a Volunteer officer without the sanction and approval of the War Office, that person might refuse to take the oath, and there was no power to compel him to take it. There was no suggestion that those Volunteer officers who sat on a Court of inquiry had exceeded their powers, or had done any

  149
  injustice during the course of the proceedings. It was not competent for him to review the decisions of a Court of inquiry which had been held under the sanction of the War Office: On the real signification of taking an oath in giving evidence at these inquiries he would suggest that the question should be raised in Committee, when he would give further information.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he doubted whether he should be in order in raising the question in Committee, but he would place the letter to which he had referred in the hands of the War Office, and perhaps the Attorney-General would give an opinion.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he would deal with the letter. The point appeared to be this. It was necessary to conduct these Volunteer inquiries according to some procedure, and the procedure which had recommended itself to the officers was that which obtained in the Army.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Volunteer Courts had assumed that they had power to administer the oath, but they acted contrary to the Statute.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he would not carry the matter further at that stage, and he trusted that the House would now pass the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he was surprised that the Attorney-General had not responded to the definite request made to him by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. He did not understand why the reply should be postponed. Were those proceedings regular or irregular; were they legal or illegal?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said it would be better to have the specific circumstances inquired into before giving an opinion in regard to them. Undoubtedly the power to administer an oath must be legalised by Statute. He understood that at these Courts of inquiry no sentence was pronounced. Of
  150
  course, if a sentence were pronounced it would be a different matter altogether. As he understood the case, the Court of inquiry found that a particular officer had been guilty of a reprehensible offence, but there was no question of pronouncing sentence.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he was obliged to the learned Attorney-General for the indirect reply he had given, but it did not proceed far enough. Was, or was not, the taking of the oath at those inquiries legal? The learned Attorney-General did not indicate any statute legalising that procedure. It was a more serious matter than the Government appeared to imagine, and he was surprised that the War Office had allowed the uncertainty to continue.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid there was no question of sentence resulting; simply a report was made to the War Office which was the executive authority in the matter.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that the Attorney-General might be technically correct, but the report of the Court was an indirect sentence in itself, because on it was based the sentence which was ultimately passed by the War Office. He thought the time had arrived when some directions should be given as to how such inquiries should be conducted. A very serious case had come under his personal notice, and it was surely due to the Volunteers that they should know exactly where they stood in regard to this matter. The Secretary of State for War stated that a witness had the option of being examined on oath or not. What would be the position of the witness who objected to be sworn? He might be a very important witness, but if not sworn, his evidence would be regarded as absolutely without value. Therefore, the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was not one to which any importance could be attached, because it would be impossible to carry it into effect. The right hon. Gentleman stated only the other day, in reply to a Question, that three Volunteer commanding officers had found Lieutenant Green guilty, of insubordination, that the military authorities had called upon him to resign, and that, he refusing,

  151
  steps were taken for his removal. Practically the Court asked him to resign. It appeared to him that before the Bill passed its Second Reading the House ought to have from the Attorney-General, or some representative of the War Office, a definite declaration as to how the law stood in regard to those inquiries. It was a farce and an absurdity that the oath should be administered without any legal authority. It was now practically admitted that the inquiries were conducted in an irregular manner.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

EVENING SITTING.

  LAND JUDGE'S COURT (IRELAND).
  MR. MURPHY MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.) moved, "To call attention to the procedure of the Land judge's Court in Ireland, the delay consequent thereon, the causes to which such delay is due, the hardships to tenants, encumbrancers, and landlords arising therefrom; and to move, 'That the time has arrived for taking immediate steps to wind up the business of the Land Judge's Court in Ireland in the interests of all concerned.'"
  He said recesses came and went, perhaps too quickly for them all, sessions might conclude, and Parliaments might end, but the Irish question, in one phase or another, would go on as long as the administration in Ireland in all departments was defective and bad, and the people were deprived of the management of their own affairs. To-night they were back again to Ireland and Irish land once more. The fortunes of the ballot had given him the opportunity of opening a debate on the Land Judge's Court in Ireland. It was a subject of vast importance from all points of view, and he regretted very much that the discussion on it should rest with him. He was, however, consoled by the fact that an arrangement had been made whereby his Motion would be seconded by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and he felt sure that any defects of statement on his own part would be fully made up by
  152
  others. They asked to-night that immediate steps should be taken to wind up the business of the Land Judge's Court in Ireland, and proof after proof would be given of the reasonable nature of the demand. They could show that in constitution and in procedure the Court was a failure, and that a radical treatment was required to cure the diseases from which it suffered. Unfortunately the Rules of the House make it impossible to discuss the conduct of the Judge who presided over the Court, and in Parliament it appeared one could not use disrespectful language of a Judge of the High Court. Well, he would meet the case as far as it was possible by refusing to speak of him or his methods in respectful language, and leave the blank spaces to be filled in by the experience or knowledge of hon. Members.
  What was the Land Judge's Court in Ireland? It was necessary to tell the House of Commons because it was a Court that had no equal nor even a comparison in any other land. If a Commission were appointed for the translation of valuable documents from the ancient Irish into the Saxon tongue, and the Speaker of the House of Commons were constituted the ruling authority on the ground that on a few occasions he listened to efforts to make speeches in Irish in this House, the appointment would be as reasonable as that on which an Irish Land Judge was appointed. And the duties would be performed as efficiently in the one case as they were in the other. The Committee to inquire into the matter found that the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act of 1870 were destroyed by this Court. The right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Montrose Burghs, a former Chief Secretary, in referring to the state of business in the Court, declared it to be—
  "A great and recognised scandal."
  How far these expressions were justified the debate would show. The Court practically had its origin in 1848 as the Encumbered Estates Court. Irish landlords to a large extent first plundered and then encumbered their properties. Legal ingenuity invented the Court, and, as a result of its work, in ten years £23,000,000 worth of property changed hands. It did not always

  153
  change hands for the benefit of the people, as could be learned from the records of the estate purchased by the notorious John George Adair and other land speculators. In 1858 an Act was passed constituting the "Landed Estates Court" and it was entitled "An Act to facilitate the sale and transfer of land in Ireland." But instead of endeavouring to carry out the policy of the Act the Court grew into what had been truly described as "a huge rent office." According to the Act, particulars had to be furnished to Parliament of the estates in Court, but the duty was irksome and inconvenient and was soon evaded. The Court had power to make rules as to returns and other matters and they soon ruled out the returns. It would not do to let the public too much into the knowledge of the dark ways and means of the place which, in their way, were as peculiar as those of a certain person of whom they had heard much in recent days. The result was that they were all in the dark to a large extent as to the full amount of the property in Court, but from certain official statements it would appear to include rentals amounting at all events to seven hundred thousands pounds a year, or a fifth of the land of Ireland. If they asked the Chief Secretary for particulars, he replied that the trouble would be too great to procure them. If they asked the Attorney-General of course he said the same. He never did anything. But it showed how little the answers supplied were to be relied on when the officials of the Court in a claim circulated this morning in reference to their positions stated definitely that though up to 1889—
  "The whole department was in a state of chaos."
  they were soon after able to make out—
  "Complete lists of the estates under the Court and also of the Receivers alphabetically arranged.'
  By the Judicature Act and sundry other changes Judge Ross found himself at the head of a State Kent Collecting Department with the status of a Judge of the High Court. He could send a man to prison for an unlimited period if he spoke of any of his estates in what he considered an improper manner. His information upon matters was gained
  154
  from Receivers like Mr. George Hewson of Leitrim—who was publicly charged with making a false statement in an affidavit by the hon. Member for North Leitrim, and who took no action about it—or me I whose knowledge of land seemed to consist in their ability to buy horses from the farmers for £7 and sell them to the War Office for £30 for service in South Africa. The learned Judge did send people to prison under his powers for the reasons stated. Sometimes it was a poor peasant and sometimes a Member of Parliament. The formula was that the contempt must be purged by an apology and a promise not to offend again. The hon. Member for North Leitrim was sent to prison for putting something into his newspaper about an estate, and he was to be kept there until he apologised. He would not apologise, however, and they were still waiting an explanation as to why he was released. But the game went on in practically the same old way. Hundreds of Receivers who could never earn anything other occupation took fees amounting, he was told, to £100,000 a year. Hordes of solicitors pocketed law costs, and one section and ail combined to bless the machinery of the Court, and to destroy the hopes of tenants' encumbrancers and landlords over whom they were placed.
  There was an Act passed in 1896 which contained what was called the 40th Section. It was a section to apply the principle of compulsory sale to estates in the Court. The whole procedure of the Court tended to make it inoperative, and wherever possible it was evaded. Take the case of the Herbert Estate in the county of Kerry. It was an estate where the 40th Section applied, but so much concealment of the facts took place that even the tenants' solicitor never suspected it and thought the sale was a voluntary one until the bargain was completed, in consequence of which the tenants' interests suffered. Take the case of the Rae Estate in the same county. The section applied there also, but the Church Body were the encumbrancers. Instead of being sold to the tenants it was allowed to be taken out of Court and the Receiver under the Court appointed Receiver to the estate and the tenants defrauded of purchase. The harm of such a proceeding

  155
  needed an illustration. He would give one. There were two estates under the Court near the famous Gap of Dunloe. The section applied, and, according to the spirit of the Act, they should both be sold to the tenants at a price to be fixed by the Land Commission. But the landlords were allowed to negotiate direct with the tenants without any help from the State who were to provide the money. It was clear both estates were of a similar character. Yet in the case of John Mahony the prices paid ranged from ten to seventeen years purchase, while in the case of The Macgillycuddy the price was eighteen years all round, and some of the tenants against whom the landlord had some feeling had not been allowed to purchase at all. These statements could not be controverted, and surety they constituted a public scandal. But there was worse in the cases of the two last mentioned estates. The Chief Secretary's Land Act of 1903 loomed on the horizon after The Macgillycuddy tenants had signed their agreements, and before the Mahony tenants had done so. An encumbered landlord would grasp at anything, and, of course, they both grasped at the bonus provided in the Act. Both landlords tried to argue the tenants into delay. In the case of Mr. Mahony the tenants fortunately had an able adviser in Mr. Moriarty, solicitor, Killarney, and he arranged that the tenants would await the Act if the landlord signed a written agreement to allow the prices to remain the same. After considerable pressure he consented to do so, the result being that the tenants had their land at the old price, the landlord took £2,000 of a bonus, and the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent could credit the Land Judge's Court with the loss to the taxpayer in which he was so much interested. The Macgillycuddy was not in the same position to get agreements under the new Act, but everything had been delayed without reason in his sale, and he (the speaker) was told he was going about amongst the tenants offering them half the bonus if they would sign new agreements to enable him to get the other half. Then there was the McCartie Estate near Killarney, where the most ridiculous objections had been allowed to delay a sale for years, and the Duggan Estate, where there was no
  156
  owner in existence, or, worst of all, the Harte Estate where years ago an order for sale was made, and one of the owners, a Mr. Fitzgerald, then allowed to enter into negotiations with the tenants for purchase. Whatever manipulation or humbugging was going on he was still negotiating and the tenants had got no nearer to purchase. And all this kind of thing went on under "An Act to facilitate the sale of land," the Judge of which had to swear on taking office that he "would duly and faithfully, and to the best of his skill and power, execute the office of Judge of the Landed Estates' Court in Ireland."' If his power could not cope with such matters then it ought to be strengthened; if the policy of the Acts under which he acted was not plain then it ought to be made so.
  According to the Land Commission Return in eight years only £1,058,053 worth of property had been sold under the 40th Section of the Act of 1896. In a period hardly longer £23,000,000 passed through the Encumbered Estates Court. What was the cause of the difference and delay? The Chief Secretary told them in 1901 that Judge Ross had shown great energy, and that he was not there to protect the landlord or the tenant but the creditors. Judge Ross himself told them he was not there to consider what would be for the benefit of the tenant, but what would be for the benefit of the estate, and though after the passage of the Land Act of 1903 he declared his conscience would not allow him to deprive the tenants of the benefits of it, still they found the price of land going up in his Court, and tenants penalised, as in Wexford, because the sea depreciated the value of their lands. He would tell the Chief Secretary where all these proceedings were leading to. To the hardship of the individual tenant and the loss of the nation. The notorious Warden Estate was allowed to be put-chased in that Court by a land speculator ten years ago for ten years purchase. The whole place was a congested district; still without an effort by the Congested Districts Board, without any strong hand to help them, these unfortunate tenants had been forced into bargains under the 1903 Act at prices ranging from

  157
  twenty-one to twenty-five years purchase. How could peace and prosperity return to the country if such things continued? This Court had become disproportioned and its weight would ruin all below. How could land purchase proceed if 40,000 tenants were held up in a vice. Was not this Court clogged? Was not its machinery cumbrous and slow? What was going to be done to clear it, and how did the Chief Secretary propose to do it? Let him give an honest answer and not one obtained from the officials, but one founded on the facts. Judge Ross himself was the brother of a landlord near Derry. His retinue of Receivers and solicitors were dependent on his Court for a living. Their opinions on the matter should be cast aside, and a clear, definite, and speedy remedy applied. Here surely was a problem under their noses that could be dealt with by methods in their hands. He could not say that he was hopeful of the result as far as the right hon. Gentleman was concerned. Many of his recent appointments in Ireland and much of his policy gave no reason for hope. He might want to know what the Irish Members proposed to do with Judge Ross and his Court, but it was not for them to say. So long as he undertook the government of Ireland the duty of reform was his. He might, if he desired, make Judge Ross Provost of Trinity College, and relegate or elevate Dr. Traill to the chair of a Commission to inquire into the means of protection necessary in the cases of "poor fellows who might be sentenced to be hung." But at all events let him tell them fully to-night how far he proposed to remedy a condition of things that was a disgrace in every respect and ought to be at once changed in the interests of Ireland.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLseconded the Resolution. He confessed that in doing so the principal difficulty he felt was in the absence of the jury. [IRISH cheers, and a MEMBER: That is not unusual.] An admirable case, one which he believed would carry conviction to any jury if they had an opportunity of addressing it, had been put; but the misfortune of this, and every Irish case, was that it would not be heard by the jury which
  158
  would give the verdict. Somewhere about midnight they would see troops of hon. Members coming into the House and gaily voting down one of the best cases that could be put by any Party, voting to keep up one of the greatest anomalies that existed even in Ireland. He was not going to tell the House what he thought of the Land Judge's Court. He was going to give a judicial word picture of the institution by a gentleman whose authority would not be questioned by the Chief Secretary or the learned Attorney-General, or anybody connected with Ireland. He referred to Mr. Justice Bewley, once the judicial member of the Irish Land Commission. Now in giving judgment in the Harkness case Mr. Justice Bewley said: "The Land Judge's Court, instead of being a Court for the sale of estates, had become a gigantic rent office. Receivers were appointed for encumbered estates, and, as a matter of fact, elaborate and expensive preparations were made for a sale which every person knew would never take place. When estates were put up for auction there were no bidders and the sales were adjourned sine die. The occupying tenants were the only persons likely to purchase and never received adequate notice. The Receivers and solicitors, having the charge of the proceedings, had a direct personal interest in letting things remain as they were." He wished to let the House see what a great judicial personage thought of this, one of the chief Irish institutions. What would be the Chief Secretary's reply? He thought he was in a position to anticipate it. The right hon. Gentleman would probably say that Mr. Justice Bewley spoke in 1897, and that he was quite right. But he would say that since that time great improvements and progress had been made. He would say that the rental of the Court, then about £700,000 a year, had been reduced by one-half, that the cases in the Court had been greatly diminished, that a large amount of property had been sold, and that the Land Judge was pushing things as fast as he could. Everyone knew, although procedure was very slow, that a great many estates or properties had been sold under the 40th Section of the Act of 1896; but the House should remember that it was the pressure of

  159
  Irish Members that really impelled the Government to deal with this Court in that Act. He was in a position to give a curious piece of evidence in regard to this. Irish Members would recollect that in 1894 he moved for what was called the Morley Committee, and when the order of reference was being prepared it included the right to examine into the procedure of the Land Judges' Court. The Ulster Unionist Members—he meant the official Members, the Gentlemen who were in revolt, who were conspicuous by their absence when an Irish matter of the utmost importance was before it—protested against the Land Judge's Court being inquired into by the Committee or by any other body; and he actually had to leave that out of the order of reference and to consent to take the Committee without this Court being inquired into. The ringleader of that Party was now a Judge in Ireland
  MR SWIFT MACNEILL: Who was it—Ross?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he had stated the fact; and he was not to be drawn any further. They were thwarted in their efforts to get information about this Court before the Committee presided over by the Member for Montrose. Had they been any more successful in any other effort they had made? They had asked to be privy to what had been done under various Acts of Parliament. What had been the reply? The reply had been made that the Land Judge's Court was pressed with work and had no time to give elaborate returns. This was the answer given the other day by the Chief Secretary in perfect good faith, and yet the previous day the Treasury was dismissing clerks from this department because they had no work for them to do. If they were ignorant as to the progress being made in this court it was not because they had not asked for information; it was because they had been refused that information. They had had no returns of the proceedings in the Court under the Act, and they were perfectly in the dark. They therefore asked the Chief Secretary to tell them the facts and what he was going to do in relation to them.
  There was another thing which had probably helped the Chief Secretary to
  160
  make out the case he would make to-night. Since the Act of 1903 a State bonus had been given to the sellers of landed property in Ireland, and there had been a very remarkable movement in the Court. The owners of estates had been very desirous of getting out of the Court, not that they might sell them to the tenants,—when that was the only object to gain they were not in a hurry—but in order to collar the bonus outside. Undoubtedly, if the Court had been depleted of estates, and if the rental coming into the Court had now been largely reduced, it had been because of the hurry of these landlords, who thought their estates were solvent, to get them sold outside and get the bonus they would not get if they remained in the Court. But if the estates were solvent, what right had they to be in the Court at all? Did the Chief Secretary know all the State got for m managing these estates? Did the two right hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Bench know that there had been hundreds of these estates managed at the public expense? The Attorney-General shook his head. Let him wait. All that the State got was the stamp duty on the Receiver's accounts. This was all, and it did not keep up the Land Judge's Court. The person who paid the rest for managing perfectly solvent estates in many cases was the general taxpayer. Why should these solvent estates be in the Court at all? It was a Court for the sale of bankrupt estates, and the House had no right to allow this thing to go on any longer. If the estates were solvent, let them be taken out and let the nominal owners manage them for themselves at their own charge. What kept the insolvent estates, which he knew were the great majority, there? Why were they not sold? The Court was established to sell them. They had been there fifty, forty, thirty, twenty, and ten years. The nominal owner had now no interest in them; he had long ceased to be a factor in the question at all; it did not matter to him in most cases what became of the estates. The encumbrancers cared very nearly as little, because they knew perfectly well most of them would never get a farthing out of them. Who were the people who really cared about keeping them there? First

  161
  of all, there was the army of Receivers, who were mainly land agents. They received a commission for collecting these rents, and of course they had an interest in keeping the estates in Court, because the moment they were sold, whether they were solvent or insolvent, the commission ceased, and their occupation was gone. This was clear enough; human nature was human nature even in the breast of an Irish Receiver. Who else had an interest in keeping them there? The great army of solicitors and barristers. They had a vital interest in keeping these estates in the Court. Could anyone tell him another man who had an interest in keeping the estates in the Court? Apart from these Receivers, solicitors, and barristers who made a living out of keeping them in the Court, there was not a man whose interest was not to get them out.
  What was the excuse for delay? First the title, which did great service. There was the Gault Estate in the county of Tyrone. The Chief Secretary told him the other day the reason why that estate was not sold was because of a defect in title. He was convinced that there was no defect in title and that the Chief Secretary had been misled and misinformed. If title could not be proved in twelve or twenty years, was there the slightest chance that it would ever be proved on this side of the grave? It was all nonsense. What was the use of bringing up as an excuse that the title was defective and could not be proved after estates had been in the Court for twelve years. Let them make a new title, just as the Parliament of 1847 did; let them give the tenant purchasing an indefeasible title over every comer, and the Court would be cleared. What was the second cause of delay? Why, it was one of the most absurd things that could be imagined. He had heard more than half-a-dozen Chief Secretaries explain the delay with excuses about turf and boundary, and one thing or another of that kind. Of course, they got these excuses put on their lips; they were the official mouthpieces of the Land Judge's Court. They had no inspector belonging to the whole department; they had not a man they could send down to examine into the turf or boundaries or anything else.
  162
  Who settled these disputes? Why, the solicitors and Receivers. Outside Bedlam anything like that had never been heard. The fraud ought not to be persisted in for another hour. Ha would be told that there was no money to pay an inspector, but he could prove that since the passing of the Land Act of 1903 two gentlemen to whom was paid £3,000 a year had not had a hand's turn to do. Why should not Mr. Stanilaus Lynch and Mr. Murrough O'Brien be put to this work? If there was a will a way would be found, but there was no will or way in the Land Judge's Court for the settlement of these matters, and there never would be until Government took the whole question in hand.
  When the Land Act was passed Trinity College received out of the Irish Development Grant £5,000 a year. The view of the Government was that they would meet with great loss in the sale of their estates, and as this was a great educational establishment it ought not to suffer by any legislation. None of the Irish Members liked it. But there was a common idea among Irish landlords that they ought to get the full price for their land plus the State bonus. But the bonus was granted in order to bridge the difference between the need of the landlord and the capacity of the tenant. It was never intended that the landlords should ask the highest price for the land and get a present of three years purchase from the State in addition. There had been cases in the Land Judge's Court in which Trinity College was greatly interested. One was that of a county Donegal case in which Trinity College was the owner of the head rent. The tenants had offered twenty-two years purchase of the second-term rents, and eighteen and a half years purchase of the non-judicial rents, the total purchase money offered being £42,300. Trinity College had a head rent of £1,788, and required twenty-rive years purchase, or £44,705. Hence the terms were not agreed to. What was Trinity College given the £5,000 a year for if she was to demand these monstrous prices? There was also the Mansfield case in county Tyrone. An absolute order for sale was made and concluded with the tenants at seventeen years purchase in 1898. Nothing resulted. In June, 1899, Mr.

  163
  Barton, an Ulster land agent, applied for and got £77 for costs of negotiating the sale at the rate of 1 per cent. on the purchase money, and the sale was treated by the Court as a concluded transaction. Again nothing resulted. A new receiver was appointed and in February, 1900, the Land Judge ruled that there should be no further delay, but from that time to 11th January, 1904, nothing had been done. The moment, however, that the Land Act was passed they came into Court and asked for a settlement. The sale at seventeen years purchase went for nothing, and they demanded terms under the new Act. The case of the Massereene and Deane Estate was equally remarkable. In April, 1891, an absolute order for sale was made, but from 1891 to 1897, notwithstanding that order, there never was any real attempt to sell the property, though the encumbrancer pressed for the sale. On 15th July, 1897, the encumbrancer brought the solicitor before the Land Judge and charged him with the delay. No rule was made on that motion. In December, 1899, the solicitor was again brought up for delay, and an order was made that unless £5,000 was paid before February, 1900, the solicitor would be discharged. In April, 1900, the carriage of sale was tranferred to another solicitor. In March, 1902, the offer of the tenant was accepted and the money was to be advanced b the Land Commission. In December, 1902, the Land Commission declared the sale off unless completed at once. Ultimately, the solicitors who had caused the delay made a motion to the Judge that their costs should have priority over the £5,000 due to the man who had lent the money. Although this had been going on since 1891, not a penny had been paid. The estate was solvent when it went into Court; NOW it was bankrupt. There was also the case of the, Macfarlane Estate in county Tyrone. It entered the Court in 1881, when Mr. Gladstone's great Land Act was passed. Within the last two or three years the tenants offered eighteen years purchase for the whole estate and the Court agreed to accept it. A lady became the tenant of the sporting rights, and the whole sale of the property to a wretchedly poor tenantry living upon bits of bog had broken down because of the sale or letting to this lady. He was
  164
  sorry to say that the lady was the wife of the Land Judge. It was unbearable that a case like, that should come before the Land Judge for his sanction. He demanded that the Chief Secretary should tell them to-night what was really to be done about these Cases. It was only fair to say, however, that Mr. Justice Ross did not sit when this particular case came up, his place being taken by Mr. Justice Meredith.
  The last point to which he would refer was the position of the clerks in the Land Judge's Court. They entered the service fifteen or sixteen years ago; they were not civil servants they had brought the office out of a condition of chaos and confusion; and now, because the work had decreased, they were being discharged and thrown on the world. They had no legal claim on the Government, but he suggested that as the Estates Commissioner's work was increasing and more assistance would be required in that department, instead of fresh and untrained clerks being engaged these men should be given the preference. In conclusion he appealed to the Chief Secretary to face this work, and not to be fooled as previous Chief Secretaries had been fooled by the officials of this Court. The work could be done, the Court cleared, and the estates sold, only by some one in the Chief Secretary's position grasping the nettle boldly, telling all concerned that the Court was established to sell estates, not to keep them in Court, and that no matter whose interests were concerned, sold they must be. He begged to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the time has arrived for taking immediate steps to wind up the business of the Land Judge's Court in Ireland in the interests of all concerned."—(Mr. Murphy.)
  MR. FFRENCHsaid he was very glad that his hon. friend the Member for East Kerry was successful in the ballot, and that he had brought forward this Motion, because the Land Judge's Court was such a perfect scandal that the oftener public opinion was brought to bear on it through the medium of this House, the better. On the Thames Embankment there stood a thing

  165
  called Cleopatra's Needle. Some people claimed for it that it was made 1,500 years before the Christian Era. He thought he might venture to claim for it that it was, perhaps, less clumsy to work the finest embroidery than the Land Judge's Court in Ireland was to sell the encumbered estates. This Court, as the House was aware, was presided over by Mr. Justice Ross, and if he were the best Irishman that ever lived, conscientiously striving to sell the encumbered estates for the benefit of both landlord and tenant, he could not make satisfactory progress, because he was hampered and impeded by a system that was invented many years ago when the Encumbered Estates Court Act was passed; and the rules thereunder were arranged, not to facilitate sales, but for keeping estates in Court, and now the whole thing had grown to be a huge rent-collecting machine. This Court was established in 1819 under an Act of Parliament called "An Act to further and facilitate the sales of estates in Ireland." It did not work very well, however, and to hasten matters, the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act was passed in 1858, and a permanent Court created for the sale and transfer of land. A set of complicated rules were made under that Act which were long ago out of date. Practically each case had to be started by a petition for sale; then there was an order for sale made; then a notice was served on all the tenants and a map was made; then the abstract of title came on and the tenants' objections, and then the rental was finally finished. Every opportunity was given to tenants and adjoining owners and their tenants to make any objection or claim they thought well of. An outsider was then the purchaser, and naturally enough he wished to know exactly what he was getting for his money. The purchaser was now the tenant, who knew exactly what he was buying, consequently the rules were behind the times. They had an energetic solicitor in Wexford who had sold over £750,000 worth of property, acting as tenants' solicitor. This was how it was done: A Wexford engineer was sent down to make a map. The landlord's solicitor drew the agreements up, the tenants' solicitor got them signed and the sale was finished in six weeks,
  166
  and this might include about 100 tenants. If such an estate were put into Court for sale, the order for sale would not be made for six months; the maps and rental, which the Wexford engineer finished in a week, would take six months more, perhaps six years, and then the proceedings in Court would take so long, before it would finally come on for auction or sale before the Land Judge, that half the tenants would have died, which would mean that the rental should be amended, and this would probably take a few months or years more. This was exactly what occurred on Lord Keane's estate, which was in his own constituency. It took two years to correct the mistakes made in the rental six years previous.
  Now even if the Land Judge had not such a system to contend with, his progress must necessarily be slow, because there was more work cut out for him than any man could do. This was what usually happened in the Land Judge's Court. One day each week was fixed for hearing cases under the 40th Section of the Land Act of 1896 and the 7th Section of the Land Act of 1903. During the other five days of the week, the time of the Court was taken up with motions dealing with disputes between mortgagees about their property, disputes between tenants about a right of way, a boundary or a fence, or turbary rights, disputes about some small charge on the property; applications to get a rent temporarily reduced, and small matters of that kind. There were usually two or three counsellors on each side, and as if five days in the week were not enough for these disputes, they were frequently carried into the sixth, whilst an estate where eighty or 100 tenants were concerned was rushed through in half an hour and as a rule nobody was examined, or only the Receiver of the estate, although according to the 10th Section, each and every one of the tenants had a right to be heard in reference to the price the Land Fudge was going to fix; but it was not even pretended that the tenants should get a fair hearing. Again, sales were blocked by certain powers that were in possession of the Land Judge which enabled him to demand a higher price for the estate than the price fixed by the experts of the Land Commission. The price was fixed after examination and inspection by the experts, and

  167
  the Land Commission was prepared to advance the highest penny that the estate was security for, but Mr. Justice Ross virtually said—"What do I care about you or your price. You may be experts, you may know the value of land, but I have certain powers conferred upon me by the British Government, and I mean to exercise these powers, although I know nothing at all about land. I can demand whatever price I like for that estate. I want four years purchase more for that estate than your price, and except you give it there will be no sale." That was exactly what happened on the King Estate in his constituency. It had been in Court for some years. After the usual delays an agreement was arrived at between landlord and tenant, the price agreed to was eighteen years purchase, and this agreement was signed by the tenants and sanctioned by the Land Judge. A surveyor was sent down to survey the estate, and he did it in a most extraordinary manner. In some cases according to him the farmers had exchanged holdings, in other cases he gave a part of one tenant's farm to another, and in one or two cases he put two farms and a part of another into one, so that when the estate again came before Mr. Justice Ross there was nothing to be done only postpone the sale. But Mr. Justice Ross stated in the open Court that as the tenants were in no way to blame they should not suffer by the postponement. In the meantime the Land Act of 1903 was passed, and then the landlord demanded twenty-two years purchase. Did Mr. Justice Ross keep his promise? No, but he told the tenants they should amend their offer, and as they had now cheaper money to buy with, he would very soon fix the price for them, if they did not make a more reasonable offer to the landlord. Was that justice? If he agreed to pay a certain price for a thing to-day, was the bargain to be broken and must he pay more for it to-morrow because there was a reduction in the interest of money? Everything in connection with the Land Judge's Court seemed to be out of joint.
  Another cause of expense, inconvenience, and delay, was that two Courts, separated from each other by about a mile, did identically the same class of work, and both, at the same time, dealt
  168
  with the same estate, with messengers constantly going to and fro. Mr. Justice Ross was in the Four Courts, while the Land Commission Court was in Merrion Street about a mile away. Why could not the Land Commission sit in the Four Courts alongside the Land Judge's Court? The question arose, Did those gentlemen in the Land Judge's Court want to sell the encumbered estates? Many people were of opinion that they did not, because the more estates that were sold the less rosy would be the prospect of fat salaries with little to do. In this Court there was a gentleman called an examiner. What he examined or whom he examined it was not quite clear, as sales were very slow; but one thing was perfectly clear, and that was the salary paid to him was £2,000 a year. The Receivers were paid another £2,000 between them every year for doing lit the or nothing. The officers in the Land Judge's Court, and there was a large number of them, were all well paid with little to do. The solicitors on each estate, when all counted up, sometimes numbered fifteen or twenty on a single estate. And how were all those gentlemen that he had referred to paid? They were all paid out of the estates, and consequently they did not want sales. He would give the House an instance of how these gentlemen sold estates. In his constituency there was an estate called the Richards Estate, which was placed in Court some twenty-seven years ago. V list of rentals was prepared and it took ten years to prepare it. A list of rentals, as many hon. Gentlemen were aware, was a very simple document It contained merely the names of the tenants, the name of the townland, barony, and county in which each one lived, the number of acres he held, the rent he paid, the gale days, and the nature of the tenancy. Any ordinary intelligent man could make out a list of rentals for, say, a hundred tenants in about a fortnight. But it took ten years to make out this one. Then fifteen years more passed by and nothing was done by the Land Judge except listening to endless disputes between the lawyers, and after twenty-five years the estate was just as near being sold as at the commencement, and it would not have been sold yet only the tenants' solicitor hauled it out of Court. The sale realised £10,000. The cost was £2,000.

  169
  This was divided between the do-nothings of the Land Judge's Court, and they would have had more out of it only for the tenants' solicitor who effected the sale, and who felt himself happy to get a £50 note out of it. The very same thing occurred on the Edwards Estate, the Howlin Estate, and Lord Keane's Estate, all in his constituency. They were in Court for twenty or twenty-five years, and would be there still only the tenants' solicitor hauled them out of Court.
  It was very strange that although it might take many years to sell an estate, in Court, it could be sold in as many weeks outside. Suppose some merchants in London who did business by telegram and cablegram and wireless telegraphy, and who dashed through the streets in motor-cars, always making the most of their time, were told that it took over twenty-five years to sell a little estate in Ireland, that it took ten years to prepare a list of rentals giving occupation to half a dozen solicitors, eight or ten officers in the Land Judge's Court, presided over by the Land Judge himself, that fifteen years more passed by, the band Judge listening to the endless disputes of the lawyers, without making any progress, and that after twenty-five, years, when the estate came really to be sold, it was found that a new list of rentals had to be prepared, that the old one was useless, because the tenants were all dead except two, who were more or less immortal. What would the merchants say I Surely, Sir, they would say that those people employed in the Land Judge's Court should not be allowed to live in a civilised country, but that they should be deported to Central Africa or Arabia, where men are not much encumbered with clothes, and he was very much afraid they would insist that one or two right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, who made ingenious excuses for them, should go with them to show how the agony was being piled on in other directions. On the Colclogh Estate, which was also in his constituency, there was going to be a labourers' cottage put on a farm. Mr. Norris Goddard, a solicitor from Dublin, a valuer, and Mr. Doolan, the agent, attended in state to oppose the cottage which was passed, and they charged the estate ten guineas each, or over £30. Besides this every tenant who
  170
  went into Court, numbering about 100, Mr. Norris Goddard appealed against. This brought himself and the valuer six guineas a case, or a total of £630. Doubtless Mr. Doolan, the Receiver, got a slice also. Did these people want the estate to be sold? Would anybody belonging to this estate bring on a sale except compelled by the band Judge or by statute? Certainly not. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had made a bold effort to settle the Irish Land question, but he would find that satisfactory progress could not be made except he took the Land Judge's Court in hand, and reformed it, because it was the greatest obstacle to the sale and transfer of land although it was established to sell estates.
  He would respectfully submit the following reforms for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration—First, that the Return he moved for, a few days before the Easter recess, be granted; second, that the rules of the Land Judge's Court be recast; third, that one of those Irish Judges who were constantly being presented with white gloves be appointed to adjudicate on those minor matters that he had referred to and allow Mr. Justice Ross to apply himself to the 40th Section of the Land Act of 1896, and the 7th Section of the Land Act of 1903; also that more examiners be appointed; fourth, that Mr. Justice Ross be deprived of that power which enabled him to block the sale of estates by demanding a higher price for them than their value; fifth, that the Land Judge's Court and the Land Commission Court should be brought into close proximity to each other; and sixth, that all those gentlemen employed in the Land Judge's Court should be paid by the job, and that they should not get a single penny out of an estate until it was sold. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary promised immediately before Easter that ho would see if some such Return as he moved for could be made out. This was the only bit of consolation they had ever got regarding this Return. He moved for it once or twice before, and he alluded to it in a little speech which he made in the House about three years ago. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone also moved for a like Return twice or three times. They were always told that the labours of making

  171
  out such a Return would be gigantic, and that the benefits would be nil, and consequently the Return could not be granted. Would it be difficult to put down on paper the number of estates in the Land Judge's Court; the names of the counties in which they were situated; the date on which each one was placed in Court; the rents as shown by the last Receiver Account; and what proceedings, if any, had been taken to sell the estates. It was idle to pretend that there was any difficulty in making out this Return. The reason this Return had not long ago been laid before the House was that those gentlemen employed in the Land Judge's Court, and the Land Judge also, were utterly ashamed of themselves at the, slow progress made in the sale of estates. Could such cases as he had referred to, cases that were found everywhere all over the country, occur if such a Return were made out every three months Could estates be kept nearly thirty years in Court? Would ten years be spent in preparing a list of rentals that a man could make out in a fortnight? Could thousands of pounds be spent in trying not to sell an estate? No, Sir, this House would never stand it. The public would not stand it. He respectfully appealed to the Chief Secretary to grant this Return. It was the first and most necessary step to drain this bog—this sink—the Land Judge's Court, in which estates were sometimes lost, and the owners were lost with them. What was the use of passing Acts of Parliament to facilitate the sale and purchase of land so long as there was a pitfall like this in the way.
  Any person like himself, who had lived all his life amongst the Irish tenant farmers, could very easily distinguish the difference between the farmer who had purchased and the farmer who had not. As soon as a man became the owner of his farm, the terror of the landlord and the uncertainty of the Land Courts disappeared, and he settled down to improve and cultivate his farm according to the most approved methods. An air of comfort seemed to settle down all over the place, and prosperity bloomed round the homestead. This was a desirable state of things, a state of things that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House should strive to bring about, in
  172
  the interest of the Irish tenant farmers in the interest of the landlords themselves, and, above all, in the interest of the British Government. Who were the men that carried their flag to victory on many a hard-fought field? Well, Sir, to say the least, the Irish peasant soldier did his share, and he would venture to say that the British Government never made a greater mistake, never committed a greater crime against itself, not to speak of the crime it committed against the Irish nation, than when it allowed the Irish peasantry to be swept wholesale off the land.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said he did not propose to make many observations on the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for South Wexford. He had often said that the transfer of the land to the occupying tenants was, in the view of the Government, the proper solution of the land question in Ireland. The hon. Member had asked whether it would be difficult to draw up a list of all the estates in the Land Judge's Court. It might be, but whether it was difficult or not such a Return would be quite misleading for any purpose the hon. Member had at heart. He would develop that at some length, because there was some misconception on this subject which ought to be cleared up. Hon. Members had often used words which had led him to assume that they held that every estate in this Court could be sold, even every bankrupt estate. This was not at all the case. There were a number of complicated and technical reasons why they could not be, and a Return of every estate would really throw no light on the problem they were discussing to-night. Some speakers, including his hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone, had taken a more pessimistic view than he himself had taken of the progress that was being made in the Land Judge's Court. The hon. Member for South Tyrone began by deploring the absence of the jury. He also had a very good case and he had to labour under a like disadvantage. He asked those who took the opposite view to himself to believe that he was as anxious as they were that the 7th Section of the Act of last year should prove operative. The hon. Member for South Tyrone,

  173
  to illustrate his view, quoted the remarks of Mr. Justice Bewley in 1897, but he should be able to prove that there had been continual progress, and that that progress had been more rapid since 1897. There had been a further acceleration since the year 1901, when they last debated the question of the Land Judge's Court, and the rapidity of progress had been still further accelerated since the Act of 1903 had come into operation.
  The hon. Member for South Tyrone said that some figures which he had given ought to be discounted, from the fact that a number of solvent estates were taken out of Court. This was what, as far as he knew, all persons who had interested themselves in this matter wished to be the case. The great complaint was that they were in the Court. None of them ought to be in. He would show they were there for legal reasons, for Chancery reasons, and not because they were supposed to be insolvent when, as a matter of fact, they were solvent. If they were not there for legal reasons they clearly ought to be taken out of the Court. In these cases the procedure of the Court was analogous to the procedure of a Chancery suit in this country, and he did not suppose anybody would suggest that a Chancery suit could be carried out with the expedition of the mere transaction of purchase and sale. The hon. Member went on to declare that there always would be delay because solicitors and Receivers were interested in obtaining delay, but they were under the control of the Land Court Judge, who had been most zealous and successful in many cases. He had deprived solicitors of their fees in some cases and he had imposed fines upon them, and his orders had been peremptory that solvent estates should be taken out of Court and that insolvent estates were to be sold as quickly as possible. In fact, he had shown so much zeal and industry that at present there was no congestion in the Court at all. As to the specific cases quoted by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, the right hon. Gentleman declared that the worst use they could make of their power was to constitute the House a Court of appeal upon particular cases. They had not the facts before them, and it was not for them to
  174
  express any opinion; it was the duty of the Judge before whom the cases came to determine what was just. With regard to the case in which the owners of a head rent had asked for twenty-five years purchase, it would be an abuse of his position if he attempted to give any opinion upon prices in Ireland. As to the estate which, according to the version which had been given to the hon. Member for South Tyrone, would have been sold but eventually was not sold because the sporting rights had been hired by a lady, that case had not come before Mr. Justice Ross, before him, or before the House, and it would be improper for him to express an opinion upon it With regard to the clerks in the Land Judge's Court who had been or might be relieved from their duties, he could not give an undertaking that a particular person should be employed, but one would naturally look to gentlemen who had experience and knowledge of the Irish land problem to fill vacancies and new posts under the Estates Commissioners. He quite agreed that they ought to get solvent estates out of the Court, and sell the insolvent estates as rapidly as might be to the occupying tenants. That was his view, and it was also Mr. Justice Ross's view.
  The hon. Member for East Kerry went into the history of the Land Judge's Court, but he did not propose to go so far back as 1848. The hon. Member said that £23,000,000 worth of land was sold before that year. That was certainly a very large amount, considering to whom it was sold, and the conditions under which the transactions took place. The sales left all the differences between tenants as to questions of boundaries, turbary, and easements, precisely as they were. That was a very simple operation as compared with the operation of selling an estate to the tenants after settling all these disputed questions, and conferring, as by statute they were bound to confer, an indefeasible Parliamentary title on these purchasers. The hon. Member was good enough to supply him with the names of a certain number of estates he intended to refer to. He had made inquiries regarding them since receiving the hon. Member's letter, and he could point out how the matter stood with

  175
  respect to two of the estates. As to the Mahouy Estate the tenants came to a voluntary arrangement with the owner to sell to them instead of to the Estates Commissioners under the procedure provided by the Land Act. In regard to the MacGillycuddy Estate what had taken place illustrated some of the problems which had perplexed hon. Members. The owner being only a tenant for life could only sell in the Land Judge's Court so much of the fee of the estate as would suffice to discharge the encumbrances paramount to the life interests. But as it was considered desirable that more should be sold an order was made by the Court to enable the owner to effect the sales. He could quite understand that the hon. Member who was interested in the tenants on these estates was disappointed at the delay, but he would see that the Land Judge's Court might be brought in at the instance of other parties, and that the Court might not be the best, but might be the worst, tribunal for having sales effected to the occupying tenants. If an estate could be taken out of the Land Judge's Court, and placed under the Estates Commissioners that would be for the good of all parties. It was for that purpose Section 7 of the Act of last year was passed, and there was every reason to believe that the section would work successfully.
  There were two sides to the Court—the Land Judge's side and the Receiver's side. The petitions for sale on the Land Judge's side were not solely in respect of agricultural land. They were also in respect of house property in towns. He would not repeat those arguments, but merely state that he adhered to all he had said on previous occasions as to the unavoidable delay of procedure which attached to these cases. In spite of these difficulties, Mr. Justice Ross had been able to make great progress in recent years. The Receiver in the Land Judge's Court controlled all the cases which came from the Master of the Rolls, and from the Vice-Chancellor's Court, and all cases of property which belonged to minors—all cases, in fact, except those involving questions of lunacy. In order to prove that real and substantial progress had been made, he would apply the test of rental. In 1878,
  176
  estates began to accumulate in the Court, and the rent d of the properties in the Court amounted to nearly £1,000,000 a year. That was the amount in 1896 when the Act was passed, and the Judge was appointed. In 1897 it amounted to£795,000 a year. When last this subject was debated, the hon. Member for South Tyrone, on 21st February 1901, stated that the amount was £639,000, and at present the rental of all the properties in the Land Judge's Court was, with the exception of lunacy cases, only £365,000. He would analyse these. The Chancery cases accounted for £213,750 a year out of the total of gross rental of £365,000. That left for properties in respect of which there were orders for sale £151,250. That showed a very different picture from that which was conjured up by the statement of the hon. Member opposite, that the property in the Court represented a rental of £700,000. But, all that was not in respect of agricultural land. Some of it was in respect of town property, something like £15,000, some £6,274 in respect of demesne land, and £20,530 in respect of grazing land, leaving £109,709 for agricultural land. That was the rental test as to the progress made in the Court. He agreed that they ought to apply the test as to the progress of purchases actually completed.
  MR. MURPHYasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give the House an opportunity of testing the accuracy of the information by giving the names of the estates.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had taken great pains to analyse the details, and the hon. Gentleman might take it that the figures he had given were correct.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to give these figures in the form of a Return.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that he would try to satisfy the hon. and learned Member, and would give such figures as would not involve a mass of printing, having nothing to do with land purchase at all. The hon. Member supposed that there was an enormous amount of

  177
  property which ought to be sold, and was not sold. Well, he would apply the test of purchases, and the amount of money advanced, to show the great acceleration there had been in the procedure of the Court, about which there was absolute knowledge. He would take the period from April, 1887, to the end of 1903. The amount of advances during that period was£3,811,321, but of this amount before the passing of the Act of 1896 only £847,992 was advanced, so that from 1887 until 1896 the rate of sale was about £84,000 a year. Since the Act of 1896 was passed, the sums advanced had amounted to £2,963,329. From April, 1897, to April, 1901, the sales had been at the rate of £276,686 per annum; but if the sales from April, 1901, to December last year were analysed, they were at the rate of £574,507 per annum, which compare still more favourably with the rate of £84,000 a year from 1887 to 1896.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: So much for the pressure of this House!
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that was a matter for congratulation. In this last period was included the months of cessation of business pending the new Act, but for which the figures would have been higher, as they must expect them to be in the future.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: After to-night.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that there were also doubts about the bonus; but in spite of these causes of retardation during last summer, and during the time the Act was getting into operation, for sales under the Act of last year in the Land Judge's Court, and apart from Section 7, £133,320 had been already advanced. Under Section 7, eighteen estates had been sent to the Estates Commissioners, the rental involved being £9,088. This would give roughly about £800,000 or £900,000 a year as the ratel at which purchase was now going on in the Land Judge's Court. At that rate, they would soon be in sight of the end. He was not surprised that the Estimates showed a reduction in the number of Receivers under this Court. He was informed by Mr. Justice Ross that Section 7 was
  178
  working most satisfactorily. That gentleman anticipated that the majority of the agricultural estates would be sold under it in a very few years time. That seemed to him as if it must be so, wherever the estates were solvent. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had referred to the insolvent estates, but there were some of these in Ireland where the legal complications were so great that they could not be unravelled in a moment. They were, however, in sight of the winding-up of the business of this Court in so far as it was the successor of the Encumbered Estates Court. The Land Judge expected to be able, at an early date, to take over a considerable amount of work from the Land Commission of a purely legal character, relating to investigation of title and distribution of purchase money. So far from it having been necessary to borrow another Judge to assist Mr. Justice Ross, such had been his industry that his shire of the work would very soon be completed.
  He took a sanguine view of the condition of things, and he had given figures to support a sanguine view. He would therefore pass to the Motion before the House. What did it say? That the time had arrived for taking immediate steps to wind up the business of the Land Judge's Court in Ireland, in the interests of all concerned. He agreed with that. The Land Judge agreed with it. More than that, he was taking steps to secure, that that should soon be the case. So far from regarding this Motion as a reflection on Mr. Justice Ross, he had great pleasure in asking the House to accept it. He regarded it, in all seriousness, as a tribute to the vigour Mr. Justice Ross had displayed, and as a monument of the success of the steps he had taken.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid he thought from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that he had no conception of the working of the Land Judge's Court. He was quite prepared to admit that there had been an acceleration of sales from 1896 to 1901, and from 1901 to the passing of the Act of last year; but the figures since November last did not give a true picture of what had taken place. For a long time prior to the

  179
  passing of the Act last year sales had been practically hung up. Application was made day alter day for postponement of the steps necessary to accomplish sales. The right hon. Gentleman was, he thought, not entitled fairly or reasonably to say that the rate of progress would be maintained in the future; and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would live to see his estimate falsified. The complaint of his hon. friend was in connection with estates under the 40th Section. During last year, those estates were hung up, pending the passing of the Land Act; and afterwards it was found that the Land Commission had enhanced the purchase price, and that the Land Judge imposed entirely new terms for purchase, raising the price by three, four, or five years. The Chief Secretary in his reply did not deal in any way with that grievance. Whenever it was represented to Judge Ross that the price of an estate should be increased he always assented; and it was practically in the hands of the Receiver or the solicitor having carriage of the sale as to what the price should be. In one case, Judge Ross stated that he could not reconcile his conscience to giving the tenants a reduction of 6s. in the £, although it was laid down in the Act of last year that that was a reasonable reduction. In such circumstances, it was impossible to expect reasonable terms for the tenants in that Court. The general complaint of his hon. friend was that, as a result of the Act of last year, all the estates in Judge Ross's Court had been increased in price. It was quite true that during the last six or seven years Judge Ross had, in a great measure, endeavoured to expedite sales; but his complaint was that wherever Judge Ross saw a possibility of increasing the price he increased it. He thought the Chief Secretary was far too sanguine in anticipating that the business of the Court would be rapidly concluded. He also thought that arrears
  180
  of rent should be included in the purchase price, which was only a reasonable interpretation of the section.
  Resolved, That the time has arrived for taking immediate steps to wind up the business of the Land Judge's Court in Ireland in the interests of all concerned.—(Mr. Murphy.)

  VIVISECTION OF DOGS.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that in moving, "That, in the opinion of this House no operations for the purposes of Vivisection should be performed on Dogs," he did not wish to make any general attack on vivisection. He only asked the House to affirm that dogs should be exempt because they were more sensible to pain than other animals.
  MR. CHANNINGseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, no operations for the purposes of vivisection should be performed on Dogs.(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  MR. FLAVINsaid that the hon. Baronet had not given any explanation of the Motion he submitted to the and he was strongly of opinion that the Motion should not be accepted without fuller information.
  And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.