Sitting of 10 March 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 62 has been complied with, viz.:—London United Tramways Bill. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Whitby Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Great Northern and City Railway (Extension of Time) Bill (by Order). Considered; to be read the third time.
  Barnet District Gas and Water Bill (by Order). Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next (Evening Sitting).
  Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill. "For conferring further powers on the Imperial Tramways Company, Limited; for constructing tramways, and widening and altering roads, and acquiring lands in the North Riding of the county of York; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  Sheffield, Laughton, and Maltby Railway Bill. Order [9th February] that the Bill be committed, read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.—(Mr. Caldwell,)
  London County Council (General Powers) Bill. Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  Kettering Improvement Bill. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Petition from Hackney, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of law; from Derby; Urmston (two); Lancaster; Birmingham (two); Hammersmith; Trowbridge; Bardney; Louth; Epworth; Gwaun-le-Gurwen; Bolton; Ashton on Alersey; Dorrington; Eccles; Rowlands Castle; Whiteinch; Eareham; Alansell Lacy; Staines; Exmouth; Wolverhampton; Ossett; London: Ovenden; Shettle-ston; Arbroath; Notting Hill; Christ-church; Llangollen; Boston: Belper; Great Yarmouth; Bristol; Llwynhendy; Hornchurch; Tredegarville; Market Rasen; and Belton; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Worksop; Staines; Barking; Edmonton; Basingstoke; Hutchesontown; Lambeth; Upton Park; Bath; Brixton; Battersca (two); Kington; Southampton; Aldershot; Leominster; Edmonton; Southend; Hull (two); Leyton; Notting Hill; Spalding; Wandsworth; North Kensington; Briningham (four); Portsmouth (two); Canterbury; Streatham; Hammersmith; High Barnet; Walthamstow; Melton Mowbray; Bristol (two); Edinburgh; Eastville; Hamilton; Harrin-gay; Chatham; Folkestone; Bilston; Mansfield; Worcester (two); Boston; Hastings; Larkhall; Cambuslang; Coatbridge; Wishaw; Leicester; and Swindon; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Wolstanton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN HOLDINGS (TERMINABLE LEASES).
  Petition from Blackrock, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  TRANSVAAL (CHINESE LABOUR ORDINANCE).
  Petition from Altrincham, for withdrawal; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (MILITARY SAYINGS BANKS).
  Copy presented, of Statement of the Amounts due by the Public to Depositors on 31st March, 1902, and of the Receipts. Interest, and Disbursements during the year ended 31st March, 1903, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 91.]
  Copy presented, of Annual Report on Cyprus for 1902 –3 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS, ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary for the year ended 29th September, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 92.]
  ASSIZES ACTS, 1870 AND 1879.
  Copies presented, of two Orders in Council of 7th March, 1904, relatingto the ensuing Spring Assizes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890, AND MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 7th March, 1904, declaring the Port of Old Calabar to be a Port of Registry for British Shipping [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXTRADITION ACTS, 1870 TO 1895.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 7th March, 1904, directing that The Extradition Act, 1903, of the Common wealth of Australia shall have effect as if it were part of The Extradition Act, 1870 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXTRADITION ACTS, 1870 TO 1895 (FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT, 1881).
  Copies presented, of two Orders in Council of the 7th March, 1904, giving effect to Chapters II. and IV. of The Indian Extradition Act, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTS, 1878 AND 1889.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 7th March, 1904, fixing the fee for the

  721
  verification and stamping of 50 lb.; weights [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GENERAL REPORTS).
  Copy presented, of General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Western Division of Scotland for the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (GUNNERY).
  Copy presented, of Results of Prize Firing in His Majesty's Fleet, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Irish Land Commission (Account). Copy of Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upon the Account of the Irish Land Commission for the year ended 31st March, 1903 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 93.]
  NAVAL EXPENDITURE.
  Return ordered, "of Naval Expenditure of this Country in the years 1880, 1890, 1900, 1901, 1902, and 1903, and of the Naval Expenditure of France, Russia, Germany, and America in the same years."—(Sir Edgar Vincent.)
  EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
  Address for "Return of the Net Income and Expenditure of British India, under certain specified heads, for the eleven years from 1892– to 1902–3 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 95, of session 1903)."— (Sir Henry Fowler.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Increased Penalties for Illegal Trawling.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if the Bill providing for the more efficacious punishment of offending trawlers, which was under the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate last year, will shortly be presented.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I may refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar Question on Monday last.†
  † See page 309.

  Scotch Education—Modern Group Leaving Certificates.
  MR. CROMBIE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if the Scotch Education Department has granted a special modern group leaving certificate for Glasgow High School for Girls; and whether this group will under similar conditions be extended to all other schools.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) Upon the application of the School Board and upon the basis of a curriculum arranged by conference with the school authorities the Department has agreed to grant a special group leaving certificate for the Glasgow High School for Girls. It is open to any other school to make such an application, and if a satisfactory arrangement can be made as to curriculum, a similar group certificate would be granted.

  Grievances of Postal Employees—Report of Committee.
  MR. BAYLEY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can state when ho expects to receive the Report of the Committee appointed last session to inquire into the grievances of the postal employees; and if he will lay the Report upon the Table of the House before the Post Office Vote is taken.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The Committee appointed in August last to inquire into the scales of pay of certain classes of established post office servants has taken evidence on the matters referred to it, but I am unable to say when the Committee will present its Report.

  Reorganisation of Macedonian Gendarmerie.
  MR. MOON (St. Pancras, N.): To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to give any further information as to the reorganisation of the gendarmerie in Macedonia, in particular the names of the British officers appointed; whether they have started from England; what are the areas to which the different gendarmerie battalions are to be allocated; and whether any British non-commissioned officers have been appointed to this service.

  723
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) As soon as the demands submitted to the Porte by the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Ambassadors have been accepted, and the General charged with the reorganisation of the gendarmerie leaves Constantinople for the purpose of taking up his duties, he will be met at Salonica by ten officers and eleven non-commissioned officers from England. The names of the officers and areas to which the several battalions are to be allocated cannot yet be given.

  Reformed Fiscal System for Holland.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can say whether Holland has decided to reform her fiscal system, by the adoption of a retaliatory policy and a protective tariff; and, if so, whether he can lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Netherlands Government's proposals; and if he wall state the remaining countries, if any, which impose no duties apart from purposes of revenue.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) Copies of the Netherlands Tariff Bill have been received and forwarded to the Board of Trade for examination in concert with the Chambers of Commerce. Pending the result of the examination, I am not able to make any statement as to the character and objects of the proposed tariff, which has still to receive legislative sanction. We have no official information of the object with which Customs duties are imposed by foreign countries. The question of laying a translation of the proposed tariff upon the Table of the House will be considered.

  Public-House Licences—Renewals Refused.
  MR. CORBETT: To ask the secretary of state for the Home Department what number of punlic-house licences have this year been refused renewal on the ground that they were not required; and what number were refused renewal on that and other grounds; and if he can state what proportion such number bear to the number refused last year, and also to
  724
  the average number of refusals during the five years prior to that year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Dunglas.) The information necessary to answer this Question is not yet available. Adjournments of the General Annual Licensing Meeting may take place up to the 14th of the present month, and it may be that in some places the business is not yet completed.

  Parliamentary Grants to the Halsall Girls' School, Great Crosby.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state what is the total sum received in Parliamentary Grants of all kinds, since the year 1870, by the Halsall Girls' School, Great Crosby, Lancashire.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The total sum which has been received in Parliamentary Grants by this school is £3,378 11. 7d.

  Caning of Girls by Male Teachers.
  SIR JOHN GORST: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state whether it is a common practice in mixed elementary schools for girls to be caned by male teachers; whether such a practice has been prohibited as unseemly by the London School Board and other great School Boards; and whether the Board of Education are taking any steps to discourage or prohibit it in all schools.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) So I far as I am aware the reply to the first paragraph is in the negative. In reply to the second paragraph, I have no official knowledge that such Boards have found it necessary to pass such a resolution. In: reply to the last paragraph I have no reason to believe that any such action on the part of the Board is necessary at present or is likely to become so in the future.

  Committee on Physical Deterioration— Terms of Reference.
  Sir JOHN GORST: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state what are the terms of reference to

  725
  the Departmental Committee now sitting on physical degeneration.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The original reference charged the Committee with a preliminary inquiry into the allegations concerning the deterioration of certain classes of the population as shown by the large percentage of rejections for physical causes of recruits for the Army and by other evidence, especially the Report of the Commission on Physical Instruction in Scotland, and to consider in what manner the medical profession can best be consulted on the subject with a view to the appointment of a Royal Commission, and the terms of reference to such a Commission, if appointed, but this reference was subsequently explained to imply the duty (1) to determine, with the aid of such counsel as the medical profession are able to give, the steps that should be taken to furnish the Government and the nation at large with periodical data for an accurate comparative estimate of the health and physique of the people; (2) to indicate generally the causes of such physical deterioration as does exist in certain classes; and (3) to point out the means by which it can be most effectually diminished.

  Education—Children under Three Years of Age.
  MR. MORRKLL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the system still prevails under which the attendances of children under three years old are to be separately registered so as to be taken into account in calculating accommodation and also in determining the teaching staff' required, but are not to be taken into account in calculating the grant; and, if so, whether he will now consider an adjustment of the grant to meet the case.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) Children under three years of age are allowed to attend school, but their attendances are not registered for any purpose. Under' these circumstances the Question put in the last paragraph does not appear to arise.

  Naval Manœuvres.
  MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there is any obligation upon admirals
  726
  commanding squadrons to conduct manoeuvres which provide sufficient training for the handling of fleets in war; and, if not, whether such manoeuvres as will contribute to the fighting efficiency of the Fleet will be made compulsory and reports sent to the Admiralty upon the capacity or otherwise of the officers engaged in them.
  (Answered by Mr Pretyman.) The orders issued to admirals carry the obligation named in the Question. It is well understood by all admirals in command that their first and principal duty is to make their squadrons efficient for war, and that it is for this purpose that they are appointed.

  Naval Churches.
  MR. BRIGG (Yorkshire, W.R., Keighley): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of churches belonging to the Admiralty in which any religious service other than that of the Church of England is at present used, and if any applications from other religious bodies have been made for the use of such churches and have been refused.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) There is no case in which a church belonging to the Admiralty is used for any religious service other than that of the Church of England. Only one application has been made for the use of a church for such services, and in that case other suitable accommodation was provided.

  Underground Wires and Pipes in the Mall.
  SIR GEORGE HARTLEY: To ask the Iron. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that the wood and concrete of the now road in the Mall and the pathway between the freshly planted trees, which have only just been laid, are already being picked up to place telephone or other wires; whether he is aware that similar destruction of the road has already happened twice since September; whether he can say who is responsible for this, what is the extra cost involved, and out of what funds it is defrayed; and whether steps can be taken to lay all wires and pipes

  727
  that are likely to he required for some time before the road is again reinstated.
  (Answered by Lord Balrarres.) The cables of the Electric Supply Company for lighting the Mall, now being laid, are in positions quite clear of the main roadway between the Queen Victoria Memorial and the present termination of the wood paving near the Duke of York's Column. As originally arranged, they are passing along the footways, which were specially left unfinished in view of this work. Where the Marlborough Gate roadway joins the new Mall, the taking up of a narrow strip of wood-block paving, and the forming of a chase in the concrete is unavoidable, because the high-tension mains of the company can only be laid upon what is known as the "solid" system, and this necessitates an open iron casing for filling in bitumen. No earlier facilities to meet this contingency could have been provided, pending a settlement with the company, nor could the work have been undertaken at the same time as the roadwork without postponing the latter, as the mains on the "solid" system take a long time to prepare, and are not kept in stock. The disturbance incidental to crossing the branch roadway is reduced to a minimum, and the expense is in-eluded in the cost of the cables as agreed upon with the company. This part of the work is chargeable to the Supplementary Vote passed for the works on the Mall. The First Commissioner is not aware of any telephone wires being required. As regards the roadway around the Queen Victoria Memorial, it was necessary to cross to the centre of the ring after the roadway was laid, and, for the reasons before explained, this had to be executed upon the "solid" system. All wires and pipes likely to be required will have been laid upon the completion of the present work.

  Tuberculosis Commission—Publication of an Interim Report.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state if it is the intention of the Tuberculosis Commission to issue an Interim Report; and, if so, how soon it may be expected.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I understand that the Commission do not propose to issue an Interim Report.

  Repayment of Transvaal Loan.
  MR. McCRAE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sum of £3,000,000 sterling advanced by way of loan to the Transvaal and Orange River Colony has been repaid to the Exchequer in terms of The South African Loan and War Contribution Act, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The answer is in the affirmative.
  MR. McCRAE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sum paid in addition to the £3,000,000 advanced by way of loan on account of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, and estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1903 at £4,000,000 sterling, has been paid to the National Debt Commissioners, and applied by them towards the discharge of any Exchequer bonds or Treasury bills falling due during the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1904, in terms of The South African Loan and War Contribution Act, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) A sum of £3,000,000 (apart from the £3,000,000 repaid to the Exchequer) has been paid to the National Debt Commissioners and applied towards the discharge of Exchequer bonds which fell due on the 7th August, 1903.

  Deaths from Plague in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the number of persons who died of plague in Central India and Rajputana respectively during the month of January last, and how the figures compare with the month of January, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The numbers are: — January, 1903, Central India, 92; Rajputana, 10. January, 1904, Central India, 3,721; Rajputana, 716.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what percentage of persons inoculated with plague serum in India subsequently died of plague.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Calculated on the figures of inoculations

  729
  and deaths in the several provinces given by my predecessor in office in reply to a Question asked by the hon. Member on 11th June, 1903,† the percentage of deaths is 24. I have no later information on the subject, but the Government of India have lately taken steps to secure a more accurate record for the future.

  Manufacture at Johapore Factory of the New Army Rifles.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that the Indian Financial Statement for 1903–4 shows that the Johapore Rifle Factory is expected to be in a position to commence the manufacture of rifles during the present year, will arrangements be made for the manufacture at that factorey of some of the new Army rifles required for the troops in India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) It is not expected that under the most favourable circumstances manufacture can commence before December next. There is therefore, little probability of any out-turn of importance during the next financial year. The supply of rifles for Indian requirements will then be carried on from the factory as far as it is able to produce them.

  Adoption in Ireland of Public Libraries Act.
  MR. ROLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to give the names of the rural district councils in Ireland which have adopted the Public Libraries Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It has been necessary to address inquiries to 213 rural district councils, and replies have not yet been received from all. The desired information will be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as it is complete.

  Redemption of Irish Quit and Crown Rents.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount realised since the last Return of Irish quit and Crown rents redeemed; whether he will have these funds set aside and attributed
  †See (4) Debates,, cxxiii., 629.
  730
  to Crown or other purposes in Ireland, and no longer, as hitherto, invested in Great Britain.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The last return extended to 31st March, 1902. The amount realised between that date and 31st March. 1903 (the latest date to which the accounts have been made up), is £17,379. The Crown Lands Act, 1829, Section 52, provides that these moneys shall be invested in the purchase of land or other hereditaments, or the redemption of charges or encumbrances on land already belonging to the Crown, and under Section 109 of that Act and certain other Crown Lands Acts sums not immediately wanted for these purposes may be invested in trustee securities. A sum of £15,636 has been invested in Bank of Ireland Stock, and other Irish investments are under consideration.

  Goods Carriage in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company are not carrying into effect their amalgamation agreements; whether he will make inquiries respecting a case of eggs handed in to be forwarded at through rates from Clonmel to Birmingham by the new route via Wexford and New Ross, the consignment of which was charged the high local rate to Wexford where the case was detained one day before handing it over to the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company; and whether he will arrange that consignors of Irish produce shall receive the facilities promised at the time of amalgamation.
  (Answered' by Mr. Wyndham.) A representation in the sense referred to has been received by the Department and will be inquired into.

  Return of Irish Private Bills.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will arrange to have a Return to date of Private Bills (Ireland) (Expenses) (in continuation of No. 356, of Session 1892, and (from 1892 to 1898) of No. 344, of Session 1900), to be prepared

  731
  and printed for the information of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question, as the Returns to which it refers and which it is desired to continue include, not Ireland only, but the whole of the United Kingdom. The Return is a very heavy one, and it has not been usual to give it except at longer intervals than that which has elapsed since the last one was given. I will, however, communicate with the Departments on whom the work of preparing the Return chiefly falls, before coming to a decision in the matter.

  Irish Land Act— Bogus New Tenancies
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what rules the Estates Commissioners have made to ensure that bogus new tenancies are not created when estates are being sold so as to prevent advances being granted to persons who are not bona fide, tenants, evicted tenants, or proper cases so recognised by the Purchase Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) If a tenancy has been created since 1st January, 1901, the forms prescribed by the rules of the Estates Commissioners require the fact to be disclosed, and the inspectors are instructed in such cases to specially report whether they are of opinion that the limit of £500 advance imposed by Section 53 should be exceeded and to state their reasons, having regard to the wants and circumstances of other persons residing in the neighbourhood. For that purpose all information available in the office as to evicted tenants or otherwise is placed at their disposal.

  Expenditure on Education in Ireland— Model Schools.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, is it proposed by the Treasury to continue any longer to spend on the Irish model schools, in the majority of which there is a very scanty attendance of pupils, large sums of public money; have the Government considered whether this expenditure would be better devoted to the requirements of well-attended ordinary national schools; whether many
  732
  of the latter are much in need of general repair or reconstruction; whether several of the model school buildings could be at once advantageously transferred for the purposes of technical and industrial education to county councils and other local bodies; and will he inquire whether such bodies would be willing to maintain the fabrics.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Report of the recent inquiry into primary education in Ireland which has been presented to Parliament, deals at some length with the Irish model schools and contains suggestions in respect of the matters mentioned in the second part of the Question. The Report is at present engaging the consideration of Government.

  Salaries of Irish Agricultural Department Officials.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will furnish a Return showing the names and official titles of the employees of the Irish Agricultural Department, respecting whom proposals for increase of salary have been made to the Treasury in connection with the Estimates for 1904–5, indicating at the same time such as are recurrent applications.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Such a Return would be wholly without precedent, and I am unable, therefore, to grant it.

  Irish Police Instructors —District Inspector Hetreed.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if District Inspector Hetreed is still receiving his allowance as police instructor at the depot; and if he can say why no recruits are at present receiving instruction.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Yes, Sir. The services of this officer as police instructor are retained for the reasons mentioned in the reply to my hon. friend's previous Question of the 18th February† on the subject.
  †See (4) Debates,, exxx, 237.

  Irish Land Purchase—Applications from Evicted Tenants in County Carlow.
  MR. HAMMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many applications from evicted tenants in the county of Carlow have been received by the Estates Commissioners; and what steps, if any, have been taken to make provision for them.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Forty-five. Inquiries are being made on all estates coming before the Commissioners from the county with a view to the reinstatement of evicted tenants.

  Royal Irish Constabulary—Compulsory Retirement.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that several sergeants of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Belfast having over thirty years service are being compelled to retire on pension, while in the same town there are head constables and constables having the same number of years service who are being retained; and if he can explain why this compulsory retirement is not universal.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The power invested in the Inspector-General by Statute of compulsorily retiring members of the force throughout the country is exercised only in cases of inefficiency, or for some other similar reason, and not on account of length of service alone. Six sergeants of the Belfast force were thus compulsorily retired during the past three years, but, at the present time, there is no case of a sergeant in Belfast being under notice to be compulsorily retired on pension.

  Audit of Accounts of Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland who is the representative of the guaranteeing area that audits the accounts of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway, when was the last audit made, and was the result published.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There is no baronial audit of the Lough Swilly Company's accounts as no guarantee applies to that line, but the company
  734
  works three lines, namely: the Letter-kenny, the Carndonagh Extension, and the Burtonport Extension, to which guarantees do apply; and if the hon. Member will state to which of these three lines he refers, I will make further inquiry in the matter.

  Distribution of Funds Accumulated under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, under the Labourers Bill, the accumulated funds now lying to the respective credits of the counties of Antrim and Down for the purposes of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts will be redistributed amongst other counties where the Acts have to a greater extent been availed of, or if such accumulated funds will be taken from the counties named for' any object.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Labourers Bill, as introduced, makes no change so far as the existing reserve is concerned, but it will prevent the accumulation of any further reserve, as the full amount of the Exchequer grant available each year will be distributed.

  Billeting of Soldiers in the Border Counties.
  SIR WALTER THORBURN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, looking to the inconvenience and loss sustained by hotel keepers in the border counties of Scotland, by the billeting of soldiers and horses upon them en route to and from Stobbs Camp, especially in the tourist season, he will make arrangements whereby, at all events in the summer months, cavalry on the march will carry their own transport and thus avoid the alleged grievance.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) If the troops were not billeted camping grounds would have to be hired, and this, added to the expense of trans porting camp equipment, would add considerably to the cost. It is therefore hold that, though the hotelkeepers may suffer some slight inconvenience, this large increase to the public charges could not be justified.

  Delay in Issue of War Medals to Imperial Yeomanry.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for War

  735
  whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing among members of the Imperial Yeomanry who served in the late Boer War at the delay in the issue of their medals; and whether he will take steps to expedite the delivery of the medals.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The whole of the Yeomanry rolls have been dealt with except in two cases. Of these one roll goes to Woolwich to-day and the other is being checked.

  Government Compensation to South African Banks for Specie Commandeered.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government intend to recoup the Standard and other South African banks the amount of money lost to them by their following the advice of Lord Milner in refusing security for the commandeered specie.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I refer the hon. Member to my reply on the 25th February last.† The circumstance to which he refers was not lost sight of.

  Chinese Labour in Rhodesia.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any correspondence has passed between him and Lord Milner or the Chartered Company in regard to the admission of Chinese indentured labour into Rhodesia; and whether, if so, it will be laid on the Table of the House before assent be given to any Ordinance permitting the introduction of the said labour; whether, before that assent be given, the House will have an opportunity to express its opinion upon the matter; and whether he can state how many British subjects are now domiciled in Rhodesia, exclusive of officials of the Chartered Company or of the railroads that have obtained their capital through that Company.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) (1.) (2.) There has been correspondence, and Papers will be laid before assent is given to the necessary notice permitting the introduction of Chinese labourers into Southern Rhodesia. (3.) This Question must be addressed to the First Lord. (4.)
  † See (4) Debate,, exxx., 972.
  736
  The European population of Southern Rhodesia according to a census taken on 31st May, 1901, was 11,032. I have no accurate figures as to the officials of the Chartered Company or of the railroads.

  Chinese Labour Ordinance.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will undertake to insert a clause in the proposed Chinese Ordinance to enable any Chinese labourer to refuse, if he so wishes, being transferred to a mine where the conditions of mining are distasteful to him; whether he is aware that the temperature of the deep level mines is very high; and whether, seeing that mechanical ventilation has not been generally adopted at these mines, he will so regulate the Ordinance as to prevent a Chinese labourer working in these mines unless he consents to do so, as also in mines where the workings are wet or in any other way distasteful to the labourer.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The answer is in the negative. The provision for the consent of the labourer to transfer can be better made by regulation than by amendment of the Ordinance, and the regulation will provide that the Lieutenant-Governor shall not sanction any transfer except on the production of a certificate signed by the Government Superintendent that the agreement as to transfer has been explained to the labourer and that he consents thereto and has signed the same. The labourer will then have the opportunity of declining to be transferred to an employer whose service; is distasteful to him.

  Civil Rights of Chinese Labourers in the Transvaal.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, under the proposed Ordinance regulating Chinese labour in the Transvaal, Chinese labourers will be given free access to the Law Courts, or whether they will be deprived of those rights which the natives in the Transvaal possess.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) Chinese labourers have the same rights of access to the Courts as all other inhabitants of His Majesty's territories.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Army Contracts Department.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what were the dates of the appointments of the Director and Assistant Director of Army Contracts.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The Assistant Director of Contracts, Mr. Bull, was appointed on the 10th Novmember, 1903. The Director of Contracts, Mr. de la Bere, has been officiating since 14th December. He would, under ordinary circumstances, have received the pay of such appointment from the 11th instant.

  The New Rifle.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what number of improved pattern of rifle approved in 1903 are on order from Government factories and private contractcrs respectively; and when deliveries of the new rifle are expected to commence.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The details of orders given to private firms cannot be published. Deliveries are expected to commence early in April.

  Volunteers—Conditions of Service.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg; to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what conditions of service the Volunteers will be under this year; and whether, under the rules of their corps, Volunteers are required to send in their resignation before 31st March, or be liable to serve another year or pay a fine.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The conditions of service will be the same as last year. The rules of the corps and dates for resignation vary so considerably that it is not possible to give any reply to the latter part of the Question.

  Cost of Military Manœuvres.
  *SIR CHARLESDILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is
  738
  the sum taken in all votes combined for manoeuvres in the year 1904–5, as compared with that taken in 1903–4.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The amount allotted for manoeuvres (apart from ordinary field training) in 1903–4 was £130,000. The corresponding amount provided in 1904–5 is £100,000.

  Militia Field Artillery.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what has been the result in numbers and efficiency of the increase of Militia Field Artillery by two brigade divisions.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Only one brigade of Militia Field Artillery has been formed. The reports on this brigade have been most satisfactory and the numbers are complete.

  New War Office.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the new War Office in Whitehall will accommodate a larger staff than required if effect be given to the proposed scheme of decentralisation, will he state whether the building is too far advanced to admit of the structure and internal fittings being so altered as to effect economy in its cost, and will he state the contract price, and by what date the contractors have undertaken to complete the work.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am afraid that the hon. Member is mistaken in his fact. The accommodation in the new building would have proved insufficient for properly housing the present staff which is an increase on the establishment existing when the final plans were approved. The reductions following on the scheme of decentralisation will probably still leave the building none too large for the future staff. The date for completion of the work is the 25th June, 1906.

  Military Discharges—Weak-Minded Soldiers.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what provision is made for the care and maintenance of a soldier on the active list who, although in the opinion of the

  739
  medical officer he is not a fit subject to be sent straight into a lunatic asylum, shows such weakness of mind that his discharge from the Army is considered expedient; is it usual in such cases to send a discharged soldier to his home in charge of a non-commissioned officer; and, if so, will he explain the reason.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: If the hon. Member will kindly refer to paragraphs 1820 and 1822 of the King's Regulations, he will find that harmless lunatic soldiers are handed over to their friends, if they are willing to receive them, or to the parish authorities if they decline. They are conducted by an unarmed party, the strength of which is determined by the local military authorities.

  Presbyterian Army Chaplain in Scotland.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why there is no commissioned Presbyterian chaplain at Edinburgh or at any of the military stations in Scotland.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The need of the services of the Presbyterian chaplains is more urgent at other stations at home and abroad than at those in Scotland, and these considerations govern the postings.

  Ex-Lieutenant Creen, 6th Volunteer Battalion, King's Liverpool Regiment.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. Robert Creen, late Lieutenant in the 6th Volunteer Battalion (King's Liverpool Regiment), has been deprived of his commission on a charge of insubordination, consisting in his asking the commanding officer of the regiment to direct that the officers be periodically furnished with information as to, and allowed a voice in, the expenditure and management of the moneys subscribed by them to the private funds of the corps; whether he will explain why Mr. Creen was not furnished before the inquiry with information as ho the charges to be brought against him, or allowed at the inquiry to call or put in evidence on his own behalf or to cross-examine the witnesses against him; and
  740
  whether he proposes to take any further action in the matter.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: My hon. friend's Question has already been answered in official and semi-official correspondence to which I have nothing to add. But as he asks the Question I will repeat that a Court of Inquiry of three Volunteer commanding officers found Lieutenant Creen guilty of insubordination to his commanding officer. On the advice of the military authorities it was decided to call on Lieutenant Creen to resign; he has not done so and steps will now be taken for his removal. As regards the other points it appears that Lieutenant Creen had all the information at his disposal as to the scope of the inquiry, and that he called a witness on his behalf; the Court only refused to receive certain letters and evidence which it considered irrelevant.
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: Having regard to the fact that it is alleged that this officer has been unfairly treated, will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table the Report of the Court of Inquiry or other correspondence?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir. I should be very unwilling to go behind the Report of a properly constituted Court on a matter of discipline.

  Rosyth Naval Base—Mineral Rights.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that in addition to the price of £122,500 paid for the surface of the land purchased by the Department for the Naval Base on the Firth of Forth a sum of £12,250 has been paid in name of compensation for minerals, he will state the rental of the minerals so acquired.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIL ALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): These minerals have not at present been worked and there is, therefore, no rental in respect of them.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Has the money been paid out of the Vote for Naval Works?
  MR. PRETYMANwas understood to reply in the affirmative.

  Admiralty Grants to Religious Denominations.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state what annual grants have been given by his Department to the various religious denominations respectively during the last five years.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The total amount of the grants referred to has been as follows—Church of England, including Irish Church and Scotch Episcopalian, £12,278 18s. 9d.; Roman Catholic, £13,434 18s. 8d Other religious bodies, including Presbyterian, Wesleyan, Baptist and Congregational, £11,316 3s. 0d. These grants include fixed allowances, capitation allowances, and building contributions.

  Lord Milner and South African Opinion.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will call Lord Milner's attention to the apparent conflict in the circumstances that, whilst on 3rd January he cabled that the opposition to the Chinese Ordinance is now confined to a small minority among Boer and British even in the Cape, and on 28th January that local opposition is now apparently extinct, a Blue-book is issued on 3rd March covering the period from 13th January to 1st March containing many protests and a petition to the King from meetings of the inhabitants of South African towns against the Ordinance.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): The hon. Member will find the latest expression of Lord Milner's opinion on this subject at page 14 of Cd. 1941. It is dated the 25th January and is consequently more recent than any of the petitions referred to by the hon. Member, except one. The hon. Member will also notice that all the petitions and resolutions from the Transvaal, with one single exception, are in favour of Asiatic labour. In these circumstances I see no reason for calling Lord Milner's attention to the matter.
  DR. MACNAMARA: It would appear that on other occasions Lord Milner has seriously misunderstood South African opinion.

  Chinese Labour—Capitation Fees.
  MR.THEODORE TAYLOR: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Otley District of Yorkshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of state for the colonies if he is now in a position to state whether any payment for licence for recruiting or per capita, on each labourer received will be made to the Chinese Government, or to any Chinese official, by an importer of labourers into south Africa.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I regret that I cannot at present make any statement.

  Asiatic Labour in Southern Rhodesia.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there has been any importation of Asiatic labour into Southern Rhodesia under the Ordinance of 1902, set out in Paper Cd. 1200 of that year: and, if so, to what extent; whether any condition was imposed that the Ordinance should not apply to the importation of Chinese labour, and should, with regard to other labour, only become operative after sanction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and what action was taken by the Secretary of State: whether he can see his way to lay upon the Table a continuation of the Correspondence relating to the supply of labour in Rhodesia, Cd. 1200 of 1902; and whether sanction to the proposed Ordinance with regard to imported labour for the Transvaal will be withheld until the Rhodesian Papers have been laid.
  MR. LYTTELTON: (1.) The answer is in the negative. (2.) I have to refer the hon. Member to a letter at page 74 of Cd. 1200 in which the British South Africa Company were informed by Mr. Chamberlain on 26th June, 1901, that any scheme for introducing Chinese labour must be considered separately, and after it has been fully discussed locally. The sanction of the Secretary of State is required under the Ordinance No. 3 of 1902 but has not been given as yet. (3.) The correspondence is not sufficiently complete to be laid upon the Table at present, but I expect to be able to do so at an early date. (4.) I am not prepared to give the pledge asked for.
  MR. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman in this case take a vote of the Colonists?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice must be given of that.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Will the Papers be laid before the right hon. Gentleman arrives at a final decision?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have answered that.
  MR. MARKHAM: Will you answer my Question?
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is not in order.

  Importation of Asiatics into Rhodesia.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes at an early date to authorise the importation of Asiatic labourers into Rhodesia under the pro visions of the Ordinances already sanctioned.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I am not prepared at present to make a definite statement on this matter, which is under consideration.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has declined to sanction the importation of Chinese labourers into Rhodesia under any Ordinance or Ordinances.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have not as yet felt justified in assenting to the issue of the notice which, under the Ordinance No. 3, of 1902, is a condition precedent to the importation of Chinese labourers. The whole matter is receiving my careful consideration.
  MR. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman decline to sanction the Ordinance until the people of the Colonies have been consulted?
  DR. MACNAMARA: Shall we have an opportunity of seeing and debating the Ordinance before sanction is given to it?
  [No answer was returned.]
  MR. WHITLEY: Does the Ordinance differ from the Transvaal Ordinance?
  MR. LYTTELTON: Yes, Sir.

  Claim against the Chartered Company for Injuries caused by Jameson Raid.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: (Norfolk, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government, as legal successors to the assets of the late South African Republic, will take immediate steps to enforce payment of the indemnity which the Chartered Company of British South Africa undertook to pay on the release of the prisoners after the Jameson Raid, with interest for the last seven years; and will apply the same towards the expense of the late war.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have to refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the House to a similar Question on 1st April, 1901†, by my predecessor.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it a fact that the late Colonial Secretary, in a despatch to Lord Rosmead in April, 1897, stated that the Chartered Company should be compelled to make good all compensation paid for injuries caused by the raid.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have not had time to look up the documents. I must ask for longer notice.

  South African Gold Mining Companies.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will grant a Return showing the names of the various companies interested in gold mining in South Africa, the capital of those companies, and the; amount of dividends paid for each year during the last five years, together with the number of persons employed, showing separately the number of British, foreign, and native persons employed.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have not in my possession the information necessary for the preparation of such a Return, much of which is not of a nature to come before Government. It would probably be impossible to collect now all the information
  † See (4) Debates,, xcii, 329.

  745
  asked for in the last part of the Question. I am not, therefore, prepared to grant the Return.

  Electoral Rolls for South Africa.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if it be his intention to give instructions for the formation of an electoral roll for municipal and parliamentary franchise in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Municipal rolls already exist. In my opinion the time has not yet arrived for incurring the cost of preparing an electoral roll for parliamentary franchise.

  Australian Labour Laws.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will represent to the Australian Government the propriety of repealing the legislation which prohibits British workers from landing in Australia under contracts to perform manual labour.
  MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir. I cannot undertake to make the representation suggested.

  Tibet Mission.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state whether any difficulties have arisen in connection with the mission to Tibet to necessitate an addition to the military escort; and, if so, will he state the nature of the difficulties, and to what extent the escort is to be strengthened.
  THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): I have heard nothing of any difficulties necessitating an addition to the military escort with the Tibet mission.

  Crete.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will now communicate to the House the Reports of His Royal Highness the High Commissioner of Crete upon the administration of that island during the years 1900, 1901, 1902, and 1903.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): No such Reports have been received from the High Commissioner.

  Russia and the Armenians.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Ambassador at St.Petersburg has been or will be desired to use his good offices with the Russian Government for the purpose of preventing the confiscation of the funds contributed by British Armenian subjects in Madras, Calcutta, Bombay, and elsewhere, for the support of the Theological Seminary at Etchmiadzin and for educational objects amongst necessitous Armenian congregations in Russia, under the spiritual direction of the See of Etchmiadzin.
  EARL PERCY: His Majesty's Government understand that under a law promulgated in Juno of last year, the Russian Government assumed the administration of Armenian Church property and revenues in the Caucasus, including those vested in the schools. The question is one of internal administration with which His Majesty's Government have no concern.

  English Immigrants at Boston.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Otley Division of Yorkshire, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that a party of eight persons who went out from Yorkshire in September last in the steamship "Commonwealth" were not allowed to land at Boston, but were sent back to this country, though they were met by friends who were prepared to be responsible for them, and though they had not gone out under any contract; and, if so, will he make representations to the Government of the United States in regard to this occurrence.
  EARL PERCY: The only information we have of the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member is contained in a telegram just received from the Acting British Consul at Boston, who states on the authority of the Immigration Commissioner there that the persons referred

  747
  to were deported as likely to become a charge to the public, and that this decision was taken after thorough investigation and an appeal to the Department at Washington. We expect to receive in due course a full report of the circumstances of the case.

  Examination for the Consular Service.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say what are the general principles of political economy applicable to commerce recommended by the Committee recently appointed to inquire into the constitution of the Consular service as a compulsory subject of examination for those desiring to enter the service, and approved by the Secretary of State.
  EARL PERCY: I am not aware that the Committee attempted any definition of the general principles of political economy. The course of study to be prescribed for the examination has not yet been finally decided, but there appears to be no reason why it should exclude as inapplicable to commerce any of the general principles of economic science.

  Sugar Duties—Polariscopic Scale.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that sugar refineries have been placed in bond and that duty is actually paid on the quantity of sugar refined as it is delivered from the factories, he can see his way to abolish the method of collecting the sugar tax in accordance with the polariscopic scale imposed in the Budget of 1901.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The scale of sugar duties imposed by the Finance Act, 1901, is applicable to sugars delivered from British refineries as well as to sugars which are imported and cleared for home consumption without passing through a refinery in this country. All sugar delivered from a refinery is not assessable at the highest rate of 4s. 2d. the cwt. as the Question seems to imply, but considerable quantities are delivered at the various lower rates in the scale referred
  748
  to. I am not prepared to propose any alteration in the existing system of collection.

  Somerset House—Estate and Legacy Department.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of considerable delays in the Estate and Legacy Department of Somerset House; and whether he will take steps to remove impediments by adverting to the former practice of personal attendance, or some other method calculated to expedite the transaction of business.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): There have been some delays in the Estate Duty Department since the 1st January, 1904, owing to extension of the office premises and to changes in the distribution of the staff consequent on such extension and on modifications of the methods of transacting business. Every effort is, however, being made to minimise delay whether attributable to these or any other causes, and the Board of Inland Revenue are confident that all ground of complaint will shortly be removed.

  Irish Food Imports and Exports.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the quantity of food exported from Ireland, and to the fact that food forms the largest part of the imports into Great Britain, and in view of the desirability of making the returns of these imports complete and accurate, especially with regard to butter, meat, eggs, and poultry, he would undertake to separate in future editions of the Statistical Abstract and other returns of figures the exports and imports of Ireland from those of Great Britain.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The direct exports from and imports into Irish ports to and from countries abroad are already shown under each port in the second volume of the Annual Statement of Trade. These exports and imports, however, represent only a part of the trade carried on at such ports, the remaining portion of which consists chiefly

  749
  of movements of goods from and to Great Britain. The Customs have no machinery for taking an account of the quantities or values of such goods, and particulars of them cannot, therefore, be given.

  Whisky Adulteration in Bond.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the quantity of raw grain whisky which has been used for mixing with malt whisky in Government warehouses under the supervision of revenue officials during the year ending 31st December, 1903.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have no means of obtaining the information desired by the hon. Member.
  MR. WEIR: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the revenue officials stand by and allow this process of mixing raw grain spirit with malt spirit to be carried on in Government warehouses, and will he have some inquiry made with a view to stopping it?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman is now asking a different Question from that on the Paper, and one which I have already answered in the course of the present session.
  MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiry to be made, because if information in connection with frauds is given by an Excise official he is immediately dismissed from the service?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is covered by the answer given.

  Director of Army Contracts—Official Appointment.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Lords of the Treasury have sanctioned the appointment of Mr. Henry de la Bere as Director of Army Contracts; whether the announcement of that gentleman's appointment was made by the Secretary of State for War with the concurrence of their Lordships; and whether Mr. Alfred Major had resigned the office of Director of Contracts when the appointment of Mr. de la Bere was officially announced.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The matters referred to concern the War
  750
  Department only. Treasury sanction was needed neither for the appointment nor for the announcement.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But the Treasury should know. They have to provide the salaries. I will, however, address it to the Secretary for War later. [The opportunity, however, did not recur as the time for Questions had lapsed before this one could be put a second time.]

  Argentine Sugar Exports.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the imports of sugar from the Argentine Republic in 1901 were 666,344, in 1902 808,951, and in eight months of 1903 418,386 cwts., and that since the 1st September, 1903, this trade has been altogether prohibited under the Sugar Convention Act, he can say to what country this sugar has been diverted, and what effects, if any, its diversion has produced on exports to the Argentine Republic on other places.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The quarterly Trade Accounts of the Argentine Government show that n the last quarter of 1903 the export of sugar from the Argentine amounted to 2,586 tons, of which 2,571 tons went to Uruguay. In the corresponding period of 1902 the exports amounted to 14,575 tons, of which 11,335 came to the United Kingdom and 3,180 went to Uruguay. These figures would seem to indicate that the prohibition has so far stopped rather than diverted the trade.
  MR. LOUGH: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph of the Question?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, it is quite impossible to tell the effects in so short a period.

  Board of Trade and Railway Management.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will say what, if anything, is being done to ensure the adoption of the rules made by the Board of Trade; and whether he is making any arrangements for testing either-side brakes on waggons as desired

  751
  by the Railway and Canal Commissioners in July of last year.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The first part of this inquiry hardly lends itself to reply within the limits of an Answer to a Question in the House. The following general statement will, however, serve to indicate the nature of the steps taken by the Board. The Board have addressed letters of inquiry to the several railway companies as to the action taken by them to carry out the rules dealing with (1) propping and tow-roping, (2) the lighting of stations and sidings, and (3) the protection of permanent-way men. The replies received have been examined by the Board's technical officers, to whom also have been submitted such complaints as have been received from time to time of alleged infractions of the rules. Upon the advice of their officers the Board have, in numerous cases, ordered inspections to be made under Section 13 (1) of the Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act. Such inspections have been ordered and are in course of being carried out at thirty-six of the places where railway companies have represented that, in their opinion, the operations of propping or tow-roping must be continued for the present. It is satisfactory to note that propping has now, for the most part, been discontinued, and that at numerous places railway companies have provided crossover roads, so as to avoid the necessity of tow-roping. Inspections in regard to alleged insufficiency of lighting at places falling within the rule on the subject have been, or are about to be made, in eighty-three cases, and I am glad to say that where the Board's officers have considered further lighting to be needed, the companies generally have agreed to carry out their recommendations. As further rules become operative, I propose, in the first instance, to make inquiry as to the steps taken by the companies to comply with them. There has been some difficulty in making arrangements for the tests of either-side brakes to which the hon. Member refers. I understand, however, that the tests will be made early next month.
  MR. GALLOWAY: Is it not the fact that the difficulty in testing the either-side brakes has been caused by the Board of Trade itself?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no reason to suppose that to be the case.

  Passive Resistance at Norden.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the assistant overseer of Norden, Lancashire, in refusing to apply for a summons against the Rev. J. T. Wilkins, Congregational Minister of Tenterfield, Norden, and in threatening to strike him off the voters list; and, if so, will he state whether the assistant overseer is acting in accordance with his instructions; and, if not, will he take steps to see that the usual instructions to overseers in these matters are carried out.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I have no information as to the case referred to, nor have I given any instructions with regard to it. It rests with the overseers to determine whether they will enforce payment of any sum which may be due from Mr. Wilkins in respect of poor rate, and I cannot undertake to interfere in the matter.

  Education Act Orders.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether Orders are scaled by the Charity Commissioners, under the Board of Education Act, 1899, in cases in which there is a dispute as to the nature and meaning of the trusts, or as to the apportionment previously made; whether, in such cases the sealing of an Order under the Board of Education Act, 1899, renders inoperative any remedies to which aggrieved persons or public bodies might otherwise have recourse under the Charitable Trusts Acts; and whether, if that be so, he will consider the desirability of taking such steps as may be necessary, by legislation or otherwise, to secure that the existing remedies shall not be lost.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: May I be allowed to answer this Question? No Order for determining, under the Board of Education Act, 1899, what part of a charity is educational is ever made by the Charity Commissioners without full consideration of the nature and meaning of the trusts, including the effect of any previous

  753
  apportionment; but, after consideration, it is their duty to issue such Orders, even in cases where their decisions may be disputed. Where an apportionment Order has previously been made, and no appeal was presented within the statutory period of three months, it has become binding on all parties, including the Commissioners themselves; it is therefore not the fact that the effect of a Determination Order following the previous apportionment is to render inoperative in such cases any remedy otherwise available by those who may raise objections to the apportionment.

  Sea Fisheries Bill.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the anxiety felt in some parts of the country with regard to the nature of the proposal for amending the law relating to sea fisheries mentioned in the King's Speech, he will state in general terms what is the object of the proposed Bill, and when it is likely to be introduced.
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The Bill to which the hon. Member refers was introduced in the House of Lords by my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries on the 2nd February. It was read a second time on the 16th ult. and referred to a Select Committee, which is now taking evidence on the subject.

  Motor-car Services in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the districts in the county Clare which have been inspected, with a view to the establishment of motor-car services.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): There were two routes inspected in Clare, namely, between Ennis and Scariff, and Bally-vaughan and Ennistymon.
  MR. CLANCYasked who was responsible for the selection of the services?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would supply the name to the hon. Member.

  Natural History Museum, Dublin.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a decision has been arrived at with respect to the increase of the staff at the Natural History Museum in Dublin; and, if not, will the necessary steps be taken so that provision may be made before the Irish Estimates are presented.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; I have nothing to add, at present, to my reply to the hon. Member's previous Question of the 29th February.

  Proposed School at Waterville.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the inspector sent down to Waterville, county Kerry, to inquire into the erection of the proposed new school there did not ascertain the opinion of Father O'Reilly, the parish priest, before submitting his report; is he aware that, owing to the distance of the village from the school at Spunkane, a number of Roman Catholic parents have had to provide teaching for thirty-four children in an apartment of the Courthouse, measuring fourteen feet by twelve feet; and whether, in view of the fact that many other Roman Catholic children, whose parents are unable to pay the private teacher employed, are absolutely debarred from education, and that the enlargement of the Spunkane school would not meet the necessities of the case, will steps be taken to avail of the site which has been secured in Waterville?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Two Inspectors reported on the application for this building grant. One had an interview with the reverend gentleman. A private school for Roman Catholic children of the better class, who are charged 5s. a, month, has been in operation in Waterville for some time past. The National School at Spunkane is only a mile distant from Waterville, and the Commissioners adhere to the opinion that its enlargement will effectively meet the requirements of the district.
  † See (4) Debates,, cxxx., 1242.
  MR. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the population of this place has largely extended and that the present school is a mile and a half away from where it is most needed. Will he suggest to the Education Commissioners the desirability of building a new school?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir, the sums involved in building schools are so large that I do not think I can do that.

  Land Puchase in Wicklow.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a county Wicklow landlord has applied to the Estates Commissioners to define as an estate for the purposes of the Land Purchase Act, 1903, that part of the landlord's property which is occupied by tenants willing to buy on the landlord's terms, and to exclude from the estate a number of holdings in possession of tenants who refuse to agree to the landlord's price; and, if so, will he state what has been the decision of the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No such application has been made to the Commissioners.

  Excessive Purchase Prices for Irish Land.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have refused to sanction a sale of holdings to their occupiers, who proposed to buy within the zones, on the ground that the price agreed upon was excessive; and, if so, will he say why this refusal was made.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; there is obviously no foundation for the suggestion m the Question.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I may inform the right hon. Gentleman that the reason I put the Question was that a statement was made in a Dublin paper to the effect that the Estates Commissioners would take care that no tenant would be allowed by them to purchase his holding at a usurious price even though he was buying within the zones. That statement
  756
  was calculated to mislead the tenants, the Commissioners having no power to withhold their sanction from sales made within, the zone limits.

  Liscannor Harbour.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say when will Liscannor Harbour works be commenced; will the county council or Board of Works carry out the work; what plans have been adopted, and will they be submitted to the county council; and will the tenders for the work be public or private; and what is the exact amount of the grant to be given under the Marina Works Act.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Treasury have sanctioned an advance under the Act for the works of improvement at Liscannor. The expenditure contemplated is £8,500, a third of which will be provided by the Department of Agriculture and the balance out of the Marine Works Grant. Public tenders will be called for forthwith, and the works will be commenced as quickly as possible. They will be carried out by contract under the supervision of the Board of Works. It is not proposed to submit the plans to the county council. They provide for the construction of two new berths, an extension of the existing groyne, the deepening of the harbour, and certain other repairs and works.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not the fact that the county council have decided to give a guarantee?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I believe so.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then they ought to see the plans.

  Kiladysert Creek.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the request of the Kiladysert District Council that the Kiladysert Creek should be improved and rendered navigable; and whether, as this matter has been pressed on the attention of the Government many times, he will see that

  757
  something practical is now done to meet the difficulty complained of.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have referred the hon. Member's Question to the Department of Agriculture for consideration.

  Convict Cournane.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the case of Mr. Patrick Cournane, at present in Maryborough Prison, who has served sixteen years penal servitude for an agrarian crime, has been considered with a view to his release.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The prisoner is undergoing a commuted death sentence. His case was before the Lord-Lieutenant in December, when it was decided that there are no sufficient grounds at present for a remission of the sentence.
  MR. FLAVIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that sixteen years penal servitude is long enough?

  Irish National School Books.
  MR. CONDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the rules regulating the supply of books to pupils in Irish National schools compel teachers to send for supplies, through the Commissioners, to the various booksellers from whom they may have to order school requisites; whether he is aware that in the case of small orders they are compelled to send from 10 to 25 per cent. more than cost price, though the books so purchased must afterwards be sold at cost price, and, seeing that there are local agents for the various firms of booksellers from whom those supplies could be got at cost price with no inconvenience or expense to the teacher, whether permission will be given to the teachers to purchase their school supplies from the local agents.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In the case of very small orders some of the contractors charge a small percentage to cover cost of carriage or postage. If a manager desires to purchase these small quantities locally the matter will be considered by the Commissioners.

  Clare Fisheries.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of his reply to a Question in 1901† that the Department of Agriculture in Ireland was considering the question of the fisheries in the district of Ballyvaughan, Clare, with a view to their development, he can now say if anything in this direction has been done or is about to be done.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Department is in correspondence with the county council on the subject of the provision of landing facilities for the fishermen at Ballaghaline. It has offered to make a contribution towards the cost of the necessary works. The council has not yet accepted the offer.

  Irish Board of Agriculture Staff.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant a Return, in continuation of the Return moved for by the hon. Member for West Cavan in last session, showing the complete staffing of the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in all its departments up to the 31st of the present month.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Return in question, which was only circulated last month, is brought down to the 1st May, 1903. There are several objections to the multiplication of Returns of this character at such short intervals, and I am reluctant to impose another on the Department at the present moment unless the hon. Member can satisfy me that he has good reasons for desiring the information. Perhaps he will communicate with me on the subject.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a Supplementary Return. The present one is six months old, it took so long to prepare.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with me.

  Ballyshannon Demand for Seed Potatoes.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at the
  † See (4) Debates,, xev., 504.

  759
  instance of the Ballyshannon Board of Guardians, the Congested Districts Board had made representations to the Local Government Board with reference to the necessity of the import of seed potatoes into the district, having regard to the need of the locality for such import, and that the Local Government Board refused to entertain the application; and, if so, whether any, and, if so, what, steps will be taken by requesting the Local Government Board to reconsider their decision, or otherwise to secure for this district the import of seed potatoes which is essential to the sustenance of its inhabitants.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must refer to my reply to the Question put to me on the 3rd February by the hon. Member for North Roscommon†.

  Beekeeping in Ireland.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland has been directed to reports from experts and from their inspectors upon the prevalence of foul brood, and the need for compulsory powers for dealing with the disease; and whether, seeing that the subject of the need for compulsory powers in the treatment of foul brood in Ireland has been before the Department since 1901, when the Irish Beekeepers Association submitted statements thereon to the Vice-President, the Department will now take steps to promote legislation to meet the case.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This matter was dealt with in the reply given on the 8th February to a Question of the hon. Member for South Kerry†.

  Athenry Police Case.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the last petty sessions held at Athenry, when a bailiff named J. Hansberry was prosecuted and fined for discharging firearms on the public road between nine and ten o'clock at night; whether he is
  † See (4) Debates,, cxxix., 192.
  † See (4) Debates,, cxxix., 595.
  760
  aware that Hansberry lives about 100 yards from the public road in the neighbourhood of which several malicious injuries have taken place, and that at the last quarter session at Gort, Hansberry claimed compensation under the Malicious Injuries Act, and, if so, will he say what was the nature of his claim; can he state the number of times these outrages were reported to the police; whether they were recorded as agrarian outrages in the Return supplied to Parliament; and what action the authorities intend to take in the matter, and whether they will consider the propriety of depriving Hansberry of the licence to carry arms.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I stated yesterday† that Hansberry was prosecuted and fined, on the charge of discharging firearms on the public road. He was awarded £5 compensation at quarter sessions in January for malicious injury to a pony trap at Athenry several miles distant. This case was not recorded as agrarian. There were two other cases of malicious injury in the neighbourhood for which compensation was granted; both of these, were recorded as agrarian offences. Hansberry is reported by the police to be a man of good character and there are no sufficient grounds for depriving him of his arms licence.
  MR. ROCHE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police sergeant swore that frequent complaints had been made about shots being fired at night?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of any further Question.

  Land Purchase in Galway.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of G. K. Mahen, a county Galway landlord, who, in selling his grass lands to small farmers at prices of from £400 to £500, involving a rental of from 30s. to £2 per acre in future on these tenants, is at the same time reserving the best portion of these lands for his own use; and, if so, whether he will direct the Estates Commissioners in the interests of the purchasing tenants and of the taxpayers, to have these holdings inspected before the advances are sanctioned.
  † See page 583.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The untenanted I land proposed to be sold will provide twenty-seven new holdings. The average amount of the annuities will be 20s. 3d. per statute acre. An inspection will, of course, be made before the Commissioners sanction an advance.
  MR. ROCHE: Who has the power of dividing the land into holdings?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member had better put that Question down.

  Granard Workhouse Master's Pension.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the reason of the delay on the part of the Local Government Board for Ireland in sanctioning the pension granted by the guardians of Granard union to their late master, Mr. O'Beirne; whether he is aware that all the requirements of the Local Government Board and Major Fair as to medical certificates have been complied with by the guardians; and will he now direct that the amount be forthwith sanctioned.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no delay on the part of the Board. It awaits information already called for from the guardians, and until this has been supplied the further consideration of the case cannot proceed.

  Irish Language in Irish Courts.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutentant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence which passed between Mr. M'Donogh Mahony, of Cahirciveen, and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland regarding the former's dismissal for signing warrants in Irish.
  MR. WYTSTDHAM: Yes, Sir, the correspondence will be laid upon the Table.

  Herbert Estate, Kerry.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a small number of tenants on the Herbert Estate were prevented from purchasing when the estate was sold a few years ago, and that the present holder of this portion
  762
  of the estate has recently forced these tenants to pay the hanging gale's rent; and whether, having regard to this treatment and other circumstances, he will insert provisions in the amending Land Bill enabling such tenants to purchase their holdings.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I understand that when the estate was sold a portion, comprising a small number of tenancies, was reserved from sale by the landlord. Unless the latter agrees to a sale he cannot be coerced into selling.

  Sunday Letter Deliveries in North Kerry.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that applications have been made for a Sunday delivery of letters at Bally-duff (North Kerry) and that all the adjoining towns and villages are in the enjoyment of Sunday delivery of mails; and whether he will cause local inquiries to be made as to the alleged grievances in connection with the want of a Sunday delivery of letters.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The question of affording a Sunday delivery of letters at Ballyduff has, as the hon. Member is aware, been considered on several previous occasions, but owing to the high cost of the existing service it has not been practicable to afford the desired improvement. I shall, however, have pleasure in making further inquiry on that point in order to ascertain whether the present circumstances will admit of a compliance with the hon. Member's wishes. The result shall be communicated to him as soon as possible.

  Longford Postmen's Grievance.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the limited mail delivery of letters at Longford Station at 9.13 a.m. and 5.5 p.m. is usually a heavy mail; and that the hand-cart on which the postmen are invited to drag the bags to the station is over 6 cwt. in weight; and, if so, whether he will direct that these two mail deliveries be included in the new contract just entered into.
  LORD STANLEY: I am having inquiry made, and will communicate with the hon. Member.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I will repeat the Question in a week's time.

  Asdee Postal Arrangements.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will make local inquiries as to the necessity of a Sunday delivery of letters at Asdee, North Kerry, in view of the inconvenience caused in the district by the fact that all letters addressed at Asdee have to lie at the adjoining post office at Bally-longford from Saturday morning until the following Monday owing to the want of a Sunday connection between Bally-longford and Asdee; and whether he will favourably consider the request of the people of the Asdee district for a Sunday mail service.
  LORD STANLEY: I have directed inquiries to be made on the subject of affording a Sunday delivery of letters at Asdee, North Kerry, and will communicate the result to the lion. Member.

  The War Office (Reconstruction) Report.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will now state the name of the member of the Government who sent the official communication to The Times, newspaper that the King had been pleased to approve of the issue of the second part of the War Office (Re-construction) Committee Report; and whether that communication was made by this member of the Government as a Departmental act or with the approval and sanction of the Cabinet in its collective capacity.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The lion. Member is labouring under a mistake. The War Office Committee was, in the first instance, appointed with the King's approval. The first part of the Report was published on 1st February with the announcement, "The King has been pleased to approve of the issue of the Report of the War Office Committee," etc. The second part was issued in exactly the same form, except that, as I am given to
  764
  understand, one of the Press agencies failed to put in their copy the official notification. The proceedings were perfectly regular, and the King's approval was notified in The Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Chronicle, Morning Post,, and other papers.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was it the War Secretary who sent out the Report?
  [No answer was returned.]
  MR SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if lie will state why was the introductory sentence that the King has been pleased to approve of the issue of Part II. of the Report of the War Office Reconstruction Committee supplied officially with that Report to some of the organs of the Press, and withheld from other organs of the Press; and what explanation, if any, is there for withholding the notification of the King's approval from any section of the Press, and on what principle was this difference of treatment based.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already replied to the Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I did not understand the reply.
  MR. A.J.BALFOUR: What part of my answer surpasses the hon. Member's comprehension?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I want to know why was the official notification of the King's approval of the issue of this War Committee's Report given to one section of the Press—The Times,—and withheld from another section.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is wrong both in the facts which he states, and the facts he omits. The Times, was not the only paper to which it was given. All the papers which did not receive it failed to receive it because their agents did not appear and get the ordinary official notification.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: How was it that these papers got all the official reports except that which had the imprimatur of the King's approval, which was given to the right hon. Gentleman's own Press.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was not given to one section. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman regards the Daily Chronicle, as an ardent supporter of the Government. That paper got the report.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The Times, and the Daily Telegraph, got it.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Did the Standard, get it?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No, they did not.

  Trinity College, Dublin—Provost's Appointment.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether an appointment has yet been made to the post of Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, which has now for a considerable time been vacant; if the appointment has been made, why has there been no official announcement of the Fact; and, if the appointment has not been made, what is the reason of the delay.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No appointment has yet been made. There has been delay, though no longer than has often taken place with regard to appointments of similar importance.

  Government Fiscal Policy.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to impose import duties of a retaliatory character without the authority of the House to each individual duty being first obtained.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not proposed to deal with the question of retaliation or of fiscal reform during the currency of the present Parliament, and I do not suppose the hon. Member would want to put a Question to me as to what is to take place in the next Parliament. Without, therefore, answering the Question, I may give him this consolatory information for what it is worth, that I do not think the House will
  766
  ever part with its effective control over the taxation of the country.
  MR. BLACK: Will the right hon. Gentleman say by what means he proposes to confer on the Executive——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. You cannot debate this. The hon. Member is in the habit of thinking that every Question requires a supplementary Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the business will be next week?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Vote on Account would be taken on Monday. In accordance with a very convenient practice which had been established for some years, he had endeavoured to make himself acquainted with the subject which the Opposition, as a whole, most desired to discuss, and he gathered that that subject was education. The Education Vote would be the Vote put down first accordingly. The Report would be taken on Wednesday afternoon, which would give an opportunity for the discussion of any other subject. On Tuesday Report of the Supplementary Estimates would be taken, and on Thursday Report of Supply, Army and Navy.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the arrangement did not meet the convenience of the Irish Party, who had not been consulted. It was not right, therefore, to say that the convenience of the Opposition, as a whole, had been consulted.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he should have thought the hon. and learned Gentleman could have better attained his wishes by negotiation with other fractions of the Opposition than by any aid he could give. It ought to be easy to arrange for the discussion upon the Vote on Account and another subject in which the hon. Member was interested at the Evening Sitting on Monday, or the Afternoon Sitting on Wednesday, and if he could assist such an arrangement he would do so.
*SIR BRAMPTON GURDONasked whether an opportunity would be given of discussing the Vote on Account as a Vote on Account. Hon. Members might consider the instalments too large, or there might be some service in respect of which the House might deem it wise not to sanction a Vote on Account.
MR. A. J. BALFOURreplied that the hon. Member had better arrange with the authorities of the Party to which he belonged. Only a certain amount of time could, by the Rules of the House, be given to the Vote on Account, and he had always desired that the distribution of the time should be left to those who were the natural critics of the Government.
COLONEL DENNY: When will the Scotch Education Bill be introduced?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope on an early day. I cannot say definitely.

NEW BILLS.
  CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1896," presented by Mr. Bell; supported by Mr. Levy, Mr. Shackleton, and Mr. Crooks; to be road a second time upon Friday, 15th April, and to be printed. [Bill 122.]
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  "To amend The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897," presented by Mr. Bell; supported by Mr. Joseph Walton, Mr. Burt, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Tennant, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Emmott, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. Thomas Bayley, and Mr. Fenwick; to be read a second time upon Friday, 25th March, and to be printed. [Bill 123.]
  VAGRANCY BILL.
  "To amend The Vagrancy Act, 1824, and to facilitate the establishment of labour Colonies," presented by Sir John Gorst; supported by Mr. Herbert Glad stone, Mr. Haldane, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Frederick Came Rasch, Sir John Leng, Colonel Williams, Captain Balfour, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Shackleton, and Mr. Crooks; to be read a second time upon Monday, 21st March, and to be printed. [Bill 124.]

  SUPPLY [2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 227,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Motion for the reduction in the number of men, moved by his hon. friend on the previous day, had lapsed under the forms of the House, and it was his intention to conclude by moving the same reduction again, although, for reasons he would give, he would have been willing to move a much larger reduction. The grounds advanced for the Motion on the preceding day applied especially to the Somaliland campaign, and were so fully stated, that he need not repeat them. He differed from his hon. friend who thought that the Secretary for War showed himself an optimist on that subject. Anything less cheerful than the remarks the right hon. Gentleman applied to it he never heard. On an earlier day in the session they had a little debate as to how far this campaign resembled the Dutch War in what was commonly called Acheen, which had been going on ever since 1874. That comparison was not of a pleasant nature. In that day's papers, too, they had news of further fighting in Somaliland. He agreed with his hon. friend that it was an unexampled fact that men should be asked for for the Somaliland War without the money for the continuing expenditure; the money should appear on the Estimates, or should be the subject of a Vote of Credit. The Secretary for War had made a somewhat startling announcement. He had told them he would have to make a proposal for a money Vote unless certain events occurred, events which he did not specify. Did that mean they were putting a price on the Mullah's head? That policy had been pursued by English generals in the Soudan, and had been

  769
  repudiated by the authorities at home, or were the Government anticipating the conclusion of peace with the Mullah so as to avoid the necessity for the expenditure of a further large sum? It was perfectly true that it was not usual to have the costs of a war put upon the Estimates, and the case of the South African War was exceptional, but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had omitted to explain that the reason why the costs of a war were not borne upon the Estimates was that they were provided for by Votes of Credit, but these small wars had constantly been borne upon the Estimates, and the Somaliland campagn had unfortunately appeared upon the Estimates for some years past. One of two things should have been done by the Government, either they should have put upon the Estimates a sum based upon the calculation of the monthly expenditure in Somaliland or, if that was not possible, they should have taken a Vote of Credit.
  Coming to the more important question of the reduction of 10,000 men which had been moved, he personally would have preferred the larger reduction which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Plymouth, but whatever reduction was moved it became most important, owing to the language used by the Prime Minister in the debate on the previous day, for the Committee to pursue on these Estimates the policy which they had pursued in the past. The right hon. Gentleman had promised a statement to be made later in the session, a statement which no doubt if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had his way would be satisfactory to the Army reformers in the House, but that statement was to be made at an indefinite date, and the Prime Minister had accompanied his suggestion with language which threw some doubt on certain portions of the Report which had been laid before them and which was the main ground on which this reduction had been moved. The Prime Minister had thrown over speeches which he had made in the past on these Army Estimates, and while the Secretary of State for War told the Committee that he entertained the same opinion which had been expressed in Committee in previous years in condemnation of the Army proposals made two years
  770
  ago, the Prime Minister had gone out of his way to throw considerable doubt upon what the Government were going to adopt of the Report. The Report of Lord Esher's Committee censured a great deal of the system adopted by the late Secretary of State for War, and when the Prime Minister came to deal with that question he did not use language calculated to satisfy the House that they were right in dismissing those proposals. It should be remembered that when those proposals were put forward a fair statement of the case was not presented to the House, because they were, as a fact, the proposals of the late Secretary of State for War alone and not of Lord Roberts as they were led to believe. The Prime Minister did not accept the censure of the Commission with regard to the present system, and it appeared to him that the right lion. Gentleman, in order to please a powerful colleague, had, if he might use the phrase, "hedged." That made the Committee profoundly suspicious, and made it absolutely necessary to move this reduction on this occasion. As far as he understood the present position of the Government, it was that the Army Corps system which was now condemned by everyone except the Secretary of State for India was to be continued until it was condemned by this new Army Council. What was the authority of this new Army Council for condemning this system? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War they knew was an ardent reformer from the speeches he made at other times below the Gangway, but this Army Council were newcomers, and even if the Committee took the four names which they had at present, those names were not the names of gentlemen who would carry the greatest weight with the House and the country. This great change would have to lie made on the authority of the Cabinet and the authority of the Cabinet alone, and after the evidence which had been given by the Commission and the Report of that Commission, in his opinion the Government could act as soon as they pleased, and any delay on their part would not commend itself to the House or to the country. The details could be worked out by the Army Council.
  Those who supported the increasing expenditure on the Navy were doubly

  771
  bound to ask themselves whether the Military Estimates now before the country could be justified. He did not think they could be justified, and he thought that, in general terms, the reformers had made out their case. He contended that the Estimates called upon the taxpayers to make needless sacrifices for the land forces in this country, and that those forces could be reduced with advantage to the State and without the smallest diminution of striking power. When he last spoke on this subject he stated that even those who, in the past, had been most wedded to the old system, and had been opposed to the saving of large sums of money by considerably reducing the number of regular troops at home, had now come round more or less to the views of the Army reformers on this point. He then quoted several names from the War Commission evidence, but his hon. friend the Member for East Bristol rather objected to Lord Wolseley being taken as a supporter of the view he was then putting forward. Lord Wolseley, however, certainly did make a suggestion which supported the contention that the automatic increases at home, effected to correspond with the number of battalions abroad, forced us to maintain more battalions in this country than were necessary for the purposes of home defence, because in the Appendix to the War Commission Report this statement by Lord Wolseley appeared—
  "Under our present system of two battalion regiments, foreign demands can only be met by having a battalion at home for each battalion abroad. The four battalion system which exists in the Rifle Corps and the Rifle Brigade increases our power of having more battalions abroad than at home; further demands abroad still require increases abroad but not necessarily increases both abroad and at home."
  That was his point. He maintained that reductions in the home forces could safely be made, and that by the adoption of the four battalion system or of the large depot system, necessary increases abroad could be made without requiring corresponding increases at home. In that way the greatest bane of our military expenditure would be removed, and an end would be put to an extravagance which forced the War Office to refuse money where it ought to be spent, and the number of men at home would be largely reduced. The Commission had
  772
  assumed that this change would be effected, and what the Committee desired to know was the date at which some such proposal would be adopted by the Government as a specific act of policy. They knew that the Secretary of State for War still held the views he formerly professed, but it was from the Cabinet as a whole they pressed for a, specific assurance pointing to the adoption of this plan as soon as the details could be worked out by the Army Council. The Secretary of State was with them, but the Prime Minister had gone out of his way to weaken the promise which had been previously given. As to the extent to which reductions might safely be made opinions would differ. It was not for civilians to deal with details to that extent, but a very clever soldier—the late Captain Cairnes—worked out figures showing that 165 was the average relief for each 1,000 men in India, and that, in his opinion, one large depot would suffice for the drafts for four battalions abroad. It could not be denied that by the adoption of this reform in some shape a very large reduction could be effected in the number of men at home, so that a diminution of anything like 10,000 men would be covered over and over again.
  The suggestion had been made that the question was to some extent connected with that of the Militia and the Volunteers, which had been referred to the Duke of Norfolk's Commission. In a large view of the nature of the regular forces of infantry to be kept at home, the Militia and Volunteers undoubtedly ought to be taken into consideration, and it was impossible to deal with the garrison artillery question without considering the Militia by whom the fortresses in this country would probably be garrisoned. Bui: that afforded an excuse for delay which he hoped would be rejected by the Government. The proceedings of the Norfolk Commission were not being published, consequently the nature of the evidence that was being taken and of the questions that were being asked could be judged only from gossip, the names of the witnesses, and remarks made by some of the witnesses in papers read by them. There seemed reason to fear, however, that the Commission was wasting its time by taking evidence upon conscription, the Militia. Ballot, and all sorts of

  773
  side questions; while, in addition, the reference to the Commission was not such as would entitle its opinion to have much effect on the minds of the Government. He implored the Government not to urge the sittings of the Commission as an additional reason for holding their hand in regard to these reforms. Perhaps he bad spoken somewhat contemptuously of the evidence taken by the Norfolk Commission with regard to conscription and the Militia, Ballot, but we were a practical people, and His Majesty's Government was deeply pledged against the adoption of any such system. That being so, a Commission which gave its mind to such questions was not likely to make suggestions of practical utility. The people of this country would not adopt the Militia Ballot while they paid £42,000.000 a year for the Fleet. The two things were inconsistent. The Government had now-come round to the view that the question of home defence was primarily a naval question, and that as long as we held the command of the sea it was unnecessary to consider the problem of internal defence. But the Prime Minister, although he had made much progress, still failed to grasp the real conditions of the problem. The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday—
  "Let the House not forget what it too often has forgotten, that the size of our Army depends upon the duties that the Army has to perform."
  That was not the case. The size of our Army abroad depended upon the duties it had to perform, but the size of our peace Army at home was at the present time an accident. It could not be pretended that the size of the home Army was based on calculations concerning the duties it had to perform: on the contrary, it existed, and because it existed sham duties had been found for it. The home Army was and must be mainly a depot for the supply of reliefs to the foreign Army; it was from that point of view the matter should be looked at. He welcomed the Prime Minister's assertion that invasion was an illusory danger and not a contingency against which it was right or proper to ask this country to make costly provision, but still the present system which was continued in these Estimates, forced needless sacrifices upon the
  774
  country for battalions which were not necessary at home in order to supply drafts which could be provided by a cheaper and smaller system. He begged to move that the number of men be reduced by 10,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 217.000 be maintained for the said Service."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it behoved them to look at this matter from a financial point of view. He admitted that it required more courage than he possessed to vote against the proposals put before Parliament for the defence of the country by those who were responsible, but everything encouraged them to believe that Vote A might be reduced. Men were being taken for Somaliland and the money was not provided for in the Estimates. As the right hon. Baronet had pointed out this was the moment or never, because if they passed Vote A they must vote the pay and all the establishment required to keep up the Army and it would be childish after voting the men and the money to complain of the expenditure on the Army. He asked the Committee to reflect for a, moment upon the situation to which the country had been brought. Consols had fallen 30 per cent, and the reason for this was that the foundation of our credit had been sapped by interference with the Sinking Fund. There were rumours that it was to be interfered with again this year, and therefore it became absolutely necessary to see where they could economise. He thought Vote A was the one, where economy could be effected with safety and 10,000 was an extremely moderate reduction. He recognised the gravity of any step that denied the responsible Minister the number of men and the money he asked for, but these men were not wanted for the defence of the country. He hoped the Committee would remember that this was the only occasion upon which the House could take any steps in the direction of economy which was so much needed, and if they passed this Vote he defied hon. Members to find any other opportunity of enforcing effectually the doctrine of economy. Although he

  775
  recognised the gravity of the situation if the Amendment was pressed to a division he should most unhesitatingly vote for the reduction, because it would effect an economy in the finances of the country.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he felt bound to support the right hon. Baronet's Amendment. When they considered the enormous expenditure upon the Army—which he had not yet voted against—he agreed that it was not absolutely necessary to keep such an immense Army in this country except to fill up the gaps that occurred in our Army abroad. He did not think the Government had sufficiently considered the recommendations of the Committee in regard to economy. He viewed the question with considerable anxiety when he remembered that not only had Consols fallen to 85, but every security in this country—some of them having been in the past considered almost gilt-edged securities—had fallen 25 or 30 per cent. At this figure it was almost impossible to raise sufficient money to successfully carry on industrial enterprises, and it was quite time that the Government began to study that little word "economy." Any ordinary business man when he knew a very serious claim was likely to be brought against him for money began to consider whether he could reduce his expenses or not. When they saw the expenditure not only in connection with the Government but in all their industries; when their municipal authorities were waiting to launch schemes upon the public for the expenditure of money and were only holding back owing to the serious condition of the money market he thought it was time to begin economising. There was scarcely a municipality in the country which was not waiting to apply for money. There was scarcely a railway company, gas company, or a water company that was not holding back some demands for money. In the face of all this it was necessary to economise wherever they could. They had had an abundant revenue for the last few years which had been disposed of in ways he disapproved or, and he thought the time had come when the Government should reconsider the financial position. He pitied any
  776
  Government which would have to deal with the financial situation into which the present Government had brought the country.
  COLONEL SANDYSsaid he wished to say a few words in regard to the matter before the Committee, because he had always taken a great interest in the welfare of the Army. They had heard a great deal from hon. Gentlemen opposite upon the point of economy. He agreed that economy was required in the present financial condition of the country, but the point was whether it was wise to carry this economy too far in regard to the defensive forces of the Crown. History repeated* itself, and he thought the Committee would see that to reduce this Vote now would be repeating the old historical legend. It would be within the memory of hon. Members that when war broke out in South Africa no measure was too great or complicated and no cost too much in order to get together an Army sufficient for our military needs. What would happen now, if this reduction was carried, would be a repetition of the historical lesson which had happened over and over again in this country, namely, that military unreadiness was succeeded by military retrenchment without regard to efficiency. Therefore he asked the Committee to consider the question of efficiency. It had been said by various speakers that all these men were not required as long as our Navy commanded the sea. He agreed that it was necessary that we should have an overwhelmingly strong Navy, but, at the same time, it was within the bounds of possibility that our Navy might be opposed by such a powerful combination of the forces of other countries during an internecine struggle in Europe as to be placed in such a position that it would be difficult without an adequate number of troops to defend our shores from invasion. Therefore he did not think it would be wise to reduce the Regular forces of this country below a certain well ascertained limit. He was not going to say anything as to what that limit should be, but he felt sure that His Majesty's Ministers had most carefully considered the necessity for these men before asking for this number. The

  777
  proposal of the Government, therefore, I seemed to him quite reasonable. Comparing their forces with those of other countries, he could not think that 217,000 men for all the three arms in the United Kingdom was an exaggerated estimate for the military defence of this country.
  He did not propose now to touch upon the other branches of this Vote, but he hoped that the rearrangement of the forces which was contemplated by the War Office would lead to a scheme being devised under which they would get greater efficiency and mobility than they had in the Army at the present time. As opportunities were few he would venture now to indicate broadly the lines on which he thought reconstruction might proceed. There was a recommendation in the second portion of the Report of the Committee to the effect that practically the linked battalion system was to be abolished. The linked battalion system should be abolished. Then came the question of how we were to get men. Supposing the present system were broken up, what did they propose to substitute for it? Referring to the organisation of the Infantry branch of the service, with which he was best acquainted, he said that the broad outline of our system must be that the Regular Army formed the first line of military defence, the Militia the second line, and the Volunteers the third line. A system should be arranged whereby those three lines would work in support of each other in such a way as would provide us with a possible expansion of our forces in war time without the necessity of retaining them on an extravagant basis in time of peace. Assuming that the linked battalion system was done away with, and that possibly the old numbers for the single battalions were restored, what was specially desirable was that we should have a system of refilling the battalions abroad without the necessity of keeping a corresponding number of battalions at home. When the present system was first proposed it seemed to him an impossible arrangement and, having been in practice for many years, it had been shown to be unsatisfactory. Ii that system were away with he would meet the change in this way
  778
  Every battalion should have a depot from which its ranks should be filled, whether at home or abroad. The answer would be given that there had always been depots for these battalions, but lie maintained that they had never been real depots. They were, so to speak, skeletons or frameworks. There had been a prejudice at the War Office against the system of depots, but his opinion was that every form of troops—every battalion of infantry, regiment of cavalry, and battery of artillery—should have a depot and be capable of expansion when the strain of war came upon us. In order to accomplish this he should propose that the Line battalions should be divided into four companies with deposits consisting of two companies. The strength of the company with the colours should be 150 privates each, so that at all times the headquarters of the regiment should be kept up to the strength, and the depots, which were at home, and which would consist of two companies capable of expansion in time of war, would fill the battalion, in a very short space of time. He suggested that the territorial regiments should be composed as follows: First, of the Line battalions; second, of real depots capable of expansion in time of war to fill the battalions; and third, of Reserve battalions into which officers and men who had served in the Line battalions could go. They should not have in the Reserve battalions the heterogeneous collection of officers and men who formed an unmanageable mass, but there should be a reserve battalion to each regiment into which officers and men should pass, and from which they could be called to serve, either in the depot or with the colours, when they were wanted. Following on that there would be a Militia battalion, or battalions, kept at effective strength—a cheap force, full of zeal, and capable of expansion and of being brought into the fighting line I if required. Under his scheme of Army reconstruction he wanted the Secretary of State for War to accept the position that the Militia should be the real Reserve and second line of the fighting Army. Behind the Militia would come the Volunteers. What happened at the outbreak of war? An order was given for mobilisation. He should propose that the depot two companies might

  779
  be made into combatant battalions. How could that be done? In the first instance he should call in a certain number of men from the reserve battalion, then lie should allow 10 per cent. of the Militia battalion to volunteer for service and pass them into the depot battalions, and in order to get the Militia regiment up to the full strength lie should compel the affiliated Volunteer battalion to have at all times 100 men ready to fill up the Militia battalion, and to make up the war strength of the depôt. He believed that would supply a very large number of men. There was still another field from which they could get men. The Secretary of State for War said the other day that the Guards system of three years service and nine years in the Reserve was to be introduced into the Line battalions. He always thought that bad for the Guards.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): It has been introduced, and has been in force for some time.
  COLONEL SANDYSsaid that in his judgment it was not a good system. He believed in having the battalions made up to the recognised strength by what lie would call the finished article. They were all anxious to find out the reason why the classes who formerly entered the Army were no longer willing to enlist at the same rate as before. From the inquiries he had made he believed it was on account of the incessant change of conditions in regard to service in our Army. This had destroyed the confidence of the recruit-giving classes, and men would not come in now in the way they did formerly. Formerly a roan would go into a regiment feeling sure that he would never be moved from it, and that at the end of twenty-one years service he would get a small pension which would help him to eke out a living for the rest of his days. That condition of affairs had to a large extent disappeared, and the result was that the class of men who used to enlist in the Army went into the police where the conditions were fixed. If they wanted to restore confidence they must look upon those who enlisted as men who found less attraction in gratuities and immediate benefits, than in the
  780
  prospect of something substantial at the end of their military career. Ho was quite sure that if the Government would consider this point in connection with the recruit-giving classes they would get back their confidence. If that was not done he feared that recruiting would not improve, but rather diminish. The system of taking boys into the Navy was an excellent system, and he suggested that the advisability of introducing a system of boy recruiting for the Army, a source of supply which was yet untapped, should be considered by the Secretary of State. Ho would suggest that a boy company should form part of each depot, that they should be under specially selected officers and non-commissioned officers, that they should be carefully attended to and trained, and that they should be separated from the evil influences which were supposed to follow depôts—influences which he felt would not prevail if depots were placed under proper command. Boys enlisted at twelve years of age could be trained and taken into the ranks at eighteen on condition that they would give a certain number of years service. During the years of training each boy ought to be taught a trade so that he would be able to earn a living when he left the Army. It would work out in this way. At the end of six years there would be sixty boys at the depot, and ten boys would be fully trained every year to pass into the ranks. Supposing there were 146 battalions and 146 depots there would he ton times 146 trained soldiers passing into the ranks, and that would go on continuously as long as the British Army lasted. He ventured to think that if that plan were put in force, in conjunction with the depot system, we should have a very valuable recruiting adjunct without much expense. Then, unskilled labourers who joined the Army should be taught some trade, because it was hardly fair that after twelve years service they should be turned adrift with no provision for themselves or their families. The Army should be regarded not only as a defensive force, but as an educational factor for the country.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he desired to take this opportunity of drawing further attention to what he did not hesitate to describe as the perfectly

  781
  senseless campaign that was now being waged in Somaliland. The Secretary of State had the previous day stated that it was no unusual thing for no Estimate to be made in the current year for such a campaign as that now going on in Somaliland, but the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean challenged that statement. As there was no money estimate asked for, he did not propose on the next or any succeeding Vote to refer to the campaign in Somaliland; but he would satisfy himself on that occasion, on the Vote for men by protesting as strongly as he could against the employment of one single man who was paid for by the taxpayers of this country and Ireland, in the operations in Somaliland. He said without the slightest hesitation that the conduct of the Government in connection with that campaign was not, and had not been, straightforward from the commencement. It was a perfectly monstrous state of things for the Secretary for War to come there and practically brush aside every criticism and every inquiry as to this campaign, with a general statement that he hoped in a short time things would be better, and that then it would be easier to tell how the campaign stood, and how it was proceeding. That might be a perfectly intelligent policy, if this was a campaign only just commencing; but it had been in progress for three long years, and there was not a single Member of the House of Commons or of the Government who could point to a single advantage gained by the people of this country or Empire by this three years campaign in Somaliland. And yet at the commencement of the fourth year of this campaign they were asked to trust the Government to continue it; and the only consolation they got was the vague statement, that in a short time it would be possible to understand and estimate how long it would further run and when they might see an end to the operations.
  How was the campaign started? He could understand the commencement of the campaign in South Africa. It was on the plea that the rights and interests of British subjects had been interfered with. He himself did not think they had been interfered with; but it was an intelligent plea on behalf of the
  782
  Government. What sort of British right or interest of any description had been interfered with in Somaliland? He ventured to say that it was not possible for any Secretary for War to get up and make a plain statement which would show that any light or interest of any British subject had been interfered with in Somaliland; and if that were so, why was the war undertaken at all? Of course they should be told that the war was undertaken for the purpose of keeping to the spirit and letter of certain treaties made on behalf of this country with certain tribes in East Africa; and that simply on the faith of those treaties rested all what the Government called a justification for this campaign. But what were those treaties?. They were vague from beginning to end. In the first place, there was not in any of them anything to define the territory which should be under British protection, or where the natives would be entitled to receive the support of the British Government if attacked. Certain tribes were given to understand that they would be protected if attacked, but there was nothing to define the territory over which this protection was to extend. And what had happened? The scene of the war, ever since it had commenced, had been shifting weekly and monthly over a widely spread territory. He thought it was time for somebody, even though he were an Irish Member, to ask how far, and over what amount of territory, the government of those tribes went? A more preposterous proposition had never been made than that this country should be bound to protect those tribes all over Africa in territories not defined. If that was allowed, it meant that those warlike proceedings would be practically interminable and that the scene of the operations would be shifted from time to time and from place to place. Could the Government point to some objective in the shape of a city, town, village, or district which, if captured, would bring the war to an end? There had been nothing in the shape of explicit explanation from the Government as to why these operations were to be continued. With great deference, he ventured to make a prediction, although some of his predictions had been fulfilled to the letter. For instance, he held in his hand the volume of Parliamentary Debates, for 1899, containing the report of

  783
  the demand by the Government for a Vote for £10,000,000 to conduct the war in South Africa, and when the House was given to understand that that money would see the trouble in South Africa through. On that occasion he made a speech in which he said he felt convinced that, if that war went on, it would cost hundreds of millions, and hon. Members opposite shook with laughter and said his prediction was absurd. But the fact was that the cost of that war had run into £300,000,000 instead of £10,000,000. He predicted that if this campaign in Somaliland was not brought to an end soon it would cost the taxpayers of this country—and what was more the taxpayers of Ireland—millions and millions of money. [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL Benches: How many millions?] He did not limit himself to a million or two; but he was perfectly certain it would cost millions with nothing to show in return.
  He was the last person in the world to pick a quarrel or find fault with anybody; but he thought the action of the Opposition in reference to the Somaliland campaign was most contemptible. It was a monstrous thing to see the Opposition in the House of Commons tolerating what was going on in Somaliland without making one strong, united, serious proposition against it. Apparently, as they paid no attention to it, the Opposition were satisfied that the campaign should go on. Therefore, it was left to an Irish representative to point out the absurd and disastrous position into which the taxpayers of the country were being led by this wild and wasteful campaign in East Africa. He asked, was it an unreasonable thing that at the end of three years of futile war—a war which he had opposed all through and which had resulted in the sacrifice of a considerable number of gallant British officers and native levies some information should be asked for from the Government as to when it was to come to an end? He thought that the relatives and friends of those men who had been blundered and muddled into their death and destruction by the policy of the Government in this war ought never to forgive the Government. He emphatically denied that his objection in raising this question was to delay the progress of the Estimates. The prolongation of the Somaliland campaign would
  784
  be condemned generally throughout the country, if the people could be brought to a sense of their duty in the matter. 10,000 men were asked for, but no monetary provision was made. Two millions of money had already been spent, the campaign was entering its fourth year, and yet no money was to be asked for. Such a course was not only unprecedented; it was misleading to the last degree. The reason for the adoption of this course was probably the anxiety of the Government to divert public attention from the horrible muddle into which they had got the Somaliland business. The absence of provision would lead Members to suppose that the operations were coming or had come to an end, whereas, as a matter of I fact, fighting on a considerable scale was still proceeding, and a large amount of money was certain to be required. He desired to ask the Secretary of State two or three plain Questions on the matter. Could he supplement the information already given as to the reasons for the war? Could he show that any British subjects were injured, or outraged, or interfered with in any way which made war necessary? Could he show that any British territory was invaded or threatened, or British interests jeopardised? Was there any reason for the campaign other than the fulfilment of certain treaties with certain native tribes? Was it not the fact that under those treaties the Government were bound to carry on warlike operations in protection of certain tribes, no matter to what part of Africa those tribes thought fit to go? What was the objective of the campaign, and what was to be done to bring this inglorious work to an end?
  A telegram, alleged to have been from General Egerton, had recently appeared in the newspapers, in which it was intimated to the Mullah that nothing would bring the campaign to a close except his death or capture with a certain number of rifles. Was that authentic despatch, and, if so, was it with 'the sanction of the Government that such a communication had been made by a British General to the head of the forces to which he was opposed? The Mullah had shown a considerable amount of military genius, he had inflicted certain reverses on the British troops, and

  785
  human nature being the same all the world over, such a communication as that to which he had referred was just the thing to cause the prolongation of the struggle for an indefinite period. The issue of a declaration of this kind lent colour to the suggestion that a reward had possibly been offered for the capture of the Mullah, and it was certainly not the way in which a campaign should be conducted, whether against whites or blacks, civilised or uncivilised opponents.
  He felt very strongly on this matter but there was one way by which he might be silenced. If the Government would make an arrangement by which Ireland would be relieved of any contribution in respect of these operations he would not say another word on the subject. England had a perfect right to do as she liked with her own money and her own Army, but should have no right whatever to start, senseless campaigns for no useful purpose, involving the expenditure of millions of money, and expect the hash people to bear any proportion of the cost. He held the opinion that, whatever might he said of these campaigns or operations, they could not in any conceivable way benefit Ireland; yet they would have to bear a full proportion of the cost. In the South African war, which he protested against again and again, they were told that it might ultimately benefit Ireland, because there would be a field in South Africa eventually for Irish emigration, if unfortunately the Irish had to emigrate. Well, everybody knew what the result had been. The field of emigration in South Africa was for Chinamen and not for any white race. But, however that might be, none could say that Somali-land would ever become a field for emigration. It was a country that could not be occupied for a single year; it was a country in which white men could not find any possible employment, and therefore the poor thin argument that it would open up a field for emigration fell to the ground. The Irish people paid a good deal too much for this sort of thing, and when he saw hundreds and, thousands of pounds asked for campaigns of the Somaliland kind, and when he considered the condition of the districts which he and his lion, friends represented in Ireland, they felt thoroughly justified in protesting as they did. England was a
  786
  very wealthy country, and the vast majority of its people had not the faintest shadow of an idea of the way in which thousands of people in Ireland lived. All round the coasts of Ireland there was poverty of the most grinding description. All along the coasts might be seen broken piers and breakwaters, and ruined harbours, which only needed a little money to be spent upon them to enable the people to develop the fishing industry of the country, which would bring prosperity to many thousands. They had the greatest difficulty in getting money for this purpose from Parliament, yet, in the case of Somaliland, they were expected to acquiesce agreeably and silently to the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds. It was an injustice, and a proceeding which was characteristic of what had been going on for some years under the present Government, It did Ireland no good, and only increased the feeling which the people of Ireland entertained, namely, that the arrangement which exsisted was an unjust one and one that must be changed. There was no hope of there being any support to any protest of this kind, but it might be expected that there would be some protest from the representatives of the great democracy who sat on the Opposition side of the House. Where were those representative when this great expenditure was being sanctioned? With the exception of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, and one or two Scotch Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench, apparently not one of them took any interest in it. When next year came probably the same thing would happen when they had a Vote for £1,000,000 for Somaliland. He thought the Committee was entitled to ask from the Government if they had any idea of what was really to happen in Somaliland. Was the war to continue until the Mullah was either killed or captured, or when was it to end? He ventured to think that up to the present they had received no answer as to whether this costly and inglorious muddle was to go on year after year, but so long as it did go on he should protest against it.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid he did not

  787
  desire to address many Questions to the Government, but there was one of very great importance. It had now been admitted that our real object in having an Army at home was that it should be able to be sent over-seas to be employed abroad, and it was not fair to ask the Government for further details as to what part of the world we might require to send the Army, because no one could know where it would be required. His own opinion as regarded any reduction of the Army was that the watchword of the Army should be ubique,, as it was not possible to say in what portion of the globe it would have to fight. One Question, however, the Secretary of State for War would have to answer, and that was how many men he expected to get during the next year's recruiting? Last year when they came to vote men for the Army 230,000 men were voted. How, many of those men were obtained during last year? This year there was a small reduction made and only 227,000 were asked for. It was no good asking the right hon. Gentleman how many men he hoped to get, because the obvious answer would be that he hoped to get them all, but it was a fair question to ask how-many men he expected to get, and after all that was the main question when the Committee were voting a number of men and the money to keep them. The money voted in the previous year was not required for our home establishment. Our battalion average was 800 men, and during the greater portion of the previous year they were only 600 to a battalion, and he would like to know what had become of the money voted for the extra 200 men for each battalion. It was no doubt used for other purposes, but it was ridiculous to ask for a large amount of money for men that did not exist. He did not wish to make it harder for the War Office in the scheme of reorganisation of the Army, but he would like to know how many men were actually in the Army last year, and how many recruits did they expect to get. In all is question of Army reform it appeared to him that it did not matter one farthing whether the men were formed into Army Corps or into territorial commands—there still remained only 200,000 men, and he thought any scheme for the reorganisation
  788
  of the Army ought to be based on the number of recruits that could be obtained.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERthought his noble friend had been misled by an insufficient perusal of the documents contained in the Estimates. He could assure his noble friend that the Army I was not under strength. On the contrary, it was over strength. It was a fact that the Infantry and the Guards were to a I certain extent under strength, but during the past year the Army as a whole was considerably overborne. The result was that they were compelled to come down to the House and ask for an additional I sum to provide the pay which was not I down in the Estimates for the year. The suggestion that they had diverted money which was intended for the pay of the men to other purposes, therefore, fell to the ground. The number of recruits I they were getting now was as large as, in fact, much larger than they had ever got before at any time, except during the war. He would also remind the hon. Member that he had entirely omitted from his consideration the fact that although during last year two important branches of the Army—the Cavalry and Artillery—and several subsidiary branches were closed to recruiting, they got no less than 40,000 men. He did not think, in view of the larger pay that was coming into force next year, they need despair of getting the number of recruits they required. The difficulties connected with recruiting would be, he thought, of a different kind. They would concern the quality of the recruits, and also the conditions under which they served.
  MR. O'MARAasked the hon. Gentleman to explain how it was that there were 600 recruits less in January than in January last year.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTEEsaid he could not account or the want of regularity in the recruiting for any particular month. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had said many things with which he agreed, but he could not agree with him when he said that it was the duty of hon. Members to vote for a reduction in the number of men. It might be the duty of the right hon. Baronet to vote against the number of men asked for upon some ground of

  789
  principle, but he did say most emphatically, as the Minister responsible for the time being for the Army, that he was confident that if such a reduction as had been suggested were carried into effect it would have a very disastrous effect indeed upon the Army. He agreed with the right lion. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, that we ought to have a system by which the number of men at home would not correspond to the number of men abroad, and he was confident it was possible to devise machinery to secure that object. But if they stopped the present machinery before they had something to put in its place, and so diminished the output of effective troops, they would do a great disservice to the cause of the Empire in all parts of the world. He did not know whether he could persuade hon. Members that that was a sufficient reason why they should abstain from voting for this reduction, but to him it seemed a sound and adequate reason. He agreed that they were not supplying the men in the most economical manner, and the great change of policy described by the Prime Minister, by which our Army ceased to be regarded as a source of supply to the Army over-sea, must inevitably cause them to modify their views as to the necessity for maintaining the same number of units at home and abroad. He could only repeat what he had already said about Somaliland.
  *MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldhim)asked whether the right hon. Gentleman held out the hope of a specific reduction in battalions.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that was certainly his hope.
  *MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked whether he could give any indication of the scale.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid his hon. friend must not press him too far. He had his ideas on this subject, but he thought it would be very disadvantageous to give statements and figures which he might hive to recall later on. With regard to Somaliland his reasons might not seem adequate, but he was not in a position to say more about it at the present time except that he had no
  790
  official knowledge of the telegram which ad been referred to.
  MR. O'MARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire from General Egerton.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was in constant communication with General Egerton. He had not received any telegram to the effect described. The action indicated was certainly not in pursuance of any instructions given from this country. He had been asked what was the cause of these operations. They had been undertaken because those under our protection had been attacked, not once, but two or three times. He appealed to the Committee to allow this Vote to be passed.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that the argument of the Secretary of State for War was that in his opinion it was essential to have the number of men which he had put, upon the Estimates. He contended that the Committee was not justified in putting this burden on the country without having a much clearer idea than had been given to it of the objects for which the expenditure was required. The noble Lord opposite had put forward the doctrine that it would depend upon the recruiting sergeant as well as upon the Secretary of State for War as to whether the full number of recruits would enter the Army this year. No one would dispute the doctrine that the Army ought to be fit to servo anywhere, but they did dispute that numbers necessarily constituted efficiency. He believed they had a larger number upon paper now than they would be able to bring to a high standard of efficiency. What reason was there for maintaining 130,000 men at home. The reason given was that in view of the condition of affairs upon the Indian frontier they had to maintain that large number of men in this country to reinforce adequately the garrison of India, but that was a doctrine which he had never accepted. The best means of securing the safety of India had been taken by the Government in re-arming the Artillery and the Infantry and in strengthening the garrison there and maintaining a considerable number of troops in South Africa. He did not think that a case had been made

  791
  out for the maintenance of such a great number of men at home. They could in case of need call upon a great number of men in this country who were accustomed to war, and no sound or adequate reason had been given for maintaining such a large number of troops in this country. The sum they had voted to the Navy this year had rendered the position of this country secure, and if the number were reduced by 10,000 we should still have a sufficient Army, which we ought to spare nothing to render thoroughly efficient. He was satisfied that this reduction was necessary, and he should heartily support it. If the right hon. Gentleman expected the Committee to support Estimates of this magnitude he must be prepared to give fuller information and take the Committee more into the confidence of the War Office in regard to their plans. Without fuller information the Committee was not justified merely upon the opinion of the Secretary of State for War in voting this vast number of men.
  *MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that some Members on that side were placed in a difficult position in view of the reduction of 27,000 men for which twenty-seven of them voted last year. Nothing in the Estimates showed that the circumstances against which they then protested were altered to-day, and he could not say that the reduction now proposed was unwise or would be prejudicial to the interests of the country. He felt most strongly that what they required was a smaller and a cheaper Army. He had a good deal of faith in what his right hon. friend was going to do, and he believed it would be possible for him to effect some substantial reduction in the number of men and the cost of the Army without making any proportionate diminution in the actual fighting strength of the forces. Everybody who took an interest in the Army independently of Party politics would desire that the right hon. Gentleman should have a fair opportunity of trying to solve the riddle with which he was confronted. In these circumstances he was not prepared to embarass the right hon. Gentleman by voting against him on this occasion.
  *CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he desired to make his position perfectly clear in voting for the reduction. He would vote for the reduction purely
  792
  on principle. The Estimates dealt with a system which we had reason to believe had become inadequate. He desired to give support to the views which the present Secretary for War was believed to hold, and asked for a declaration from him whether he had the support of the Cabinet in regard to the views which he would wish to carry out. They had tin; Secretary of State for War speaking with one voice and pledged to a certain system of reform, and on the other hand they had reason to believe that in the Cabinet there were three former Secretaries of State for War, and, as far as was known, the Prime Minister, wedded to the six paper Army Corps. What the Committee wanted to know was whether the Secretary of State for War was in a position to carry out the programme which he had advocated over and over again, from below the Gangway. The Prime Minister had stated that the Army Corps scheme bad failed. The Estimates were based on that scheme, but according to what was foreshadowed in the Report it seemed that some other system was about to take its place. The Secretary of State for War had said that the details must be left to the Council. But the Council was the creation of the Cabinet, and the Prime Minister was in a position to accept or refuse any of the recommendations of the Council which he thought fit. The Secretary of State for War asked the other day what were the duties the Army was intended to perform. The right hon. Gentleman said there were doubts concerning it, but there were no doubts on his part, or on that of almost all those who claimed to be Army reformers, on either side of the House, in that matter. They had always held that what was required was a mobile striking force, small, but of good quality, within this country, and also that for the defence of the Empire we should have a steady flow of proper recruits who would serve a sufficien time in India to make the garrison there efficient, and not what it was at present, to a great extent inefficient. What was the present system for which these Estimates were placed before the House? They were for keeping up a system to which many hon. Members were absolutely opposed. He drew attention the other day to a matter in connection with recruiting which struck at the basis of the present system,

  793
  namely, the keeping up of a large number of battalions at homo, and the filling of these, at the expense of the taxpayers, with undesirable men. These men when sent out to India, had to be sent up to the hills, and then drafted home, for they were totally unsuited to garrison India. It did not pay the Indian Government to take recruits unless they served five years in India; yet in order to carry out the absurd system of linked battalions, which had signally failed, the taxpayers were saddled with an expense of £500,000 in respect of these youths sent out to India. There were many men who had served in the South African campaign who would be glad to serve for five or seven years in India. What we wanted was an efficient garrison for India and a small striking force at home. The Committee were completely in the dark with reference to that situation. The right hon. Gentleman had not foreshadowed in the smallest degree what was going to be done with reference to the Auxiliary Forces. They knew from his own words that the Militia were in a deplorable state, but he had not shown where either officers or men were to be obtained for that force. They knew that there was a Committee sitting with reference to the Volunteers, but they had no certainty that there was any future for that force. Such being the state of chaos in every branch of the defensive forces of the Empire was it fair to ask the Committee to vote this large number of men unless they got an assurance that a complete change would occur before the close of the financial year? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would indicate approximately the date when the reduction foreshawed would take place.
  CAPTAIN BAGOThoped that commanding officers would be allowed to take on three-year men of good character at the expiry of the three years for another year or so.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that had already been done.
  CAPTAIN BAGOTsaid that arrangement would be much appreciated. He believed it would tend to increase the battalions. He suggested that, after three years service, men might be allowed to Jake a furlough of two or three months
  794
  and then return and complete their time with the Reserves. He thought it would be of great advantage if 5,000 of the Yeomanry who could ride and shoot well were registered as liable to be called on for service, either with mounted infantry, cavalry regiments, or as a separate force. Such men should receive £5 a year as a registration fee, and the cost, £25,000, might be met by reducing the nineteen days now allowed for Yeomanry training, which was too long a period, to seventeen days. He did not propose; that the right hon. Gentleman should make that addition to his Estimates unless he could make a saving in another direction. Roughly speaking, the cost of these 5,000 registered men at £5 each would be £25,000. Well, the present period of Yeomanry training was nineteen days, which most Yeomanry officers believed, under present circumstances, to be too long. If that period were reduced by two days, the saving would be nearly £25,000, which would cover the cost of the 5,000 registered men. He knew that certain Yeomanry officer, supported by the Secretary for India, objected to the scheme on the ground, first of all, that there would be two classes of men in the regiment and that there might be great jealousy between them. He thought that was a feeble objection. He had consulted private soldiers in the Yeomanry and the permanent staff's and they all thought the scheme a most excellent one, and that there would be no jealousy whatever. The second objection was that all the best men in the regiment would be taken away in time of war, leaving only the indifferent men in the ranks. Again he thought that objection was feeble, for there would be plenty of time to get the indifferent men up to a proper and efficient state of discipline in the case of war. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider this scheme favourably. There was another matter he would like to refer to. He saw that the School of Instruction for Cavalry and Yeomanry officers and non-commissioned officers had been very properly re-established and that a further sum of money had been expended on it. A very large sum was also spent on a School of Instruction for Mounted Infantry, and that had been doubled in the Estimates this year. He thought the question of Mounted Infantry had rather fallen into abeyance, and that there were now no mounted infantry

  795
  This School, which cost £14,000 a year, was to teach a certain number of infantry men to do mounted duty; but instead of teaching infantry soldiers to ride the money should be spent in teaching the cavalry to shoot. The proper way to provide mounted infantry was to get them from the Yeomanry; and the 5,000 men to which he had referred would be absolutely well suited to make the mounted infantry regiments.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that during the twelve years he had been in the House he had not trespassed in the debates on the Votes for either the Navy or Army; but he felt that the time had come when he was bound, in the interest of the constituency he represented, to make some protest against the constant and steady increase in the amount of our permanent armaments, lie did not know whether the House realised the condition of affairs from a financial point of view in this country compared with other countries. He found that for the military line of defence France paid £32,189,000; Germany £31,889,000; the United States £24,383,000 and Russia £30,647,000. It seemed to him unnecessary that this country should incur an expenditure for the Army greater than any other country except Russia. But the £33,000,000 which we paid for our Army service was only for these little islands of Great Britain and Ireland. But if the expenditure of the Army in India and the Colonies was included it amounted to £54,000,000. Again, if the total expenditure on the Army and Navy were taken into consideration, France spent £44,728,000; Germany, £42,132,000; United States, £41,208,000; Russia, £48,986,000, while the British Empire spent on the same services £96,000,000 a year, or twice more than any other civilised country in the world. They might, therefore, well ask the Government to try and reduce that amount instead of increasing it. It seemed to him that never had a reduction in this expenditure been moved with a greater amount of argument than at the present moment. Our trade was in a depressed condition; our people were taxed, as they had never been before, in connection with the war in South Africa; and it was absolutely necessary that we should have economy in public expenditure.
  796
  The Secretary for War told the Committee that the wear and tear and waste of the machine at the present time was greater than it ought to be, and that was a full justification for hon. Members to go into the Division Lobby in favour of reduction. Some allusion had been made to Somaliland and to the necessity of the Government policy being made clear to the House and the country in connection with the expedition. If the Government had taken notice of the warnings given to it, in time, there would have been no necessity for this force being sent out to East Africa. The Government had full warnings when the raids took place in that country, but no notice was taken of them. When the Indian Government had control of Somaliland there was no difficulty in that country. Those engaged in administering Protectorates like Somaliland adhered to their proper functions and there was good government. But the case was changed when Somaliland was handed over to the Foreign Office. The natives who trusted to us were left without arms, and when the local authorities wanted the support of the Government in order to put down breaches of the peace no notice was taken of their demands. It was not until the Mullah had had time to raise a large force and massacre a whole country side that the country became in the condition it was now found in. At the present moment Parliament and the country did not know what the policy of the Government was in regard to that muddle in Somaliland, and on that ground also the Committee was fully justified in voting for the reduction moved by the right hon. Member.
  GENERAL LAURIEsaid that some allusion had been made last year as to the desirability of a considerable reduction in the personnel, of the Army, and he shared that opinion very strongly. He shared it still, and yet he was not prepared to vote for the reduction of the Vote proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. And for this reason—following the advice of President Lincoln—he did not believe in swopping horses when crossing a stream. At this moment he trusted that we were about to cross a stream, and he hoped that after the stream was crossed we

  797
  should put things on a thorough businesslike footing. But at the present moment we had battalions abroad that must be kept up to their strength and the only plan for doing so just now, was the unfortunate system of linked battalions. H> very much regretted that the Secretary for War had decided to reduce the strength of the home battalions by fifty men each.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I did not reduce them; they reduced themselves.
  GENERAL LAURIEsaid that that only showed that the recruiting was in a bad state, and that the organisation of the Army was in a worse state even than he thought it. He would rather have seen efforts made to maintain the strength of these battalions, because they were the training ground on which to make soldiers and officers. A home battalion was largely composed of staff, band, and various men, perfectly useful in themselves, but not efficient as contributions to the foreign service battalion of the regiment. If 10,000 men here taken from the Army they would have to he taken from the home battalions, and the home battalions could not stand any such reduction. What would be the strength then of the battalions as a training force? They would be useless. We must carry on the present system as it was, expensive as it might be, and hope for such reorganisation as to maintain an efficient military force at less expense as soon as possible.
  MR. O'MARAcomplained that no answer had been given with regard to the Questions put to the Government as to their policy in Somali-land, and with regard to the message that had been sent to the Mullah by General Egerton, to the effect that the war would continue until the Mullah were either killed or captured. He asked, did anyone believe that, as a result of the message, this man who had proved his courage for so long would come in and surrender? Suggestions had been made in this House as to whether the wells in this desert and barren laid should he poisoned. Was it not a fact that during the recent barren season the wells had been guarded in such a way that not only had the Mullah's troops
  798
  been kept from getting water, but also their women and children, who were dying of thirst at the present time. Was that a humane way of conducting a war? Must the women and children as well as the combatants be killed by thirst in this arid and desert place? He also asked whether the Indian soldiers employed were not footsore and tired, and whether they wore not disappointed at the prolongation and the negative result of the war. He regarded the result of the three years campaign in Somaliland in the same light as it had been regarded by the hon. Member for West Clare, as an absolute waste of the taxpayers, money, and he characterised the presentation of the present Estimates to the Committee without any item for the campaign in Somaliland as a dishonest measure. He had taken a good deal of interest in these Estimates, but had come to the conclusion that it was useless to attempt to discuss them in this House, because what really occurred was that Estimates were presented to, and passed by the House for men that did not exist, and the money so obtained was devoted to other purposes. The Militia was 40,000 and the Volunteers were 100,000 below strength, yet for years money had been obtained from the House for those forces which could not possibly have been devoted to the purpose for which it was voted. It was a ridiculous thing to vote money for the pay of men who it was known before hand did not exist. And the result was that every year about the month of June the Government brought in a Resolution to indemnify the War Office for having appropriated money for one purpose which had been voted for another. An amount closely approximating that which was really required for the pay of the Army ought to be put before the House. His recollection was that ever since he had been in the House about £1,000,000 in excess of what was required for the pay of the Army was voted every year, and his submission was that the Estimates, as prepared, really threw dust in the eyes of the country and deceived the country as to the real cost of the Army. There was an item in the present Estimates of £13,000 for the extra expense of keeping the Army in South Africa. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition protest against an Army being kept there at all,

  799
  and he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that if an Army must necessarily be kept in South Africa the Colonies ought to bear some shire of the expense. Having regard to the amount Ireland had to pay for the upkeep of an Army which she did not require, he could not see why the Colonies should not pay a proportion of the cost of the armies kept in the Colonies. He thought they ought to pay a fair share of the expense incurred for their protection. He suggested that a similar pledge should be given by the Secretary of State for War with regard to the Military Works Bill as was given by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty with regard to r.he Naval Works Bill, namely, that he should append a statement to the Estimates showing how the £15,000,000 voted for Military Works was spent. He pressed the right hon. Gentleman to say what the real policy of the Government was in regard to Somaliland, and asked whether there was any finality in it, or whether, if the Mullah were not captured before the rainy season now due, General Egerton was to be engaged again in pursuing him all over those barren wastes and useless country. If Irish money was not spent on these madcap ventures he should have nothing to say upon the Estimates, but so long as Irish money was used and this war was continued, he should continue to protest against it and press the Government to arrive at some finality in their policy.
  MR. WHITLEYpressed for a more definite statement with regard to the operations in Somaliland. Two contradictory declarations had been made—one by the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that a favourable opportunity would be taken of bringing the war to a close, and the other in a telegram, purporting to come from the General in command, that there was no intention of terminating the operations until the Mullah was either killed or captured. He desired to ask a plain question: Was that telegram authentic; if so, was it authorised by His Majesty's Government? As to the proposal to reduce the Vote by 10,000 men, he would gladly vote in its favour. Substantial reductions in the Army Estimates had been promised, but there was no sign of the fulfilment of those promises. In the commercial interests of the country protests against the
  800
  attitude of the Government were necessary. The great expenditure in the Army and the Navy was justified on the ground that it was for the insurance of our trade, but unless the present system was amended the very trade which these services were supposed to protect would lie strangled and destroyed. The heavy burden of taxation was one of the principal causes of the depression in trade, and it was the duty of the Committee not to allow any Vote to pass without pressing on the Government the necessity of effective measures being introduced to bring about substantial reductions in the expenditure of the country.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDremarked that civil questions deserved civil answers, and he thought he had a right to a reply on the particular points he had raised.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that a civil answer deserved civil attention, but after asking his questions the hon. Member left the House, and consequently was absent when the reply was made.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDexpressed his regret that he should have been absent during the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. He understood, however, that a direct answer was not given to the direct question he had put. What he wanted to know was whether the telegram alleged to have been sent by General Egerton was genuine, and if so, whether it was sent by the cognisance or by the authority of the Government.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that, not as a matter of right, but as a matter of courtesy, he would repeat his reply to the hon. Member. The Government knew nothing whatever about the telegram in question, no official telegram had been received on the matter: and it was not sent in accordance with any official instructions.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that that answer justified him in asking that the right hon. Gentleman should ascertain whether the telegram was actually sent.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERdrew attention to the enormous number of generals employed in the Army. In asking for a pledge that some reduction

  801
  should lie made in this respect he contended that he was not making an unreasonable demand, because, even allowing for the extent of the Empire, the disproportion between the number of our general officers and the number in foreign armies was so extraordinary that it really demanded the serious attention of the authorities at tins War Office. Seeing that the Army Corps system was to be done away with at once, there ought to be some reduction in the number of generals. According to the Estimates, we had five full generals, five lieutenant-generals, thirty-three major-generals, and twenty-one brigadier-generals. That was surely an ample supply of generals for an Army of 600,000 men. In addition to these there were a considerable number of generals on half-pay. In many cases a major-general was employed where; a brigadier-general would do equally well. It was sometimes said to be an economy to employ these men, because if a general was placed on half-pay there would be the pay of a colonel to be found in addition. But that only bore out his point that we had too many general officers. At Gibraltar there were three generals to a force of less than 10,000 men. It was true that one was governor, another was an artillery general, and the third was an infantry general. The governor, however, at so small a place, would lie amply qualified and have plenty of leisure to discharge the duties of general, and a great saving would be effected by the substitution of artillery and infantry colonels for the other two generals. The reductions could not all be made at once, but at any rate a promise might be given that no further promotions should be made for the present, certainly of men who had not recently distinguished themselves on active service. If the right hon. Gentleman would give a pledge of economy in this matter it would show that he was anxious not only for the efficiency of the service, but also for a reduction of expenditure. Economy now would greatly assist the right hon. Gentleman in getting his demands satisfied later on Unless reductions were made in time the country would distrust the power of the War Office to make them. It was no use saying that the Army must be what the Empire required it to be. The Army would always be what the country was willing to pay for, and unless the War Office showed a desire to effect real
  802
  retrenchment the country might get so alarmed at the expenditure as to force reductions which would be dangerous to the future of the Army. Unless the Government gave some pledge in the matter it would be the duty of the Committee not only to press for reductions but even to divide against the Votes.
  MR. SOARESsaid that last year they voted large sums for improvement of the pay, and as the general conditions of the Army were better, and one would have thought that that would have attracted more recruits for the Army. He should have thought that the war and the state of the home trade, and the fact that such a, large number of men were unemployed, would have facilitated recruiting.
  MR. AENOLD-FORSTERsaid that the state of recruiting was not bad.
  MR. SOARESsaid he understood that the right hon. Gentleman had not got as man men as he wanted.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that after the war a very large number of men left the country. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the recruiting returns carefully he would find that they were not bad.
  MR. LABOUCHERE, said he should have no difficulty with regard to the vote he was going to give, and he only regretted that the reduction moved was not larger. What they wanted was a reduction in their general expenditure upon armaments. Their expenditure at the present time on armaments was £95,500,000, and of this vast amount the United Kingdom had to pay, £73,500,000. They could not afford that amount as the normal expenditure upon armaments. Complaints bad been made from both sides of the House with regard to the enormous expenditure, and the only way to bring about economy was to vote fur a heavy reduction in the number of men, for that was the only way to prevent Ministers coming down to the House with new schemes. The Secretary of State for War had practically admitted that the reduction was infinitesimal in the normal expenditure on the Army. They had heard about the

  803
  War Office scheme for the reorganisation of the Army, but he did not know in what position that scheme was, or whether it was to lie carried out in its entirety. They had heard that a member of the Cabinet had threatened to resign unless that scheme was modified. They knew that the Prime Minister had only to be threatened with a resignation in order to change his whole policy. Two years ago the Prime Minister praised the scheme of the Secretary for India, but the present scheme practically made a scapegoat of the Secretary of State for India, for it meant that his scheme was a rotten one and that he knew nothing about the question. He had invariably found that the only effect of such schemes was to stave off criticism and increase the expenditure of the Army. Ho did not say that this new scheme would have that effect, but, judging from past experience, it was exceedingly probable. They had been told that the primary business of the Army was to conduct military operations across the sea, but if a Minister got hold of a largo quantity of soldiers he would very soon find some cause to employ them. They had an instance of this in Somaliland, and he had not the slightest idea why they were at war with this respectable prophet, who was a brave man struggling to be free and maintaining the independence of his country. There might be good reasons for these operations, but they had not yet been given, and the had simply drifted into he war in Somaliland. The cost of those operations had gone up and in these Estimates not one farthing was put down for Somaliland. Those operations were sure to cost something, and some amount ought to be put in the Estimates if they were to be really an anticipation of what they were likely to spend. Probably they would have a Supplementary Estimate presented, but it was a very bad system, and that was one reason why he should vote for this reduction. They were told by the Prime Minister yester-day, when the Leader of the Opposition protested against maintaining an army of 21,000 men in Cape Colony, that it was monstrous and scandalous and that the right lion. Gentleman was an enemy to his country because the very idea of reducing the number of the garrison in South Africa might induce the Boers to break out in rebellion. The forecasts
  804
  which he and his friend had made as to the result of the war had proved to be correct, although at the time they were spoken of as traitors to their country-He voted for this reduction upon three grounds. In the first place it was an old constitutional doctrine that when they had a Government which was excessively pernicious and they could not get rid of it they ought to refuse supplies. Upon that principle it was his intention to vote for any reduction of any kind that might be proposed by anyone in this House. His second objection was that they had all declared that the expenditure upon armaments was too great and the only way to protest against this was to vote against all sums of money for armaments. His third reason was that they had been told that this was only a provisional Estimate, and that there was a scheme to be brought in which would revolutionise everything. Under those circumstances he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to take back these Estimates in order to calculate the amount that would be required. He hoped hon. Members on the Opposition side would move as many reductions as possible, and if they did they would have his most cordial support.
  MR. BONDasked if the War Office had insisted upon those qualifications for efficient service which were last year so strongly emphasised. They were paying, at the present time, a great deal more for their soldiers, and they were told last year that great care would be taken to see that the men who enlisted were really of good character, and that they would be drawn from a rather superior class than the soldiers, up to that time, had been drawn from. He wished to know if those conditions had been complied with and insisted upon.
  *MR. AINSWORTHsaid that if they voted the number of men asked for, they would be bound to vote the cost which would naturally follow. Therefore he thought the way to begin was by reducing the number of men. The right hon. Baronet had said the: number of men required for foreign service depended upon the duties they had to perform. He wished to know who was responsible for arranging those

  805
  duties. Until they knew what the policy of the Government was on these matters they had no idea what the duties were which the men were required to perform. The principle he would like to impress upon the Front Ministerial Bench was that "Expenditure depended upon Policy" and, until they knew what the policy was, they had no means of criticising the expenditure. He should like to know what were the duties of these 20,000 men in South Africa, and these 6,000 or 8,000 men for Somaliland. Why were they sending those men there? They did not want "more territory or more gold-fields." Now they were face to face with the establishment of a permanent garrison of 20,000 men in a British colony, the cost of which was not to be paid by the Colonies, but by the taxpayers of this country. They wished
  to know what was the object of this garrison in South Africa. If that garrison was to be permanent what became of the policy of representative government in South Africa? Before this Vote was passed the Committee should get from the Government an explanation of what the policy in South Africa was. In regard to Somaliland he thought that when we had succeeded in driving the Mullah out of the territories under our protection he might have been left alone. He did not think we were bound to undertake a military expedition every time a "prophet" appeared on the borders of the British Empire.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes. 228. (Division List 47.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mooney, John J.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murphy, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Field, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Black, Alexander William

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Blake, Edward

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Boland, John

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Brigg, John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

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

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Dowd, John

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

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

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hammond, John

  O'Malley, William

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Harwood, George

  O'Mara, James

  Burns, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Caldwell, James

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Parrott, William

  Cameron, Robert

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Partington, Oswald

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Humphseys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Price, Robert John

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rea, Russell

  Crombie, John William

  Joicey, Sir James

  Reddy, M.

  Cullinan, J.

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Redmond. John E. (Waterford)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Roche, John

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Joyce, Michael

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Russell, T. W.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Labouchere, Henry

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shackleton, David James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehy, David

  Edwards, Frank

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Elibank, Master of

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Ellice, Capt. EC (S. Andrw's Bghs

  M'Crae, George

  Slack, John Bamford

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Kean, John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wallace, Robert

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds. S.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Young, Samuel

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Tomkinson, James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.Buchanan and Mr. Charles Hobhouse.

  Toulmin, George

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ure, Alexander

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbighs

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kimber, Henry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Arrol, Sir William

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Balfour, Capt. C, B. (Hornsey)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Garfit, William

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bigwood, James

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bond, Edward

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

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

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Bull, William James

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Butcher, John George

  Gretton, John

  Moore, William

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

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hain, Edward

  Morrell, (George Herbert

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Murray. Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Chapman, Edward

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

  Holder, Augustus

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Pemberton, John S. G

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Percy, Earl

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Horner, Frederick William

  Pretyman, Finest George

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Purvis, Robert

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pym, C. Guy

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hunt, Rowland

  Randles, John S.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Rankin, Sir James

  Dickson, Charles Seott

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Jeffreys, Bt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  808

  809

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

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

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Stock, James Henry

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Stroyan, John

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Saunderson, R. t. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Valentia, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Smith, James Parker Lanarks.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 84. (Division List No. 48.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Gretton, John

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Groves, James Grimble

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hain, Edward

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hardy, Laurence (Kont, Ashford

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

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

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Heath. James (Staffords, N. W.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Helder, Augustus

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Bignold, Arthur

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Bigwood, James

  Edwards, Frank

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Black, Alexander William

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Blundell, Colonel Henry-

  Elibank, Master of

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Bond, Edward

  Ellice, Capt EC (S. Andrw's Bghs.

  Horner, Frederick William

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Emmott, Alfred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Bowles, Lt,-Col. H. F. (Middle Sex

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bull, William James

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Butcher, John George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Caldwell, James

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Joicey, Sir James

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Forster, Henry William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo T. (Denbign

  Chapman, Edward

  Garfit, William

  Kimber, Henry

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rT'mlets

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Coates, Edward Feetham

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Percy, Earl

  Stock, James Henry

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Stroyan, John

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Frskine

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Purvis, Robert

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

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

  Pym, C. Guy

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Randles, John S.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Rea, Russell

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Ure, Alexander

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Valentia, Viscount

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Robinson, Brooke

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Moore, William

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Russell, T. W.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Mowbray Sir Robert Gray C.

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

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

  Murray, Rt. Hi. A. Graham (Bute

  Scott, Sir S (Marylebone, W.)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wyndham, Rt Hon. George

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Partington, Oswald

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Stanley, Ed ward Jas, (Somerset)

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien. Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Dowd, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hammond, John

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

  Blake, Edward

  Harwood, George

  O'Malley, William

  Boland, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Mara, James

  Brigg, John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burns, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Price, Robert John

  Cameron, Robert

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Labouchere, Henry

  Roche, John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Cullinan, J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehy, David

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Crae, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kean, John

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Mooney, John J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radchffe)

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Murphy, John

  Tomkinson, James

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Toulmin, George

  Efrench, Peter

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wallace, Robert

  Field, William

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

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  812

  813

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Whit taker, Thomas Palmer

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Young, Samuel

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,746,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of His Majesty's Army at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India) (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  *MR. NANNETTIsaid on this Vote he wished to call attention to the action of certain officers in Ireland issuing instructions to young men joining His Majesty's Army to deal exclusively with English firms. He said that in answer to a Question he had put, the Financial Secretary to the War Office had told him that it was not the intention of the War Office to interfere in any way with young officers placing contracts for the supply of kit and uniform with whatever firm they desired. He had then drawn the attention of the Financial Secretary to the War Office to a War Office Circular issued to commanding officers in which certain forms were recommended to officers by which their orders for kit and uniform should be placed with certain firms and asked whether the business was open to competition. The Financial Secretary replied that he had been misinformed, and that a circular had been issued to a certain number of tailors asking for their terms for strict cash payments. Now, he contended, that the circular issued by the late Commander-in-Chief was a direct interference with the right of young officers to deal with what firms they liked. The effect of the circular had been to do serious injury to the trade and to the workmen of Ireland. He would do the late Commander-in-Chief the justice to say that he did not believe that that gallant officer had ever intended the serious consequences that had resulted from his circular. But he could find no information that Irish firms had been asked to tender for any of the articles for kit or uniform.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  814
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By ORDER).
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid, in moving the Motion which stood in his name, he should have to go into the Bill at some length, for the reason that it was not only important from the point of view that it was promoted by the London County Council, but also from the fact that if the principles of the Bill were adopted by the House and a right given to the London County Council to slaughter cattle supposed to be suffering from tuberculosis of the udder upon insufficient grounds, that principle must eventually be extended to every borough council throughout the country. That being so it was desirable that this House should decide whether it was advisable to give the London County Council these powers. He approached this Bill in no hostile sense, seeing that, as the Parliamentary Chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, he had approached the London County Council to discuss the subject matter of his instruction in a friendly spirit, as it was to the interest of all agriculturists that no milk infected with tuberculosis should be supplied to the public, and that the citizens of our great cities should be protected in every possible way. The London County Council, however, met him with a non possumus, attitude and compelled him to take his present action in bringing the matter before the House. He had done everything in his power to settle this question outside the House in an amicable way before adopting his present course. The hon. Member traced the history of Clause 31, and pointed out that its insertion into this Bill was due to the "model milk clauses" being taken out of the Act of 1892 by the House of Lords, who said that if the citizens of London wished to deal with this question it was the borough councils of London who should come to this House and take

  815
  powers to apply the model milk clauses. One objection the agriculturists had to the Bill was that it proposed that a cow should be condemned on the ipse dixit, of a veterinary surgeon after what was called a clinical examination, which was a superficial examination at best, such as taking a cow's temperature. What the agriculturists asked was that a suspected cow should be isolated as a suspected case, but that before it was destroyed there should be a bacteriological examination of the milk of the cow, and if after the cow had been slaughtered it was found that she had not tuberculosis of the udder, then he concluded it was only fair that full and adequate compensation should be paid to the owner. They wanted a definition of "full compensation." The full market value of the cow at the time she was slaughtered might, and in all probability would, not meet the case, because the cow might be a very good milker, a deep milker, and a very valuable cow to the owner, and it might be that at the time she was slaughtered cows had fallen in value for some reason. There was a great difference in the market value of cows at different times of the year according to whether there was a large or small supply of milk, and the London County Council only proposed to give the market value at the time. The cows taken might be the best of a particular herd, and very deep milkers, and for that, reason very valuable to the owner, and this matter had to be considered from that point of view: because there was not only the loss to the owner of the cows in question, but the House must remember that it was the desire of those interested in the breeding of good dairy stock to keep those cows which were deep milkers in order that they might breed from them not only for the replenishing of the dairy, but in older to get good bulls for use on their herd of cows and for sale, as bulls out of good milkers were always in demand. It was essential for breeding good dairy stock to have bulls bred from the best and deepest milking strain possible. For that reason he had suggested in the Instruction that it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert provisions in the Bill to provide that a cow suspected of suffering Sir
  816
  from tuberculosis of the udder may be removed, and that a sample of such cow's milk shall be submitted before slaughter to the medical officer of health for the county for bacteriological examination, and to provide, if this examination shows evidence that the cow is so diseased, that the animal shall be slaughtered in the presence of and examined by a veterinary surgeon appointed in the way proposed in Sub-section (2) of Clause 34; and to provide that if, on examination, the veterinary surgeon certifies that such cow was not: suffering from tuberculosis of the udder, the council shall pay, in addition to the compensation provided for in Subsection (3) of Clause 34, a sum not exceeding 50 per cent, of the full value of such cow immediately before slaughter, as special damages for the loss of such cow, as the market value did not compensate for the loss which would accrue for the reasons he had already stated. That part of the instruction had been completely misunderstood by the London County Council. It was only to provide that where a slaughtered cow was proved not to have tuberculosis some additional compensation should be given to the owner.
  Then there was the case of the man who had to keep up a certain herd in order to carry out his contracts, and he might be called upon, at a moment's notice, to buy cows in place of those slaughtered, though quite healthy, at a high price, which might be of no use to him when he got them, and there was that loss also to lie taken into consideration. Under all these circumstances it was only reasonable when it was proved that a slaughtered cow was not suffering from tuberculosis that the farmer should have some further compensation, and all the Instruction asked was for a sum not exceeding 50 per cent, of the market value. The County Council stated that his Instruction asked for 50 per cent. in addition, but it was not so; that was the maximum. It was limited to that for the benefit of the County Council. He would be perfectly prepared to accept "20 or 25 per cent, or even less as a limit: all he wanted was the principle accepted: all that the agriculturists asked for was something more than the actual market value of the cows at the date they were I slaughtered if found to be healthy. The amount involved was, after all, very small. The total number of cons kept in the county of London was only 4,700, and

  817
  that amount was annually decreasing owing to the County Council refusing licences, and supposing 1 per cent, of those cows when slaughtered were found not to be suffering from tuberculosis of the udder, and the whole 50 per cent, additional compensation were paid, it would only amount to £407, and while it would mean nothing to the County Council it was of vast importance to the dairymen, and would be to the farmers in other districts in which this principle might be adopted. As regarded the appointment of a valuer he understood that the London County Council were quite prepared to adopt the view of the Central Chamber of Agriculture that the valuer should be appointed by the Board of Agriculture instead of by themselves, and he' would not now deal with that. He reminded the House that it was an uncertain question among the experts at the present time as to whether a cow suffering from tuberculosis of the udder could communicate tuberculosis to human beings. That was a question which had been referred to the Royal Commission appointed in 1901, which had not yet reported, but which was expected to report shortly, and under those circumstances it might not be unreasonable to ask the London County Council to wait until that question was decided. Cows had been accused of spreading disease from one place to another. As in the instance of the outbreak of scarlet fever at Hendon, it was attributed to a diseased cow, but that was proved to be false, and that scarlet-fever could not be originated by cows, but only transmitted through the milk being infected from contact with another human being having the fever. In the case of the outbreak of sore throat closely resembling diphtheria at Woking, which was alleged to be communicated by cows to human beings, it was conclusively proved that nothing of the kind occurred, but that what happened in that case was that the milk was contaminated by the farmer and his family who were suffering from the exact kind of sore throat which was epidemic at Woking. The proof that the outbreak of sore throat was not caused by the milk was the farmer and his family did not drink the milk which was supposed to have caused it, and it had been only transmitted through the milk from one human being to another.
  The Central Chamber of Agriculture were most anxious to do everything in
  818
  their power to assist the County Council in this matter, but they thought there ought to be fair and adequate compensation. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench seemed to be very much amused at the way in which ho was trying to defend the agricultural interest in that matter, but was it not a strange commentary on the present neglect of the Government of the Agricultural interest that, although there was a Board of Agriculture, it had been left to a private Member to watch the agricultural interest? The hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, who represented the Board in that House, was merely the phonograph of the Board, the President of which unfortunately sat in the other House.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is hardly relevant to the Instruction now under discussion.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he only introduced the topic by way of illustration and in order to show why a private Member was performing a duty which properly devolves on a member of the Government, owing to the President of the Board of Agriculture not being a Member of the House of Commons. This was a question of far-reaching importance, affecting every farmer and every agriculturist, and the representative of the Board of Agriculture should have taken it up and spoken with authority on it, instead of leaving it to a private Member, lie begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert provisions in the Bill to provide that a cow suspected of suffering from tuberculosis of the udder may be removed, and that a sample of such cow's milk shall be submitted before slaughter to the medical officer of health for the county for bacteriological examination, and to provide, if this examination shows evidence that the cow is so diseased, that the animal shall be slaughtered in the presence of and examined by a veterinary surgeon appointed in the way proposed in Subsection (2) of Clause 34; and to provide that if, on examination, the veterinary surgeon certifies that such cow was not suffering from tuberculosis of the udder, the council shall pay, in addition to the compensation provided for in sub Section (3) of Clause 34, a sum not exceeding 50

  819
  per cent, of the full value of such cow immediately before slaughter, as special damages for loss of such cow; to provide that, if the veterinary surgeon certifies that the cow was so diseased, the council shall pay compensation in the manner provided by Part (a), Subsection (3), of Section 14 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, and that the council shall also bear half of the reasonable costs incurred in carrying out the purposes of Clause 34; and to provide that the value of a cow slaughtered by the council, whether diseased or not shall be assessed by a valuer appointed by the Board of Agriculture, and not by a veterinary surgeon."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
  *SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid he had listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the hon. Member, firstly, because he represented an agricultural constituency, secondly, because he was a London ratepayer, and thirdly, because he had the honour of being the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis of 1898. He sympathised with the objects of the hon. Baronet, but lie could not help thinking that the speech was made under a misapprehension. He had spoken of cows suspected of tuberculosis. It was a technical subject but he might say that there was a great difference between generalised tuberculosis and localised tuberculosis. The hon. Baronet did not seem to have realised that tuberculosis of the udder was one of the rarest forms of the disease in cows, ft was not until the disease had become generalised that it appeared in the udder, and it could then easily be recognised by anyone skilled in veterinary science. Therefore there was no question of suspecting a cow of having tuberculosis of the udder. The hon. Member had spoken of the hardship inflicted on a farmer by suddenly having three or four of his cows taken and slaughtered. Could he cite a single instance in which that had occurred?
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Does the right hon. Baronet say it is impossible?
  *SIR HERBERT MAXWELLwould not commit himself to that, but he declared that such a case was unheard of. The Commissioners made most careful inquiry and never heard the slightest
  820
  doubt thrown by anyone on the perfect certainty with which tuberculosis of the udder could be recognised.
  AN HON. MEMBER: How?
  *SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid he was not a veterinary surgeon. He was only stating the impression left on his mind by the expert evidence before the Commission. He admitted that it would be a great hardship if a farmer had three or four cows taken from his dairy and slaughtered, but compulsory power to slaughter was only given when the disease of the udder existed, and a ease in which three or four cows were suffering from tuberculosis of the udder was unheard of. Therefore he could not understand why the hon. Baronet took such extreme objection to Clause 34.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he did so at the unanimous request of the Council of the Central Chamber of Agriculture.
  *SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid the interruption of the hon. Baronet showed he was not conversant with the subject he was talking about. It was rash to assume from Professor Koch's change of front that there was no danger of infection from the interchange of the tubercular disease between bovine animals and man. That question was sub judice,, and they should not anticipate the verdict by declaring that there was no risk of infection. A very small percentage of cows exhibited tubercular disease in the udder, and, as the disease was easily recognised when it appeared in that organ, there was small risk of the slaughter of a cow on mistaken grounds.
  M R. JOHN BURNSsaidthe speech of the hon. and learned Baronet——
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I am not "learned."
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the learned speech of the hon. Baronet, which certainly entitled him to that distinction, had proved conclusively that this was not a subject which the House of Commons could adequately discuss, lie had risen mainly in order to deny that the London County Council had taken up a non possumus, attitude in this matter. Immediately that body

  821
  found it necessary in the discharge of its statutory and sanitary obligations to 5,000,000 of people who wished to have pure milk, which was beneficial alike to town and country, they introduced these clauses into their General Powers Bill. The hon. Baronet promptly gave notice of the Instruction, which at once received most careful consideration at the hands of the County Council Committee and officials. Instead of the County Council having been peremptory and discourteous, the contrary was the case. When the Dairymen's Association asked for a locus the authorities of the House declined to recognise it, but the County Council took no objection to the application. They contended, however, that the House of Commons was not the proper tribunal to go into these scientific details, but that they should be considered by a Committee. The County Council had inserted clauses providing that if after examination the veterinary surgeon certified that a cow was not infected, the County Council should pay to the owner the full value of the cow before it was removed for slaughter, as certified by such veterinary surgeon, as well as the reasonable cost of any independent veterinary surgeon employed for the purposes of the section; while if after examination the animal was certified to be suffering from tuberculosis, the Council should pay such damage the owner might have sustained from the removal or slaughter of the cow as the veterinary surgeon should certify, together with half the reasonable cost of an independent veterinary surgeon He contended that these clauses met every reasonable case, and if there was any suspicion that they did not, the Committee upstairs would exercise their discretion and make them reasonable and fair. They all knew how some years since in a hunting country it was found that farmers bought chickens at 1s. each and charged the hunt 2s. 6d. or 3s. for them. Well, they must protect London against tubercular dumping of a like character.
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid that in the past he had been opposed to the London County Council. On this occasion, however, he supported its action. The agricultural industry was not accustomed to be treated with the lavish generosity suggested by the hon. Baronet, a generosity which, in view of
  822
  the approaching general election, might be looked upon with some suspicion. This proposal, if accepted, would apply to Essex as well as to Loudon. No one would deny that a man who had a cow in full milk was entitled to compensation if the animal were slaughtered in the public interest. He could certainly not support compensation up to 50 per cent., as suggested by the hon. Baronet. If the farmers got it, it would only make them unpopular, and, after all, as the farmer paid the rates, it would be merely putting the money in his pocket with one hand and taking it out with the other. Compensation was a two-edged sword. It was well known that in the case of swine fever, the disease had in many instances been induced in order to obtain compensation. He would be perfectly ready to accept the suggestion with regard to 10 per cent., but to propose 50 per cent. would do more harm than good.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he would like to say a word from the public health point of view. He admired the consistency with which the lion. Member for Somersetshire continually advocated the interest of the agricultural persons affected by Bills like tho present one. The House had had on this occasion exceptional advantages in forming a conclusion. They had had valuable information from the chairman of the Commission on Tuberculosis, who probably more than any man in England outside the veterinary profession knew this subject thoroughly. The whole tendency of his speech was to indicate that this was a matter to be sent to a Committee, and there investigated with expert evidence before them. While tuberculosis in this country was being lessened in every other direction, Sir R. Thorne Thorne, late Principal Medical Officer of the Local Government Board, had shown that it had been increasing among young children, and in his opinion that was largely due to the fact that there was a considerable amount of contaminated milk sold. It was only when tuberculosis affected the udder of the cow that there was direct contamination of the milk. When such a thins; happened it was the duty of every public authority to try and stop the dissemination of such a serious disease, and

  823
  he urged upon the House the advisability of sending the question to a Committee, where the whole matter could be investigated. His belief was that tuberculosis could be transmitted from the cow to the human subject, and that Professor Koch's case was not proved. Having regard to the assurance of the lion. Member for Battersea that the County Council were anxious to deal generously with owners of cows affected, he hoped the course he had suggested would be adopted.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid that when he saw the proposed Instruction on the Paper he determined to vote in its favour, because it embodied a principle for which he had always contended, viz., that private property should not be taken away to secure a public benefit without compensation being granted. He could not help realising, however, that the case of the hon. Baronet opposite had been completely demolished by the hon. Member for Wigton. Even if that were not the case, there was the further consideration urged by the hon. Member for Battersea that a matter of this kind should be dealt with by a general Bill applicable to the whole of the country, so that the same conditions would apply all round. Therefore, much as he would like to vote for the principle of compensation, he felt compelled to withhold his support from the proposed Instruction.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)said there was a further reason why this Bill should follow the ordinary course and go before the Committee upstairs. The Police and Sanitary Committee, by whom the Bill would be considered, was specially qualified for dealing with these matters, having often had questions of the same character to deal with. If the example of the London County Council was followed by other municipalities, as it probably would be, it would be extremely desirable that a set of clauses should be drawn up in the first instance to stand as a precedent for those other municipalities. It was impossible for the House to consider the matter in all its aspects and draw up a clause satisfactory to all parties and one
  824
  which would remain for a considerable time suitable for insertion in all similar Bills. The Police and Sanitary Committee would be entitled to call before them representatives of the Board of Agriculture and of the Local Government Board, and thus would be able to give the subject much fuller and more mature consideration than could be given by the House at large.
  MR. FIELDexpressed his entire agreement with the views put forward by the hon. Member: for Wigton, and the hope that the proposed Instruction would be withdrawn. He had come down with the intention of supporting the proposal, but, after listening to the speeches of the hon. Baronet opposite and the hon. Member for Battersea, he, like an honest man, was prepared to change his opinion. He had long fought for the principle that when anything was confiscated for the public good, the public purse should pay for it, and that principle was recognised in the Bill. He did not agree with compensation up to 50 per cent. additional to the value of the animal being given. The County Council were prepared to act not only justly but generously, and he hoped, therefore, the Instruction would be withdrawn.
  SIR MARK STEWARTwas understood to ask whether the Committee would have power so to amend the Bill as to increase the value placed on the animal. If so, they would be able to grant an additional sum so that the owner would not be the loser.
  MR. PARKER SMITHremarked that after a discussion on a kindred subject before the referee to-day they had found themselves unable to give a locus, to the Metropolitan Dairymen's Association upon clauses of this kind. He would like an assurance that the London County Council would not take any technical objection of that kind.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the County Council offered no objection to the locus, of the Dairymen's Association, or anybody else who was reasonably interested in this important matter.
  *MR. BEAUNONTsaid that, as Chairman of Agriculture, he

  825
  desired strongly to support the proposed instruction. The Chamber of Agriculture were not animated by political motives in this matter as had been suggested by the lion. Member for Essex (in fact, any political views the Chamber might have would, he thought, be the same as the hon. Member's); their reason for objecting to the matter going upstairs was that they had not the money to brief counsel, as the County Council were able to do out of the rates. With regard to compensation, they would be prepared to accept 10 per cent.
  MR. FLAVINwas entirely in favour of the principle of the Instruction, but was opposed to excessive compensation. The interest of the whole community was of much more importance than the interest of one individual. He thought the local authority ought not only to slaughter a diseased cow, but also to take action against a man who, know-
  ing a cow to be diseased, distributed the milk he obtained from it.
  *MR. CHANNINGdesired, as a former Chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, to dissociate himself from the Instruction. He regretted that he could not support his hon. friend in this matter; the proposals of the clause were even more moderate than the recommendations of the Commission. It was the interest of farmers to help to eliminate the disease, while those proposals would tend to increase the number of diseased animals. He thought agriculturists were very ill-advised to advance claims of this kind, which would imperil their legitimate grievances receiving proper consideration.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes, 197. (Division List No. 49.)

  AYES.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Helder, Augustus

  Randles, John S.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Keswick, William

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lambert, George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Davenport, William Bromley

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

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthvr)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick X. S.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Mooney, John J.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Edward Strachey and Mr. Gardner.

  Gretton, John

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bigwood, James

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Black, Alexander William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Ainsworth, John Sterling

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Boland, John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bond, Edward

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Brigg, John

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Asaton, Thomas Gair

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Cremer, William Randal

  Anbrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Balcarres, Lord

  Butcher, John George

  Cullinan, J.

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

  Caldwell, James

  Delany, William

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Campbell. J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Calway

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Reddy, M.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Douglas, Charles 11. (Lanark)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lowther, Rt Hn JW(Cum, Penr.

  Roche, John

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Edwards, Frank

  Lundon, W.

  Samuel, S. M, (Whitechapel)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shackleton, David James

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Crae, George

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Field, William

  M'Kean, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Sheehy, David

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Forster, Henry William

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Stock, James Henry

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stroyan, John

  Garfit, William

  Moore, William

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmor

  Tennant, Harold John

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Haldane, Kt. Hon. Richard B.

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tomkinson, James

  Hammond, John

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Toulmin, George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Norman, Henry

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Ure, Alexander

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

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

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

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

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

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield,Brightside

  O'Dowd, John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Malley, William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhonse

  O'Mara, James

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Partington, Oswald

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wodehous, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Woodhouse, Sir J T.(Huddersf'd

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Young, Samuel

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Purvis, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. John Burns and Mr. Lough.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  SUPPLY [2ND ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,746,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of His Majesty's Army at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India) (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments), which will come in course of
  828
  payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  *MR. NANNETTI,resuming his speech, said that several houses in Ireland were prepared to offer reasonable facilities for supplying the Army with military outfits. The effect of issuing the circular to which he had already referred was to immediately stop what had been up to that time the trade of military tailors in Ireland, and as a consequence many orders were countermanded. It might be said that this circular was only intended to be in the nature of a recommendation, but that was not the way in which

  829
  it was accepted by the various commanders throughout Ireland, and he would show to the Committee the effect it had upon these officers. The Commander of the Connaught Hangers had always taken a particular interest in the development of Irish industries and of the national language, and lie was not likely to take a step that would have destroyed one of the few trades left to Ireland. This circular was intended only to deal with cash prices. The Adjutant of the Connaught Rangers was immediately ordered to send out the following circular memorandum—
  "The Commanding Officer has made the following decisions with regard to tailors and uniform. The following are to be dealt with for: Head-gear—Gates; overalls—Tantz of Oxford Street; other uniforms—Jones, Chalk, and Dawson, Sackville Street, London. Khaki will entirely be made by the sergeant master tailors, and a supply of cloth will be purchased, but every officer is to provide himself with one complete suit, which shall include knicker breeches and a pair of trousers. Messrs. Jones, Chalk, and Dawson, will be instructed as to the cut and pattern by the second in command immediately. The following points require the attention of officers; The mess jackets are to be made with shoulder straps of green cloth, and the roll collar of green poplin; no gold cording or buttons are to be attached to jacket. The jacket is to be made of serge and not of cloth. Boots for khaki dress are to be brown with plain toe-caps. For overalls ordinary Wellington greatcoat. Khaki is to be got by officers. Frock coat: officers must provide themselves with either the frock coat or the old serge jacket for courts-martial. Brown belts to be got at Jones, Chalk, and Dawson's. Servants' livery and blazer sashes and regimental ties are to be purchased from Flight, of Winchester. Linen collars for mess are to be of the kind that stand up all round, and when on to lap one end over the other.
  By Order,
  L. J. CONKY,
  Adjutant 1st Connaught Rangers."
  The circular of the Commander-in-Chief proved that it was not the intention of the Commander-in-Chief that such an order as that should have been given, but the effect of that memorandum had been to compel the officers of the various regiments to send their regimental orders to London. He could not understand why hon. Members should not assist him in putting a stop to this kind of thing, and he asked the Secretary of State for War to have that order withdrawn. He had reason for believing that the ex-Secretary for War and the present Financial Secretary to the War Office did
  830
  not agree with that order, which had created wide-spread discontent in Ireland.
  The hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin had been interviewed by the master tailors upon this question, and the workmen had called attention to it as well as the Trades Congress. He had also brought it before the notice of the Secretary for War, and still this grievance had not been redressed. He should always feel it his duty to call attention to these matters, and to insist upon justice being done in a question of this kind. It was not only the cash system, but a cash and credit system, and at present there was no possibility of manufacturers in Ireland competing. He would not go so far as to say that these goods should, as a matter of right, be bought in Ireland, but surely the people of that country had a right to compete, and officers ought not to be tyrannised over by any adjutant saying that they should go to some particular firms in London and Winchester. He asked hon. Members to stand by him in this matter, because it was a question that affected the artisans of Ireland. He had received a very strong resolution from Belfast upon this matter, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman who represented Belfast to do justice in this matter. He was not asking that an order should be placed with any tailor who was not prepared to give the official cut and what was required by the Army, but he asked that such a circular as that which had been sent out should receive the condemnation of the War Office and be immediately withdrawn. A young officer had sent to him a list of the cash and credit prices for a few of the articles required by officers, which clearly proved that the intention of the Commander-in-Chief had been abused, for it was never his intention that young officers should not be protected from extravagant prices. When the circular was sent out why were Irish firms not asked to compete? When he first brought this matter before the House, he was told that this had been done, but he had since consulted several master tailors and workmen's associations, and he could not find anything of the kind had been done. Surely they could afford to treat the trade of Ireland fairly in this matter without using the influence of the War Office to bring their trade over into this

  831
  country. To show the extent to which this scandal had gone on, he would read to the Committee a list of the various regiments which had been called upon to deal with certain English firms. They were as follows—
  "Connaught Rangers—Messis. Jones, Chalk, and Dawson, London; and Messrs. Cates, London. Royal Irish Fusiliers—Messrs. Hawkes, London; and Messrs. Gates, London. Innis-killing Fusiliers—Messrs. Flight, Winchester. Dublin Fusiliers—Messrs. Flight, Winchester. Minister Fusiliers—Messrs. Flight, Winchester. Royal Irish Regiment—Messrs. Hawkes, London. Leinster Regiment—Messrs. Hawkes, London. Army Medical—Messrs. Johnston, Dublin, or Messrs. Hawkes or Holt, London."
  Even the Warwick's were recommended to deal with an English firm, and so were the Royal Engineers. When they considered the whole host of Irish regiments, was it not ridiculous that there was only one Dublin firm mentioned, and that firm only when sandwiched between two English firms? He thought it was a scandal, and he was surprised at the War Office not taking action after their attention had been drawn to the matter. He had sent letters to various representatives at the War Office and asked that this thing should be altered, in order that he should not take up the time of the House with the subject, but nothing had been done. They could get nothing for Ireland, although they had to pay a large sum towards the upkeep of the Army. Not one penny of the money voted in the Army Estimates would be left in Ireland if it could possibly be taken away.
  In the case of one young officer in Ireland who joined the Army, the first thing he did was to go to his tailor in Dublin, where he gave an order for a military outfit. When the outfit was sent home to him he was told that it was not the official cut and that it had not been purchased from Hawkes, of London, and the result was that the uniform was not paid for, and the matter had to be brought into court. A suspicion had been aroused that somebody was getting a commission upon these orders sent to London, and he thought it was necessary to take steps that would put an end to suspicions of that character. From the inquiries he had made amongst master tailors he was satisfied that the work could not only be done as well, but it could be done cheaper in Ireland. What
  832
  he asked for was that officers in His Majesty's service should be at liberty to deal with any firm they liked. Formerly all this kind of work went to the merchant tailors of Dublin, Belfast, and Cork. What was the necessity for the change? Why should young officers be compelled to come to London tailors? There was too little work in Ireland, and they could not afford to allow a single thing to be taken away from them in the way he had described. He was sure that the representative of the War Office would not say that he was putting an unreasonable demand before the Committee. He represented a constituency of working men in Dublin, and when their interests were assailed in this way he would bring the case before Parliament. But he did not speak in the interest only of working men because they supported him. He spoke also on behalf of the merchant tailors in his constituency, and he was sure they would not give him a vote. He had a letter in his hand stating that the English firms who did this work did not pay the recognised rate of wages, and that a great deal of the work was done in sweating dens. Was that a condition of things the War Office would tolerate? When he brought this matter before the right hon. Gentleman the other day the answer given was, that this was a question of private money, and that the War Office had no right to interfere with it. It appeared to him that it was an infringement of the fair wages Resolution passed by the House, and in cases of this kind they were entitled to protest against the way the work was being done. He hoped he had stated a fair case, and all that he asked was that justice should be done. He moved a reduction of item A by £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Pay, etc. of General Staff) be reduced by £1,000."—(Mr. Nannetti.)
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid his knowledge of the matter was gathered from what ho had read in the papers. He had no merchant tailors in his constituency, and, therefore, he was absolutely impartial on the question. He thought if hon. Members knew the actual position, they would not be prepared to ratify without consideration the

  833
  treatment which the War Office had extended to Irish merchant tailors. It seemed to him that this was really a hard case. Why should it be necessary that officers in the Connaught Rangers should get their uniforms in London? There ought to be some reason for it, but no reason had been given. From the correspondence it appeared that there was no Order on the subject, and that young officer's merely acted on the advice of the adjutant The weight which, advice carried with it depended very much on the quarter from which the advice came. In this connection when a young officer was told by the adjutant to get his uniform from an English firm the advice, he thought, almost amounted to a suggestion accompanied by sanction. It was not fair that men who joined His Majesty's service should not have the choosing of the tailor who was to supply their uniforms, and that he should be directed to a London firm to the exclusion of Irish firms. There was no reason why Irish merchant tailors should be excluded from competing.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,)said he sympathised with the hon. Member who moved the reduction in the general views he had put forward. He felt most strongly that it was most desirable that the people of a district should feel that they were materially benefited by troops being quartered in their district. So far as contracts were concerned, he should prefer that they should be given locally. That was a matter of general principle, the only qualification being that there must be due regard for economic consideration in the interest of the whole body of the people. But this was not a question of contract at all. It had been felt that the Army was a profession too exclusively reserved for rich men. Many endeavours, therefore, had been made to meet the difficulties of young officers on joining these regiments, and particularly efforts had been made to ensure that they knew where they could obtain uniforms in the cheapest market. If Irish firms had not been invited to send in prices, it was a regrettable mistake, but one already corrected. They were now invited, and had availed themselves of the invitation. Commanding officers had been informed
  834
  that there was in the War Office a list of firms, with the prices at which they were willing to supply uniforms. There was no compulsion on the part of the War Office. He absolutely denied that the War Office had, in any way, interfered with the right of young officers to deal with any firms they pleased. He was not prepared to interfere with mere advice of commanding officers, but advice amounting to a direction or an order would be highly improper.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid he was sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he wished to call his attention to the order issued by the adjutant of the Connaught Rangers directing officers to deal with particular firms.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid the hon. Member had called attention to that already. In answer to a Question on the subject the Secretary of State for War stated that in 1903 in a particular instance a commanding officer gave an order to a young officer to obtain his uniform from a particular firm, and that instructions had been sent forbidding any such action on the part of the commanding officer, and hon. Members were invited to draw the War Secretary's attention to any other cases which came to their knowledge. This attitude on the part of the War Office ought to be satisfactory to the hon. Member. He could not undertake to control the advice given by commanding officers, but when it came to be an order of the character indicated it would be dealt with by the Secretary of State in the same manner as in the case of the Connaught Rangers. He was sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have referred to an unnamed regiment and imputed most discreditable action to certain officers. He could not accept without any sub stantiation at all the very discreditable imputation that officers had received commission in respect of uniforms ordered. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press that matter further.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid he distinctly stated that ho did not make the statement on his own authority. He quoted a report which appeared in the Press of the proceedings which took place before a judge in reference to the matter. He

  835
  had endeavoured not to make any imputation. Ho had no idea of making reflections on officers which he could not substantiate.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTsaid he was sorry he did not notice that the hon. Member was quoting a newspaper report.
  MR. FIELDsaid the hon. Gentleman had stated it would be well that the supplies required for the troops in Ireland should be obtained in the various districts where they were stationed, due regard being paid to considerations of economy. Ho wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that Scotch porter was being consumed in canteens not many furlongs from Guinness's brewery. He could not understand why that porter should be imported. He complained that there was practically a boycott of Irish manufacturers and tradesmen by the War Office and other Departments, and asked why a depot for military stores was not established in Dublin.
  MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid that the position seemed to be that a list of tailors who would supply uniforms at a cheap rate was submitted by the War Office to the commanding officers of regiments, and that the adjutant chose one of those tailors, and advised young officers to go to that particular establishment. A number of Irish regiments had been referred to in which young officers had been advised to get their uniforms from English firms, and in only one case had an Irish tailor been recommended. That course of proceeding had created the suspicion which had given rise to all the ill-feeling. He suggested that instead of sending the list of firms to the adjutants of regiments it should be handed to the young officers themselves, or their parents; that Irish tailors should be included in the list; and that the officers or their parents should be left with absolute freedom of choice.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he could assure the hon. Member for College Green Division that he had the hearty and undivided support of the British workmen in his desire that Irish
  836
  workmen should have a fair share of the work to be done for the public service of this country. He did not think that any man could charge his hon. friend in making that claim with having appealed to any Party prejudice. His hon. friend distinctly disclaimed making such an appeal, and had put his case with great moderation, lucidity, and marked success. The Financial Secretary to the War Office had not met the whole case put forward by his hon. friend. The hon. Gentleman, as ho understood him, said that the War Office was not immediately responsible for some of the circulars which had been issued, such as "Brown bolts to be got at Jones';" but officers in His Majesty's service did sign circulars advising young officers where to go to get their clothing.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: What regiment?
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that the circular from which he had quoted was signed "L. J. Conroy, Adjutant of 1st Connaught Rangers," and it was distinctly marked with official authority. What his hon. friend wanted was that means should be adopted to prevent what appeared to sensible and ordinary people to be touting in favour of certain firms outside Ireland; and lie thought it was a disgrace if the action of any officer in His Majesty's Service could be reasonably open to the charge of touting for London tailors. The inevitable construction of that was that such officers would' not do it unless they themselves received some benefit from it. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He did not himeslf believe that; but he maintained that it was naturally open to that construction by suspicious people; and the War Office should take steps to make any such misconception in the minds of any people impossible. He submitted that the case applied not only to uniforms but to every article of clothing; and that the young officer should get his golfing and shooting suits from the firms suggested by the commanding officer. He was not unmindful of the grace added to the figure of young officers by their tailor, and he had often admired them when they were artistically attired, but the choice of tailor should be left to the private decision of each officer, and

  837
  no one should be subjected to any influence to go to a particular firm. Military success did not depend on the fit of a uniform to satisfy the taste of an officer in command of a regiment. The possibilities were that the great majority of the best paid cutters in London were Irishmen, and he was perfectly satisfied that as good work could be obtained in turning out uniforms from the tailors of Dublin, Belfast, and Cork as in London. He had a letter from the Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Tailors of Great Britain, in which he believed Ireland was included, which stated that some orders from Ireland had been placed with a particular firm in London which was paying under the standard rate of wages fixed by the London Society. That was a state of things that should not be tolerated, and it was only reasonable that public work should be placed with firms which recognised the usual wages paid in the trade, and other conditions pertaining thereto. He thought his hon. friend had made out a perfectly good case, which had not been met by the Financial Secretary to the War Office.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that there had been a misconception in this case. It was not a question of public contract at all, hut of individual purchases by individual officers out of their own money for their own use. It was the duty of the War Office to see that the regulations as to uniforms were observed, and that important duty was deputed to the commanders of regiments; but it was not within the province of the War Office to dictate to officers how they should spend their money, or where they should buy their clothes. The hon. Member wanted to go a step further, and say that senior officers ought not to give any advice to their juniors. Such an undertaking on his part would be absolutely futile; but he would undertake that no pressure of the kind alluded to should be allowed again. The War Office had endeavoured to make the list as open as they reasonably could.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid that after the sympathetic answer he had received from the right hon. Gentleman he would accept
  838
  is assurance, and asked leave to withdraw is Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that on Tuesday last he had brought before the notice of the Secretary for War the grave anomaly of the position of the Judge-Advocate General, and no notice had been taken of his statement.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid ho would be perfectly prepared to discuss this question on a more appropriate occasion.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he accepted the right hon. Gentleman's assurance.
  MR. FIELDsaid that the Financial Secretary to the War Office had not taken notice of his request for the establishment of a depot for military stores in Dublin.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that there were considerations opposed to the establishment of such a depot, which would far outweigh its advantages, apart altogether from the question of cost of the staff.
  MR. FIELDasked if the hon. Gentleman would kindly give him a conference on the matter.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTwas understood to assent.
  MR. TOMKINSONsaid that they were at a little disadvantage from the fact that the last Report on Military Prisons was two years old. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would be able to assure the Committee that the degrading and brutalising punishment of flogging was entirely obsolete in military prisons.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he was entirely sympathetic with him in this matter, and that he would take every step to prevent soldier prisoners from being punished in that manner. He appealed to the Committee that as there had been now four days' discussion on the general question, he hoped that the Committee would allow the Vote to be taken now.
  MR. SECRETARY ARNOLD-FORSTERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that question.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that he had had no answer to his question as to the number of generals on the establishment. There was an enormous expenditure on the pay of those generals, and some effect should be given to economy in that direction. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £5,000.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, in answer to the hon. Member for Lichfield, that the matter was under consideration.
  MR. SECRETARY ARNOLD-FOESTERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER,seated, and with his hat on, said—On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I moved a reduction.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: It was not put.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that, as the Secretary for War made a short speech before moving the Closure, there had been time for his reduction to be put.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes,128; Noes. 87. (Division List No. 50.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

  Allhusen, Augustus HenryEden

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Anson, Sir Wlliam Reynell

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

  Arrol, Sir William

  Finch, Et. Hon. George H.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Balfour Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

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

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Meysey-Thomson, Sir H. M.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Moore, William

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gretton, John

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bigwood, James

  Hamilton, Marq of (Lnd'nderry

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bond, Edward

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Heath, A. Howard (Harder)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Chapman, Edward

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Peel, Hn.Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Percy, Earl

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Collings, Et. Hon. Jesse

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Colomb, Sir Jn. Charles Ready

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Kerr, John

  Purvis, Robert

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Keswick, William

  Randles, John S.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Stock, James Henry

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Stroyan, John

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Talbot, Lo-d E. (Chichester)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

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

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Reddy, M.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Joicey, Sir James

  Roche, John

  Brigg, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Lambert, George

  Shackleton, David James

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lundon, W.

  Shochan, Daniel Daniel

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sheehy, David

  Clancy, John Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Slack, John Bamford

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Kean, John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Delany, William

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Murphy, John

  Tomkinson, James

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Toulmin, George

  Dobbie Joseph

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  O'Brien Kendal (TipperaryMid

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Doogan, P. O.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Edwards, Frank

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Field William

  O'Dowd, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Warner and Mr. Charles Hobhouse

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Malley, William

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Mara, James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Hammond, John

  Partington, Oswald

  Question put accordingly "That a sum, not exceeding £9,746,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge for the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of His Majesty's Army at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India) (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Depart-
  ments), which will come in course payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1905."
  The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 75. (Division List No. 51.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Allhusen, Angustus Henry Eden

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bignold, Arthur

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.

  Bigwood, James

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Arrol, Sir William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bond, Edward

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Aubrey-Fletcher, R t. Hon. Sir H.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Chapman, Edward

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Dyke,Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Edwards, Frank

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rutherford, W. W (Liverpool

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Markham, Arthur Basil

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Stock, James Henry

  Gretton, John

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Groves, James Grimble

  Moore, William

  Stroyan, John

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Morgan, D. J. (Waltamstow)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Murray, Rt Hn A.Graham (Bute

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Walrond, Rt. Hn.Sir William H

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Peel, Hn.Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Percy, Earl

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Kerr, John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Keswick, William

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Purvis, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

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

  Randles, John S.

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Lee, A H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Partington, Oswald

  Allen, Charles P.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Reddy, M.

  Black, Alexander William

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brigg, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roche, John

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Lambert, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lundon, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Clancy, John Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Crae, George

  Sheehy, David

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dalziel, James Henry.

  M'Kean, John

  Slack, John Bamford

  Delany, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Murphy, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr).

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Tomkinson, James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Toulmin, George

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Field, William

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

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Hammond, John

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whitley and Mr. Henderson.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Mara, James

  And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported upon
  844
  Monday next: Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
  Adjourned at twenty-two minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:— Bristol Tramways (Extensions) [H.L.]; Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway [H.L.]. The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the is Marylebone Chapels (Saint James, Westmoreland Street) Bill—(Petition for Bill) ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill. Read, and e agreed to.
Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1902 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
St. Bartholomew's Hospital Bill [H.L.]. The Lord BALFOUR informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was with drawn.
Appleby Corporation Gas Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration To of the Bill, the opposition there to having been withdrawn: read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 19th of February and Thursday last, discharged, and Bill committed.
Harlow and Sawbridgeworth Gas Bill [H. L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition there to having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 19th of February and Thursday last, discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
Barnard Castle Gas Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the
702
Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 19th and the 26th of February last, discharged, and Bill committed.
New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company Bill [H.L.]. Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
Southend Water Bill. Read 2a and committed.

HUTCHESONS' HOSPITAL AND HUTCHESONS' EDUCATIONAL TRUST BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved. "That the Bill be now read 2a."— (Lord Balfour of Barleigh.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he really proposes to enforce the Second Reading of this Bill on the present occasion. This is a Bill promoted by a majority, and a majority only, of the Governors of the Trust. The Trust was constituted under the Act of 1882 and has been in force since 1885, and under it the income was divided in certain proportions between education and charity. Nine of the Governors out of fifteen now put forward this Bill, which proposes to alter the application of the funds of the Trust and to do away with the settlement made in 1885 under the public law of 1882. By this Bill it is proposed to allot, to charity a much larger sum than was settled under that Act. The promoters of the Bill are opposed by the other six Governors, and I may observe that they have no power whatever to devote the funds of the Trust to the promoting of a Bill of this hind, which is an entirely ex parte, application of their own. Moreover, they are to be opposed by the School Board, with whom, believe, they made an arrangement a year or two ago, which at that time was satisfactory to the School Board but which the School Board now repudiates. It is currently reported that a Bill is to be introduced in another place dealing with higher and technical education, and it is not improbable that

703
certain alterations will be made in the existing law. That being so, is it desirable at this time to proceed with a private Bill which proposes to upset what was done tinder the public Act of Parliament and in pursuance of the recommendations of the Commission which was presided over by the noble Lord himself? Is it desirable to incur all the expense of an opposition before this House and possibly the other House of Parliament at the present time? I do not move the rejection of the Bill because I think that might be possibly too strong a course to take, but I put it to the noble Lord that it is not desirable to read this Bill a second time at present. It should, at all events, be postponed until we see what are the provisions of the public Act. If, after that, the promoters think it worth while to persevere, that is another matter; but in the meantime I would ask the noble Lord to postpone the Second Reading.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): The noble Lord will, of course, understand that I am acting purely in a Ministerial capacity as Chairman of Committees, and that my moving the Second Reading of the Bill implies no opinion whatever either for or against the merits of this particular proposal. The circumstances are that this measure was proposed under the Scottish Private Bill Procedure Act last year, and it was resolved that it should stand over till this year and come up as a Private Bill. The noble Earl has stated the facts in regard to it with which he will easily understand I am perfectly familiar, and I agree that they are facts which should be brought to the notice of the House. But I have not myself, in any way, gone into the merits of this proposal, and I do not intend now to discuss them or to express any opinion for or against them. As the noble Earl knows, and as probably the majority of your Lordships know, I should be in a peculiarly difficult position if I were to do so, because this Bill constitutes an appeal against the decision of a Commission of which I was Chairman. The circumstances may, or may not, have changed; that is a fair matter for discussion before a Committee of your Lordships' House upstairs. The noble Earl has alluded to the fact, which is perfectly well known, that a Bill dealing with Scottish education generally is likely
704
to be presented to Parliament before long, and he very rightly brings publicly to the notice of the promoters of this Bill that perhaps they may be rather uselessly spending money on a contest at this particular time. There can be no chance of this Bill going before a Committee this side of the Easter recess, and I do not think anybody will be prejudiced by a short postponement of the Second Reading. I think that probably the most satisfactory course would be for mo to postpone the Second Reading for a week, and for the promoters to consider in the meantime whether they will press the Second Reading before Easter or wait till a later date. It is not for me to say whether the Second Reading should, or should not, be moved on behalf of the promoters. If it will meet the noble Earl's wishes, I am perfectly willing now to consent to the adjournment of the Second Reading till this day week, to give all the parties a further opportunity of considering their respective positions.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I do not think that a week's adjournment makes very much difference, and I beg to give notice that if it is moved a week hence, I shall take objection to the Second Reading. In the meantime, of course, I accept what the noble Lord proposes.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.
Belfast Corporation (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
St. Bartholomew's Hospital Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed.
Blyth and Cowpen Gas Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 414. Jamaica (Report for 1902–1903).
  LOAN FUND BOARD OF IRELAND.
  Sixty-sixth Annual Report for 1903.
  INEBRIATES ACTS, 1879 TO 1900.
  First Report of the Inspector for Scotland under the Inebriates Acts, for the period to 31st December, 1903.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Western Division of Scotland, for the year 1903.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
  Statement of the amount due by the public to depositors in Military Savings Banks on the 31st March, 1902, and of the receipts, interest, and disbursements in the said Military Savings Banks during the year next ensuing, ended on the 31st March. 1903, etc.
  ASSIZES ACTS, 1876 AND 1879.
  Two Orders in Council of the 7th March, 1904, relating to the ensuing Spring Assizes.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTS, 1878 AND 1880.
  Order in Council of 7th March, 1904. fixing the fee for the verification and stamping of 50 lb. weights.
  EXTRADITION ACTS, 1870 TO 1895, AND FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT, 1881.
  Two Orders in Council of the 7th March, 1904, giving effect to Chapters II. and IV. of the Indian Extradition Act, 1903.
  EXTRADITION ACTS, 1870 TO 1895.
  Order in Council of 7th March, 1904, directing that the Extradition Act, 1903, of the Commonwealth of Australia, shall have effect as if it were part of the "Extradition Act, 1870."
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890, AND MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Order in Council of the 7th March, 1904, declaring the port of Old Calabar to be a port of registry for British shipping.
  CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).
  Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upon the account of the Irish Land Commission in respect of Church Temporalities in Ireland, for the year ended 3ist March, 1903, together with the account for the above period, and that from 26th July, 1869 (the date of the Irish Church Act), to 31st March, 1903.
  POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, for the year ended 29th September, 1903.

  POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS).
  Statutory Rules and Orders, 1904. No. 274; "Postal Order (New Zealand) Regulations.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie upon the Table.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL [H.L.]
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out, except to members of the Committee, and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order. (No. 26.)

  LORD ROSEBERY AND MR. BALFOUR.
  THE EAEL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I rise, to put a Question to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of which I have given him private notice. I wish to ask him what justification there is for the use of the word "calumny" by the Prime Minister with reference to the comments I have made on Lord George Hamilton's speech at Ealing. I am sorry that I was not able to give earlier notice than this morning, but I did not at first observe the word "calumny," and it was not till this morning that it was brought to my attention. It is true that the Prime Minister used very freely the words "glosses" and "misrepresentations"; but those, after all, are idle expressions, and though they excite my curiosity quite as much to know what can have given rise to them as does the word "calumny" itself, I should not have thought it worth while to trouble your Lordships with the matter had it not been for the gravity of the word which the Prime Minister employed. I have been at pains to examine the latest authority on the English language—Dr. Murray's Dictionary —on the meaning of the word "calumny," and it fully confirms my view as to the gravity of the expression employed. It is said to mean—"false and malicious misrepresentation of the

  707
  words or actions of others, calculated to injure their reputation; libellous detraction, slander." I ask the noble Marquess, who, I hope, has had an opportunity of communicating with the Prime Minister, what justification there is for the characterisation by the Prime Minister of my remarks as "a calumny."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNK): My Lords, I am not sure that it is altogether regular for a Minister in this House to explain to your Lordships the language used by one of his colleagues in the other House. But, in the circumstances, I shall certainly not shelter myself behind the technical plea, and I will endeavour to answer as succinctly as possible the noble Earl's Question. Lord George Hamilton, speaking at Ealing in October last, made this statement—
  "On the last day of the session the Cabinet met and we had before us two documents—a pamphlet entitled 'Insular Free Trade,' and another document containing the proposals the Prime Minister wished officially to put forward in the name of the Government. Preferential tariffs and taxation of food were included in that programme. We agreed to the publication of the first document. We differed as to the acceptance of the proposals in the second."
  My Lords, what were the facts? There were, as by this time it is generally known, two documents.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Hear, hear! At last we have that.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: One of them was a document written by the Prime Minister, for the ultimate purpose of publication. It is the pamphlet which most of your Lordships have had in your hands, and it is entitled "Insular Free Trade." At or about the same time the Prime Minister placed in the hands of his colleagues another document of a different character. It was written entirely for his colleagues, and was in that form with which those Members of your Lordships' House who have served in the Cabinet are familiar—the form of a confidential Cabinet Memorandum. That Paper we are obviously precluded from producing, and I therefore cannot quote it. I should not imagine that any Member of your Lordships' House would desire that we should establish a practice of making public and
  708
  laying before Parliament Memoranda or Minutes written in these circumstances by one member of the Government for the information of his colleagues. But, my Lords, this I am prepared to say—that my noble friend Lord George Hamilton is, in my opinion, under considerable misapprehension, both as to the purport of that second document and as to its relation to the published Paper, and also as to the manner in which it was treated by his colleagues. I may be allowed to add without, I think, being guilty of indiscretion—that in the unpublished Paper the Prime Minister expressed the hope that his colleagues would not dissent from the conclusions to be found at the end of the pamphlet on "Insular Free Trade." I should like to remind your Lordships of what is to be found in the concluding paragraph of that latter document. It runs as follows—
  "I hold myself to be in harmony with the true spirit of free trade when I plead for freedom to negotiate, that freedom of exchange may be increased. The first and most essential objects of our national efforts should be to get rid of the bonds in which we have gratuitously entangled ourselves. The precise manner in which we should use our regained liberty (a subject I do not propose to discuss in this paper) is an important, yet, after all, only a secondary issue. What is fundamental is that our liberty should be regained."
  I now come to the speeches of the noble Earl. Speaking at Leicester on 8th November he used these words—
  "We know that on the last day of the session Mr. Balfour presented to his Cabinet, not one, but two pamphlets. One pamphlet, which we have the priceless privilege of purchasing— though somewhat, perhaps, jejune, and even obscure, dwelt principally, largely, on the great prosperity of the country. It also urged retaliation. But we now know that the Prime Minister produced from his resources a second pamphlet, which he offered as the policy of the Government, and which contained the full scheme of preferential tariffs, including the food tax, which had been advocated by Mr. Chamberlain. And when that policy as rejected, the Prime Minister calmly put it back in his pocket until a more fitting occasion. And the Prime Minister sits with a pamphlet in each pocket ready to produce the pamphlet or the programme as may suit the occasion as a general election may guide."
  The first point to which I have to call attention is that the noble Earl's interpretation of Lord George Hamilton's speech was repudiated by Lord George Hamilton himself.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: When?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LAN8DOWNE: On 13th January, 1904, Lord George I Hamilton wrote this letter to the editor of the Daily Mail,—
  "It is not my habit to notice the ordinary personal attacks to which every public man is liable and which from time to time appear in the Press. But in your leading article of 12th January you impugn my veracity by stating that Mr. Balfour flatly contradicted a statement I made at Ealing as to two documents which were under the consideration of the Cabinet. Mr. Balfour in no way traversed my statement, but he very properly repudiated the gloss put upon it by Lord Rosebery."
  If Lord George Hamilton's statement did not correctly represent the attitude of the Prime Minister, your Lordships will scarcely differ from me when I say that the speech of the noble Earl still more grievously misrepresented it. There was a second speech of the noble Earl's, delivered on 12th December, but I need not quote it as it virtually repeats what was said in the Leicester speech. It is impossible to read these speeches without remaining under the impression that the noble Earl imputed to the Prime Minister, conduct which I can only describe as wanting in good faith. It seems to me that he charged him with an attempt to trick his colleagues, to trick Parliament, and the people of this country. I do not think it is a matter of surprise that the Prime Minister should have felt himself called upon to repudiate with a certain amount of warmth, the imputations—for I cannot otherwise describe them—of the noble Earl below the gangway. Your Lordships should, moreover, remember that the Prime Minister, on more than one occasion, had given an emphatic contradiction to the story of the two conflicting pamphlets which he was supposed to have in his pocket available for use as circumstances might dictate. He spoke at Manchester of that story as an "amazing legend." In the House of Commons a few days ago he stated categorically that there was no second document which could be described as an alternative document to "Insular Free Trade," and again he denied that there were two documents similar in character but opposite in opinion. Two days ago, however, this question was once more brought up in the House
  710
  of Commons; and upon that occasion I find that the Prime Minister spoke of the repeated attacks made upon him by the noble Earl, and complained that the noble Earl had misrepresented him; and then, in reply to an interruption which for a moment diverted the course of the debate, he certainly used the expression "calumny" of the charge made by the noble Earl. I have had an opportunity of conferring with the Prime Minister as to this episode, and I am able to state to the noble Earl and to your Lordships that nothing was further from the mind of the Prime Minister than to impute to the noble Earl a deliberate attempt to misrepresent him. But the Prime Minister certainly did regard the charge in itself as acalumniou; charge. The noble Earl was, I think, misled to begin with by the statement originally made by Lord George Hamilton. He amplified and developed that statement, with the result that, perhap; without realising how far his words went he held up the Prime Minister to obloquy for what I cannot describe otherwise than as a breach of good faith towards his colleagues. In these circumstunces the Prime Minister has not unnaturally repelled the charge in language which, no doubt, was warm, but which I do not think was exaggerated or unjustified by the facts of tire case.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I must offer a few observations on the statement to which we have just listened; and in order to put myself in order I will move the Adjournment of the House. The noble Marquess began his statement, on which I must congratulate him as being more frank than those statements of which we have read in another place, by saying that it was somewhat inconvenient and somewhat unusual to call Ministers to account in this House for language used by their colleagues in the other House. The noble Marquess has been in the House longer than I have, but he has not, perhaps, sat in it so long, owing to high appointments abroad; otherwise be would know that one of the difficulties of the Governments of which I have been a member in former times has been to answer Questions with regard to

  711
  language held by their colleagues elsewhere which was not agreeable to Members of the Opposition. I remember particularly a most awkward question asked with regard to the language held by Mr. Gladstone about this House being "up in a balloon," which I rein ember even the tact and skill of Lord Granville had great difficulty in dealing with to the satisfaction of your Lordships. I am exceedingly glad that this conversation has taken place, because we have at last obtained from the noble Marquess what all the energy and skill of the House of Commons have failed to extract from the Prime Minister —namely, an exact account of what took place with regard to these two documents. The Prime Minister, indeed, never allowed the description of "document" to be applied to the second "written thing," as it is now described, presented to the Cabinet in August; but we have, at any rate, got thus far. There were two documents presented to the Cabinet, but one was for publication by the thousand and the other was not to be seen except by the Cabinet. We have been told something of the concluding sentence of the document, and in that way I venture to say that we have got more illumination than from all the speeches Mr. Balfour has made on the subject.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope that I did not mislead the noble Karl, but the concluding sentence which I quoted was from "Insular Free Trade."
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Yes; hut the sentence which the noble Marquess quoted was one in which the unknown document did end with a request to his colleagues, or the expression of a pious aspiration that his colleagues would all agree to the last sentence of the pamphlet on "Insular Free Trade." I think that is an accurate summary. The point is one which the noble Marquess seems to have failed to grasp, and I am glad he has failed to grasp it for otherwise we should not have had his interesting explanation. The point is not what actually took place, but what Lord George Hamilton said had taken place, which was all that was before the public.
  712
  Therefore we are greatly obliged to the noble Marquess for the narrative he has given us. It does not bear, or only remotely bears, on the question I put to him. My question was what justification there was for the use of the word "calumny," of which I stated the gravity, in reference to comments I had thought it right to make on the statement of Lord George Hamilton at Ealing. It is no answer to that to say that the statement of Lord George Hamilton at Ealing was inaccurate. It is no answer to say that Lord George Hamilton subsequently contradicted it himself, because the noble Marquess, somewhat less ingenuous than in the rest of his statement, failed to remark that Lord George Hamilton's contradiction did not come until after the three speeches I had made on the subject had been already delivered. Therefore, the contradiction as against my speeches has no weight whatever.
  Now you have from the Foreign Secretary what was the language of Lord George Hamilton, and he has also read my speech. Nothing is more loathsome than to refer to old speeches except to help to make new ones; but I am bound to say, recurring to the speech to which the noble Marquess has referred—that of 7th November—I can find nothing in it which taken with the text of Lord George Hamilton's speech, deserves the strong expression of "calumny" "We know that on the last day of the session Mr. Balfour presented to his Cabinet, not one, but two pamphlets." I was wrong to use the words "two pamphlets." I withdraw the word "pamphlet"; but surely the misunderstanding is not worthy of the stigma of calumny. "One pamphlet, which we have the priceless privilege of purchasing"—that is true — "though somewhat, perhaps, jejune, and even obscure"—that is a matter of opinion but not a calumny—" dwelt principally, largely, on the great prosperity of the country"—that again, cannot be considered a calumny. "It also urged retaliation"—that is a fact—"but we now know that the Prime Minister produced from his resources a second pamphlet"—I have withdrawn the word "pamphlet"— which he offered as the policy of the Government, and which contained the full scheme of preferential tariffs, including the food tax, which had been

  713
  advocated by Mr. Chamberlain." Lord George Hamilton said it was a document which contained substantive propositions which were proposed on behalf of the Government and officially put forward; and these propositions embraced preferential tariffs and the taxation of food. I venture to say that my statement in the speech is an under-statement given of that document as compared with the description given of it by Lord George Hamilton. The document has disappeared. It is apparently never to appear, and so I said—
  "And when that policy was rejected, the Prime Minister calmly put it back in his pocket until a more fitting occasion."
  What calumny is there in that? I do not know whether he did put it in his pocket; he may have put it in a box: but for the Prime Minister to come down to the House of Commons and to bang the Table and call it a "calumny" is a procedure I should have thought no one who ever hold that position was capable of. There was another sentence which the gentleman who has copied the speech for me has omitted, but which the noble Marquess may supply me with. It is the portion about the alternative policy in my speech at Leicester. Would you mind reading it? [The noble Earl resumed his seat, in the expectation, apparently, that Lord Landsdowne would read the extract, but the Foreign Secretary handed the extracts across the Table for the noble Earl to make his own selection. Lord Rosebery found that the passage he sought was apparently not included in the documents, and he continued.] It was a sentence to the effect that the Prime Minister was ready to produce either policy as a general election might dictate. Is that a libel? Is that a calumny? I cannot go so far into the general question as to debate it this evening; but I venture to say that no one who has read the debates or the speeches delivered in this country, no one, particularly, who has read the debate on the Motion of Mr. Morley, can fail to see that there is ample ground for an opinion of that kind. When the Government puts forward alternatively a protectionist and a free-trader to represent them, no one can help seeing that their attitude is one of animated expectation, a waiting for a general election which shall guide them in the policy they shall
  714
  afterwards pursue. But that is, after all, a matter of opinion. I maintain, however, that it is a matter of fair political inference from the statement of Lord George Hamilton and the statements of the Government themselves; and I venture to say that no Minister of whom we have record has been so thin-skinned, in circumstances such as we have witnessed, as to regard as a calumny a statement of opinion so obviously dictated by the facts. I suppose these are the glosses, this the misrepresentation, and this the calumny of which the Prime Minister complained. I should have thought, after reading the speeches in the other House, that there was more he had to complain of than mine, but as we are talking about glosses, let me remind the Prime Minister that he who lives in a glass house should not be too ready to throw stones. When speaking at Manchester, how did he describe the speech which we have heard read out? He said—
  "Lord Rosebery has given circulation to an amazing legend that I went down to the second Cabinet in August and presented to my colleagues two alternative pamphlets recommending two inconsistent and mutually destructive policies"
  Whoever said a word about inconsistent and mutually destructive policies? I regard the one policy as a half-way house to the other. A man who uses expressions of that kind should not complain of the glosses of others —
  "And asked them to take their choice."
  Your Lordships may judge from the speech of Lord George Hamilton whether I was not warranted in making that statement. My Lords, the noble Marquess has not in the least withdrawn the expression used by the Prime Minister. He has said that the Prime Minister used in the heat of debate the expression, which I do not think he even regretted, but he did afterwards say, and the noble Marquess adopted the expression, that the statements were calumnious. You may say that is only "pretty Fanny's way," but if these are the expressions of a gentleman speaking under great heat and provocation — I say that if a man cannot curb his tongue better than that "pretty Fanny" should not be First Lord of the Treasury. I say these expressions are outrages on the good taste and decency of Parliament. I have

  715
  thought it due to the decency of Parliament to call attention to the matter —not that I care one farthing what language Mr. Balfour may use about me or the opinions I hold, hut to point out to your Lordships that there are decencies of debate which should he observed even by those who occupy the highest political posts in the country. I move the adjournment of the House.
  Moved, That this House do now adjourn —(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  *EARL SPENCER: My Lords, it is rather inconvenient to prolong a discussion of which we have had no notice, but I think there is something more due to my noble friend than has fallen from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. I venture to support what my noble friend has said. There are various ways of dealing with what one opponent says of another, but it is a very strong thing indeed, particularly for a man in the great position of Prime Minister, to use the word "calumny" and apply it to the arguments of another politician, who, he must know, is a man of honour, and not likely to exaggerate or distort. Calumny is a terrible word to use. It means a wanton misrepresentation of what has taken place. How can anybody suppose that the noble Earl would wantonly try to misrepresent what has been said by the Prime Minister or any other politician? I think what the noble Marquess has said is a most inadequate explanation of what has taken place, and of what has been said by the Prime Minister. As the noble Earl himself has said, the noble Marquess did not withdraw tin; word "calumny" He admitted it was strong, but according to the noble Marquess, he said there was little doubt these misrepresentations were of a calumnious nature. I think, therefore, we on this side are bound to support the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBEBY: Before the Question is put, I want just to read what was said by Lord George Hamilton himself in the debate on Monday night in winding up the discussion. He said—
  "I wrote that part of the speech out with that document before me. I have read that document again in the last few hours, and I adhere to every syllable of what I said to my constituents."
  On Question, Motion disagreed to.

  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1,
  "THE MAHQUESS OF GRANBYexplained that the effect of the Amendments standing in his name would be to make the operative clause of the Bill read as follows—
  "From and after the passing of this Act every person who, on any pole, tree, or cairn of stones or earth, shall affix, place, or set any spring, trap, gin, or other similar instrument calculated to cause bodily injury to any wild bird coming in contact therewith, and every person who shall knowingly permit or suffer or cause any such trap to be so affixed, placed, or set, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings, and for a second or subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding live pounds."
  He thought this would meet all the objections that had been raised to the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 6, to leave out the word 'wall.'"—(The Marquess of Granby.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 6, to leave out from the word 'wall' to the word 'shall' in line 7, and to insert the words 'or cairn of stones or earth.'"—(The Marquess of Granby.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as Amended, agreed, to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  *THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYsaid the object of his Amendment was to simplify the wording of Clause 3; it was really nothing more than a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 3 page 1, line 18, to leave out from the word 'Protection' to the word 'and: in line 21, and to insert the words' Acts 1880 to 1902."—(The Marquess of Granby.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee: and to be printed as amended. (No.28.)

  BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order.)
  Clause 1.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL*THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL moved to amend Sub-section (a) of Clause 1 by adding the ecclesiastical parish of Falfield, in the rural deanery of Dursley, to the other parishes which were included in the scheme.
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 12, to leave out the word 'both,' and to insert the words 'and Falfield, all.'"— {The Lord Bishop of Bristol.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOLsaid that in omitting from the clause the words contained in his second Amendment the object was to form a new deanery of Thornbury.
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 12, to leave out the words, 'and for including the parishes aforesaid in the rural deanery of Hawkesbury.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Bristol.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2, agreed to.
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 29.)

BUSINESS OF THK HOUSE.
*EARL SPENCER: It would be convenient if the noble Marquess could state what arrangements have been made as to the Adjournment of the House for the Easter recess.
*THE MARQUESS OK LANSDOWNE: The matter is one entirely for your Lordships. It has been suggested to me that we might rise on the 25th of this month, and reassemble on 19th April; and I think we might agree to that provisionally.
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.