Sitting of 22 February 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES, CONGESTED DISTRICTS, AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1896.
  Petition from Dumbartonshire, for continuance; to lie upon the Table.
  SUGAR TAX.
  Petitions for repeal; from Ashton-under-Lyne (two); and Nelson; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Paper [presented 21st February]; to be printed. [No.54.]
  WAGES AND EFFECTS OF DECEASED SEAMEN.
  Account [presented 21st February]; to be printed. [No. 55.]
  JUDICIAL STATISTICS ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Judicial Statistics for England and Wales, 1903, Part II. (Civil Judicial Statistics), edited by Sir John MacDonnell, C.B., LL.D., Master of the Supreme Court [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1904–5).
  Estimate presented, of the Further Sums required to be voted for the Service of the year ending 31st March, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 56.]
  COLONIES (GENERAL).
  Copy presented, of Further Papers relating to the proposed adoption of a Metric System of Weights and Measures for use within the Empire [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of a General Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland entitled the Union Accounts Order, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
  Copy presented, of Report of an Investigation of the Ventilation of the Debating Chamber of the House of Commons, and Recommendations for its Improvement, by Dr. M. H. Gordon [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CONTRACTS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES (WAGES).
  Address for "Return showing—(1) for England and Wales, as regards each County Council, Town Council, Metropolitan Borough Council, Urban and Rural District Council, and Board of Guardians; (2) for Scotland, as regards each County Council, Town Council, Parish Council, and District Committee; and (3) for Ireland, as regards each County Council, Town Council, Urban District Council (not being a Town Council), Rural District Council, and Board of Guardians; whether the Contracts entered into by the Authority for the execution of works specify any conditions as to the Wages to be paid by the Contractor, or other conditions with regard to the persons employed by him; and, if so, what are the conditions so specified."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  NAVY (VESSELS STRUCK OFF EFFECTIVE LIST).
  Return ordered, "of the Vessels struck off the list of Effective Ships of War, showing the name, date of completion, cost of hull, machinery, and armament, cost of repairs during the last ten years, date and cost of the last substantial repair with a view to commission, and the aggregate complement of officers and men."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
  NAVY (CRUISERS NOT STRUCK OFF EFFECTIVE LIST).
  Return ordered, "of Protected and Unprotected Cruisers included in the Return presented to Parliament in 1904 (No.136) which have not been struck off the list of Effective Ships, showing date of completion, cost, and aggregate complement of officers and men."—(Mr Edmund Robertson.)
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Ventilation of the House of Commons.
    MR. WYLIE: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what has been done during the recess for improving the ventilation and sanitary arrangements of the House of Commons' Buildings; and what, if anything, still remains to be done to fulfil the recommendations of the Committee's Report on this subject.
    (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) During the recess the recommendations of the Select Committee of the House of Commons with reference to the ventilation have been carried into effect, with the exception of the completion of the extract fan. This has been delayed by reason of structural difficulties incidental to the floor of the Commons Lobby Chamber, but it is expected that this fan will be running within a month from date. The principal improvements already effected are: (1) The complete washing of the air by means of a new type of water screen; (2) The erection of a much more powerful intake fan; (3) The more effective isolation of passages joining the main airways. This will be followed by experimental tests having in view the better distribution of air to the Chamber, and also by tests of the air so distributed. It is hoped that the works already completed will result in a very considerable improvement in the quantity and quality of the air supply.

    Mail Delays at Portree.
    MR. JOHN DEWAR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, in consequence of the steamer "Lochiel" being frequently late in her arrival at Portree, the mails for Dunvegan and Uig are delayed; and will he communicate with the contractors for this service in order that a larger and faster steamer may be provided.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will make inquiry respecting the circumstances under which the steamer "Lochiel" has been late in arrival at Portree, and the
    884
    result shall be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    Post Office and Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association.
    ME.BELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that an officer attached to the Controller's staff has been visiting the post offices in the Eastern Central district, London, which are staffed by women, for the purpose of persuading them from joining the Postal Telegraphs Clerks' Association; and, if so, will he state if such action was taken with his sanction, and whether the women counter clerks and telegraphists suffer any disabilities from joining this organization.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am informed that there is no foundation for the suggestion conveyed by the hon. Member's Question. If his allegation is based on any definite facts, perhaps he will communicate them to me.

    Pay for Extra Duty in Excise and Inland Revenue Departments.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that officers of Excise, performing duty for absent officers for whom no substitute can be provided, receive special remuneration for such duty, while clerks in the offices of the collectors of Inland Revenue under similar circumstances are expected to perform the extra duty without any remuneration, he will take steps to place the two branches on an equality in this respect.
    (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I am unable to undertake to do what the hon. Member suggests, as the two branches of the Inland Revenue service to which he refers do not stand on the same footing. A clerk in a collector's office is one of several, and the duties of the office as a whole have to be discharged by the staff as a whole. An officer of Excise, on the other hand, occupies an isolated position with specified duties, and any addition thereto, caused by his discharging similar duties in an adjoining station, increases his work in a distinct and definite manner.

    Local Authorities' Accounts in Ireland.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the protests which are being made by the public bodies of Ireland against the new Orders of the Local Government Board for the keeping of accounts, and of the statement made by officials of the Local Government Board as to the submission of draft Orders to the county councils previous to their issue, he will state the names of the county councils which considered these Orders, and also the names of the public officials who approved of them previous to their issue, and say whether the boards of guardians and rural district councils were asked for their opinions prior to their issue.
    MR. WILLIAM McKILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the names of the county councils, rural district councils, and boards of guardians in Ireland in which the accounts were presented for audit in an unsatisfactory manner owing to the deficiency of the system prescribed in 1899; and if he will point out the cause which led to the superseding of that system.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Public Bodies Order was sent to every county council and county borough council, with all of whom the Board was in correspondence prior to the issue of the Order. It was also sent to a number of the councils of the larger urban districts. Many valuable suggestions were received from the local authorities, and these have been adopted by the Board. The communications received from public officials on the subject are confidential, and it would be contrary to practice to publish their names. The Union Accounts Order was not sent in draft to boards of guardians since it contained no material alterations upon the old Order. The Board's experience of the accounts of the local authorities mentioned in the Question of the hon. Member for North Sligo pointed to the necessity of the amendments which have been made in the new Order. The accounts of these authorities were, as a rule, presented for audit as satisfactorily
    886
    as the Board could have wished or expected, having regard to the fact that the old Order, made prior to the coming into operation of the Local Government Act of 1898, admittedly contained many imperfections. At various times during the past five years some of the most experienced accounting officers of the local authorities have directed the Board's attention to matters in respect of which the original Order required modifications and improvements, and there are no provisions in the new Order which are not the result of the experience gained since 1899.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that a new system of accounts was prescribed for the Poor Law Unions of Ireland in the year 1899, and acted on by all the Poor Law Boards, he will say whether there was any complaint made by any of the boards of guardians as to the insufficiency of these accounts for public requirements; and whether, seeing that some of the forms prescribed in that Order were copyrighted by a Local Government Board auditor, and that a number of the boards of guardians and district councils have protested against any departure being made in the accounts, they having gone to considerable expense by the previous Order, and being satisfied with the present system, he will, in the case of small unions whose guardians have declared in favour of an amalgamation scheme, recommend to the Local Government Board the deference of the operation of the new Orders until the question of amalgamation is settled.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The forms of the Union Accounts Order are almost identical with the old forms, and where any alterations to the headings are necessary they can be made by the clerk of the union in the existing books with very little trouble. No copyright in the forms exists and it is open to any printer to prepare books in accordance with the prescribed forms for use by Poor Law Unions. The forms of accounts could not be affected by amalgamation of unions and no advantage would be gained by suspending the operation of the Order pending the Report of the Commission.

    Qualifications of Manual Instructresses and Others in Needlework.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what method is adopted by the Commissioners of Education in testing the qualifications of a manual instructress and others in needlework, and if the manager of a school is at liberty to appeal elsewhere in case he considers the decision of the Directress of Needlework unfair.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.)Candidates for the position of manual instructress and others who do not hold certificates of competency in needlework, are tested in needlework in the presence of one of the Board's inspectors. The worked specimens are forwarded to the Directress of Needlework for examination, and she decides whether the candidates have passed the tests and are qualified for certificates in the subjects. The manager of a school may appeal to the Commissioners should he not be satisfied with the decision of the Directress in any case.

    Directress of Needlework.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what are the precise duties and salary attached to the position of Directress of Needlework under the Commissioners of National Education.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Directress of Needlework is charged with the general supervision of needlework instruction in national schools. She also examines and judges the specimens of needlework done by King's scholars from the training colleges at the annual examinations of candidates for the position of national teacher and manual instructress, and of pupil teachers, monitors, etc. The salary attached to the position is £150, rising by annual increments of £10 to a maximum of £200 per annum, with travelling and subsistence allowances.

    Volunteer Mounted Infantry.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in 1900 and 1901 several corps of Volunteers formed,
    888
    at the direct invitation of the War Office and at considerable expense to the country for equipment, companies of mounted infantry, some of which are-now at full strength and highly efficient, and if, having regard to these facts, the special capitation grant which is essential for the provision of horses and has been in force until the close of the last Volunteer year may be continued.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The Army Council have decided that the grant should be continued during the coming year, but I propose to make a further statement in regard to this matter when a suitable occasion arises in debate.

    Pay of the Army.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the United States of America find no difficulty, despite the higher pay and greater prospects of civil life therein compared to Great Britain, in obtaining annually 100,000 white candidates, between twenty-one and thirty-five years of age, from which to select 30,000 recruits, at 1s. 9d. per diem pay, for their regular army, and that this is attributable to the clear conditions of military service placed before the public; and if he will consider the desirability, with like object in view, of simplifying the various rates of pay in His Majesty's Service and making it clear to every youth thinking of adopting the, Army as a profession what salaries it offers in the various grades, arms, and climates, clear of all stoppages and deductions for messing, clothing, equipment, sickness, or hair-cutting.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The conditions prevailing in the United States are somewhat different from those which exist in this country; but I am in full agreement with my hon. friend in thinking that it is most desirable to simplify the various rates of pay, and to make the terms and conditions of service perfectly clear to all young men who wish to join the Army. The matter is now under the consideration of the Army Council, and I am most anxious to give effect to the views of the

    889
    hon. Member. The terms and conditions of service are now so advantageous that it is very important they should be fully understood.

    Militia Officers.
    MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the present difficulty in obtaining officers for the Militia, in consequence of existing doubts sis to the future of the force, he can give any assurance that officers now incurring the expense incidental to joining will be permitted to retain the right to wear the uniform in the event of the abolition of their battalions.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I am afraid that I cannot undertake to give any such pledge as that suggested in the Question, in anticipation of any measures for the organisation of the Militia which might involve the abolition of any battalion.

    Federated Malay States.
    MR. SPEAR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Federated Malay States have ever been formally annexed by the Crown so as to officially form part of the British Empire; and, if not, whether the portion of the State revenue that is allotted to the Sultans of those States for the maintenance of their dignity can be officially designated by colonial officers as fixed salaries settled by the High Commissioner, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The Federated Malay States have not been annexed. Their relations with His Majesty's Government are determined by treaties in which the Sultans have undertaken to follow the advice of the British Residents and Resident-General in all matters of administration other than those touching the Mohammedan religion. The allowances paid to the Sultans are fixed by the High Commissioner, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and have been frequently described as "Salaries," both in official correspondence and in the Annual Estimates of the Malay States.

    Protection of Trawlers on the Dogger Bank.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether arrangements have been made to afford full protection to the fishing fleet on the Dogger Bank during the passage of the Russian third Baltic Fleet through the North Sea.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) His Majesty's Government place implicit reliance on the assurance given by the Russian Government that they have taken every precaution to guard against the recurrence of such incidents as that of 21st–22nd October, and that special instructions have been issued to the whole Russian Fleet with that object.

    QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

      Admiralty Yacht "Enchantress."
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the new Admiralty yacht "Enchantress" is to be remodelled and partly reconstructed by work affecting the whole interior of the ship; what is the total estimated cost of the alterations to be made in the ship and from what source is their cost to be defrayed; and what will be the total cost of the ship, including the alterations.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAX,): The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is No. The reply to the second part is £412, to be met from the sum provided for Repairs and Alterations to Ships in Commission and Reserve, Portsmouth Programme. The total cost of the ship, including approved alterations, is £126,753.
      MR, GIBSON BOWLES: Has the last installment been paid for the ship and has she been taken over?
      MR. PRETYMANasked for notice of that Question.

      Indian Cavalry—The Patterson Equipment.
      SIR (JARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State

      891
      for War whether the Patterson equipment has been adopted for the Indian cavalry; and whether it will be applied to the British cavalry, seeing that the bucket appliance weighs 4 lbs. and the Patterson arrangement 12 ozs. only.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FOESTER,W.): I understand that the Patterson equipment is used by a portion of the Indian cavalry. I believe that recent reports show that there is some doubt as I to whether the pattern adopted is satisfactory from the point of view of durability. As regards cavalry on the British Establishment, it has been decided not to adopt this equipment at present, as the advantages derived from its use are considered to be more than balanced by its disadvantages. I must point out that the weight of the new bucket is only 2½ lbs., and not 4 lbs. as stated in the Question. It is probable that further information with regard to the value of this equipment will shortly be received from India.

      The Transvaal Loan.
      MR. McCRAE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has communicated with Lord Milner as to the advisability of issuing at an early date the first instalment of £10,000,000 of the Transvaal Loan; and, if so, whether he can state Lord Milner's views as to the most suitable date of issue.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I am not at present prepared to make any statement on this subject.
      MR. McCRAE: When shall we have an opportunity of getting an Answer from some member of the Government?
      [No Answer was returned.]
      SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: May I ask whether, apart from any reference to Lord Milner, it is intended to issue this loan?
      MR. LYTTELTON: That depends upon what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay Papers dealing with the subject on the Table of the House?
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that we were promised this instalment at the beginning of 1904, and that on the faith of that assurance the House was prepared to guarantee the loan of £35,000,000.
      MR. LYTTELTON: I do not admit the accuracy of that statement.
      MR. McCRAE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the state of the revenues of the Transvaal admits of their making the annual contribution necessary?
      MR. BAYLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay Papers on the Table before the Budget is introduced?
      MR. LYTTELTON: I cannot give a pledge on that subject.

      South African Inter-Colonial Council— Railway Government.
      MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what alterations have been made in the Railway Department of the Inter-Colonial Council in consequence of the resolutions carried at the meeting of the Council last summer; and will Papers be laid on the Table on the subject.
      MR. LYTTELTON: Lord Milner informed the Inter-Colonial Council on 15th November last that of the two definite recommendations contained in the resolutions referred to, the first, namely, the appointment of an auditor with wider powers, had already been carried out, and that the second, namely, the appointment of a treasurer, had also been virtually carried out. He also stated that the main object of the recommendations as a whole, which was the establishment of an efficient system of financial control, had already in the main been effected, executive authority being centralised in the general manager subject to the Railway Committee as a Board of Control. I have recently received from Lord Milner

      893
      his formal recommendations and proposals for changes as a result of the experience of the last half year, and the matter is now under my consideration. I hope to lay Papers later on.
      MR. WHITLEY: Who are the members of this Committee?
      MR. LYTTKLTON: I cannot give the names off-hand.
      MR. BUCHANANimtimated that he would put a further Question on the subject.

      Aden Frontier Force.
      SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask
      the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the number of casualties in the Aden frontier force; and whether it is proposed to give a medal for the services there rendered.
      MR. BRODRICK: The number of casualties among the troops employed since the beginning of 1903 in the protection of the Aden Boundary Commission is as follows:—ten killed, twenty-one wounded. It is not proposed to give a medal as the military authorities do not recommend it.
      MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Has the frontier force now been withdrawn?
      MR. BRODRICK: I think practically so.

      Mecca Pilgrims.
      MR.WEIR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the fact that out of the 16,000 pilgrims of Egyptian nationality who have started on the pilgrimage to Mecca only 1,600 have availed themselves of Government protection by travelling with the Mahmal, will he, in view of the ill-treatment suffered by pilgrims last year when passing through Turkish Arabia, consider the expediency of communicating with the Turkish Government in order to secure some kind of protection for the pilgrims who are not accompanying the Mahmal.
      THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): As I informed the hon. Member yesterday†matters of this kind primarily concern the Egyptian Goverment. Representations have been made to the Turkish Government, and it is hoped that there may be no further cause of complaint.

      Income-Tax Appeals.
      MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in cases of assessment for income-tax in which the persons assessed have not been notified of the sitting of the Commissioners to hear appeals, and so have become liable to levy, any machinery is available whereby the claim of the collector can be suspended pending the appeal being disposed of at next sitting.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I am not sure that I fully understand the hon. Member's Question, and in matters of income-tax so much depends upon the precise facts of each particular case that Answers to general Questions are very apt to be misleading. But, as I read the terms of the Question, I should say that the law provides no machinery to meet the circumstances described. In practice, however, if any taxpayer finds himself in such a position, he should explain matters to the surveyor of his district. If the circumstances appear to him to warrant it, that officer will endeavour to arrange with the Commissioners that they should afford to the taxpayer an opportunity of stating his case to them. In the meantime the collector's claim would be allowed to stand over.
      MR. J. P. FARRELL: In the case of a collector of taxes refusing to do this, is there any appeal against him?
      MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If
      the hon. Member is referring to a particular case, the facts of which are not known to me, perhaps he will let me have the facts, and I will investigate them. I cannot give a general Answer upon individual cases with the circumstances of which I am not acquainted.
      †See page 773.

      Volunteer Notices outside Country Post Offices.
      MR. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the convenience such a concession would be, especially in country districts, he will permit the exhibition of notices of Volunteer parades and other similar orders affecting Volunteers outside post offices in Great Britain.
      THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): In country districts the post office is, as a rule, provided by a shopkeeper and not by the Crown. In such cases I have no power to require the exhibition of notices of the kind suggested, but I should be prepared to consider any case in which the sub-postmaster is willing to exhibit them, provided that space necessary for departmental notices is not occupied. In regard to the comparatively few offices which are used solely for post office purposes, and are provided by the Department it has, on account of the demand for space, been found necessary to limit very strictly the exhibition of notices, and I regret, therefore, that I am unable to accede to the hon. Member's request. I understand, however, that these are not the cases in which the concession is required. I may add that I very much agree with the object of the hon. Member, and as far as possible I will endeavour to meet it.

      Telegraphic Appointments.
      CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a man named Soundy, after having served with the Army in South Africa and serving as a telegraphist on the temporary staff, passed the examinations and medical tests necessary for qualifying for the permanent staff in February, 1904, but has not yet received an appointment owing to a dearth of vacancies; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that another examination for learners is announced, he will direct that Soundy, having been out of regular employment for several months, should be given an appointment before other persons are brought into the service.
      LORD STANLEY: I regret that, owing to the dearth of vacancies, it has not yet been possible to appoint Mr. Soundy to the permanent staff, but I hope that temporary employment may be found for him in the meantime. The forthcoming competition for learners is intended to meet the future requirements of the Department and will in no way interfere with Mr. Soundy's appointment at as early a date as possible.

      London Unemployed Relief Fund.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the resources at the disposal of the Central (Unemployed) Committee in London have become practically exhausted before they have been able to deal with more than a certain number of the cases of the genuine unemployed; and that, unless further funds are forthcoming, they will be unable to keep in employment for the full term the men already at work under their auspices; and what steps he proposes to take in order that sufficient funds may be placed at the disposal of the Central Committee with a view to tide over the present period of distress, and the interval which must necessarily elapse before the proposed statutory Central Committees can be brought into existence.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr.WALTER LONG,): Representations on behalf of the Central Committee have been made to me with respect to this matter, and I am giving the subject careful consideration. I cannot say more at the present moment.

      Criminal Aliens in the United States.
      MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what was the number of aliens in the United States sentenced for crime in each of the last five years for which the figures are available, together with the number of alien immigrants prohibited from landing in the United States, on the ground that they were criminals, in each of the same years.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALKOUR,):: I am unable to give the particulars asked for in the first part of the Question, but in 1903–4 the number of alien inmates of penal and reformatory institutions in the United States is stated to have been 9,825. The number of persons debarred from landing in the United States on the ground that they were convicts in each of the last five years were as follows:—1899–1900, 4; 1900–1901, 7; 1901–1902, 9; 1902–1903, 51; 1903–1904, 35.

      Tank Engines on Passenger Trains.
      MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the advisability of appoint a Royal Commission or Departmental Committee to inquire into the question of railway companies using tank engines to run passenger trains above a certain limited speed.
      MR. BELL: I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state how many cases of derailment of tank engines running passenger trains have occurred during the twenty years ending 1904; and if he will give a Return of these showing date, place of accident and railway, class of tank engine (saddle or side tanks), and the conclusions of the Board of Trade inspectors relative thereto.
      MR. GERALD BALFOIIR: I would direct the attention of the hon. Member to the report, to the Board of Trade made by the Senior Inspecting Officer of Railways with reference to the accident on the Great Western Railway which occurred between Llanelly and Loughor on the 3rd of October last. This report has recently been published, and I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with a copy. In the concluding paragraph of the report Colonel Yorke suggests that the Associated Railway Companies should be invited to appoint in expert committee for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting upon the behaviour of tank engines of all types and classes under different conditions of speed. I have specially directed the attention of the Railway Association to colonel Yorke's recommendation and
      898
      have asked them to express their approval of it. I propose to await the result of any inquiry made by the railway companies themselves before considering the necessity for further action. In the meantime I will cause a Return to be prepared of the cases of derailment of tank engines drawing passenger trains that have occurred during the past twenty years and have formed the subject of inquiry by the Railway Inspecting officers of the Board of Trade. This Return will include the particulars mentioned by the hon. Member, together with other material information so far as available. To give the total number of derailments without these particulars would not, I am advised, be useful, and might be misleading.

      Exclusion of Canadian Cattle from the United Kingdom.
      MR. BUCHANANI beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether he can now state whether a reply has been sent by the Government to the recent despatch of the Dominion Government on the exclusion of Canadian cattle; and whether, in view of the importance of the subject and the official statement just issued by the Agent-General for the Dominion, lie will lay the correspondence upon the Table of the House.
      MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to refer him to the written Answers which were given to the similar Questions addressed to me by the hon. Member for Dundee on Monday last,† with a copy of which I shall be glad to supply him. In the opinion of my noble friend the Papers are not of sufficient importance to justify their being laid upon the Table of the House, but I shall be glad to show them to the hon. Member that he may assure himself that they contain nothing which has not already appeared in the Press.
      MR. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this misunderstanding on the part of the Canadian Government was due to a speech delivered by the President of the Board of Agriculture,
      † See page 591.

      899
      and is it not right that their disclaimer as well as the letter of the President of the Board should be published?
      MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: It is
      perfectly true it has arisen from some misunderstanding, and I will consult the President and see if he is willing the Papers should be laid.
      MR. KILBRIDE: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that Canadian cattle shall be kept out for the next seventy years.
      [No Answer was returned.]

      The Green Park.
      MR.GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what is the estimated cost of the construction to the road or path sixty-five feet wide now being made across the Green Park from the Victoria Memorial to Half Moon Street, Piccadilly, and from what source will that cost be defrayed; is this path required for traffic across the park, and, if not, for what other object is it being constructed; has any public body been consulted as to the necessity for the path; and will this House have any opportunity, either on the Estimates or otherwise, of expressing an opinion on the removal, from the smallest of the parks, of nearly one acre of grass and the substitution for it of either gravel or pavement.
      LORD BALCARRES: The estimated cost is £4,000. The cost of construction is being met by the Mansion House Committee for the Unemployed and by a contribution by the Queen Victoria Memorial Committee. There will be no charge on public funds. The path is an essential part of the scheme sanctioned by the First Commissioner and by the Queen Victoria Memorial Committee for the approaches to the Memorial. It is proposed to turf over several existing paths and restore the space occupied by them to the grass surface of the park. The possibility of a discussion of the matter in the House of Commons is a question rather for the Leader of the House than for the Department.
      MR.GIBSON BOWLES: There will be no Estimate?
      LORD BALCARRESreplied in the affirmative.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked whether the enormous amount of brickwork under the path was necessary for the drainage of a pathway.
      LORD BALCARRES: I have made no further inquiry into the matter. My Answer that it is for drainage purposes holds good.
      MR.GIBSON BOWLES: asked whether there was not a danger that in process of time the path would be turned into a roadway.
      [No Answer was returned.]

      Teaching of Domestic Economy in Schools.
      MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, having regard to the fact that the Committee on Physical Deterioration, in their Report issued last year, express the opinion that instruction in cookery, hygiene, and domestic economy should, as far as possible, be made compulsory on the elder girls at school, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of giving effect to this recommendation by the issue of an amendment to the present Education Code.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): I am in reply to refer the hon. Member to the Answers given to his Questions of 16th March, 1904, † and 25th April, 1904, † addressed to the Secretary for Scotland. I have nothing to add to these replies.

      Irish Evicted Tenants.
      MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant a Return giving the following particulars as to evicted tenants reinstated by the Estates Commissioners under the Act of 1903; total number of evicted tenants reinstated
      † See (4) Debates, exxxi.,1257.
      ‡ See(4) Debates, exxxiii., 1053.

      901
      up to 31st, December 1904; name of each tenant; name of estate from which he had been evicted; area, former rent, and valuation of farm; county and town-land where farm is situated; whether tenant was reinstated in farm from which he had been evicted or provided with new farm; full particulars in either case of the terms under which the tenant was reinstated, showing amount of annuity; aid whether reinstatement was carried out in connection with or independently of sale of estate from which tenant had been evicted.
      THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOP, IRELAND (Mr. WVNIJHAM, Dover): I am consulting with the Commissioners as to the desirability of furnishing the information in the form suggested.

      Galbraith Estate, North Longford.
      MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask (he Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any application has yet been made to the Estates Commissioners for the purchase, as a congested estate, of the Galbraith property, in North Longford.
      MR.WYXDHAM: No such application has yet been made.

      Longford Evicted Tenants.
      MR. T. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many applications from evicted tenants for restoration under the Land Purchase Act, 1903, have been received from county Longford; and whether any steps have been taken, or are being taken, by the Estates Commissioners to acquire grazing lands in that county for the purpose of providing homes for these tenants.
      MR. WYNDHAM: Eighty-six, of whom eight were outside the provisions of Section 2 of the Act. Four evicted tenants have been reinstated, and the Commissioners are now making inquiries in respect of the acquisition of untenanted lands in the county.

      Kingston Estate, Mitchelstown.
      MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief
      902
      Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have under consideration certain agreements to purchase their holdings obtained from the tenants on the Kingston Estate, Mitchelstown, and if, before a final sanction is given to those agreements, an inquiry will be made into the circumstances under which they were entered into; and if he will state whether any application to divide the estate into sections has been made; and, if so, what decision have the Estates Commissioners arrived at in the matter.
      MR. WYNDHAM: Four hundred and twenty-five agreements have been lodged with the Commissioners. The vendor has also lodged originating applications to have the lands declared five separate estates for the purposes of sale. No decision has been arrived at by the Commissioners. I see no necessity for suggesting any special course to them in respect of this estate.

      Limerick Rural Postman's Dismissal.
      MR. LONDON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, is he aware that a man named Edmond Keane was employed from October, 1890, to May, 1904, as rural postman between Knockling and Herbertstown, county Limerick; and that he was dismissed or suspended; if so, will he say on what charge or charges did such dismissal take place, seeing that he was not formally charged; will he explain why he did not receive wages from 28th May, 1904, to 7th August following; and will he get any compensation for his services during that period, or will his fourteen years service entitle him to any compensation, as he was not found guilty of any misdeed.
      LORD STANLEY: Edmond Keane, late a rural postman between Knockling and Herbertstown, county Limerick, was dismissed in August last, as I considered that he was not a fit person to be retained in the service. Keane was appointed a rural postman in April, 1891, after he had been an acting rural postman since July, 1890. He was suspended from duty on the 28th of May last, and, following the general rule in such cases, no payment on account of wages after the date of suspension has been made.

      903
      The circumstances in which his connection with the Post Office terminated preclude the possibility of obtaining for him any award under the Superannuation Acts.

      Irish National School Plans.
      MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Estimates, under Plan VI. A, for the erection of national schools in Ireland have yet been altered; and, if not, when action will be taken on this matter.
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): No decision has yet been arrived at, but I will endeavour to expedite the settlement of the question.
      MR. J. P. FARRELL: May I point out that this matter has now been under consideration for six years.

      Sir Antony MacDonnell.
      MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is intended to continue in Sir Antony MacDonnell, as Under-Secretary, special and extraordinary powers beyond the usual rights of Civil servants.
      THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BAMOUR,): In my view it would be unconstitutional in the highest degree to give any Under-Secretary extraordinary powers such as could not be exercised by other Civil servants. But it is quite constitutional for a Minister, when inviting some one outside the Civil Service to become an Under-Secretary, to assure him that he will be treated on terms of the utmost confidence and be given full licence to lay before his chief schemes which he conceives to be for the advantage of the interests committed to the Department. My hon. friend may rest assured that there is no chance of these powers being again exceeded owing to misunderstandings such as those which were dealt with in recent debates.
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If my memory serves
      904
      me rightly, the right hon. Gentleman said last night that he had no objection to lay on the Table the conditions of Sir Antony MacDonnell's appointment, and the Chief Secretary on another occasion said the same thing. But the two positives appear now to make a negative.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting me, unintentionally.
      SIR H.CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Seeing that so much turns on it, will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table the Papers which passed when Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is a Question on the subject, addressed to my right hon. friend, standing on the Paper for to-morrow. I have not had time yet to consult with him in connection with the subject of the interruptions in last night's debate. I have made myself acquainted with the fact that there were letters which did pass between the Chief Secretary and Sir Antony MacDonnell; but they were private letters, and I am not sure that anything would be gained by laying them on the Table.
      MR. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Sir Antony MacDonnell's position is still a transitory one.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that when Sir Antony MacDonnell took the place his view distinctly was that he took it as a temporary appointment. He is an Indian Civil servant primarily, and he did not intend to devote the remainder of his official career to Ireland. It was understood to be a temporary appointment both by Sir Antony MacDonnell and by the Government; and I have no reason to believe that he, any more than the Government, has changed his mind.
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: Has he been asked to give up his appointment?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
      MR. WHITLEY: Is it not a Rule of the House that when a Minister quotes from a document that document should be laid before the House?
      MR. SPEAKER: Yes, unless the Minister is in a position to state that it is not to the advantage of the public service that the document should be produced. Unless he states that, he can be called upon to produce the document which he quotes. I am answering the Question generally. I do not remember precisely what passed on the occasion referred to.
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is the Chief Secretary prepared to state that the production of these documents would be prejudicial to the public service? And, if not, will he produce them?
      MR. WYNDHAM: I did not quote from them. [Cries of "Oh."] I did not. I had not the documents in my possession.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They will not listen to the explanations which they ask for.
      MR. WYNDHAM: Two letters passed. I had not copies of those letters; and Sir Antony MacDonnell was kind enough to furnish me with the points on which we had agreed.
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask, Sir, whether the technical point taken by the right hon. Gentleman—that he did not quote the exact words—satisfies the Rule of the House? May I ask whether, when the right hon. Gentleman, without giving the words, professes to give the substance of a document, he is not making a quotation which necessitates the production of the document?
      MR. SPEAKER: I must decline to answer a general Question of that kind in general terms. My attention ought to have been called at the moment to the circumstances and to the language used by the right hon. Gentleman.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: As to the temporary character of Sir Antony MacDonnell's appointment, is it
      906
      not the fact that within the last month he has resigned his appointment on the India Council? In view of that fact, will the right hon. Gentleman state what the character of Sir Antony MacDonnell's appointment as Under-Secretary now is, as it is an appointment independent of the Government?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Under-Secretary for Ireland is not independent of the Government.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: He is independent of Party Government. He does not go out with the Government.
      MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Does the Under-Secretary hold his appointment under the Treasury Minutes?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, certainly.
      MR. DALZIEL: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that the terms of Sir Antony MacDonnell's appointment have been altered?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware, that the legal terms [Cries of " Oh "] have been altered, unless an alteration is implied in the general statement that Sir Antony MacDonnell is subject to the ordinary Civil Service regulations.
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the conditions on which Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed have been modified or varied?
      After some conference with Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,
      Mr. WYNDHAMrose to reply.
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: You might as well tell the truth at once.
      Mr. WYNDHAMresumed his seat.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise to order, Sir. I wish to know whether such expressions are to be permitted in this House.
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may have intended only to ask for the

      907
      whole facts, but lie has put his Question in language which conveyed an offensive imputation, and which ought, to be withdrawn.
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: I hope the House will allow me to apologise for putting the Question in that form. I did not mean it in that sense. What I meant was that the Government might as well tell the whole truth at once, instead of having it dragged from them piecemeal.
      MR. WYNDHAM: I accept the hon. and learned Member's retraction of what I considered to be an offensive insinuation. But the Question is not clear to me. Are the terms of Sir Antony Maconnell's appointment altered? No, I do not think they are.
      MR. DALZIEL: May I ask whether the statement of Lord Lansdowne that the ordinary rules do not apply to Sir Antony MacDonnell still holds?
      MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman can answer that if he wishes, but I may point out that this is becoming a general debate.
      MR. BLAKE: Inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman said that the Question was not clear to him, would it be permissible to ask whether those conditions which were stipulated between Sir Antony MacDonnell and the right hon. Gentleman, as explained by him in the House the other day, have been in any way modified or varied?
      MR. WYNDHAM: It is not possible for me to divest myself of any shred of responsibility by this appointment. When I exchanged private letters with Sir Antony MacDonnell I had been a Cabinet Minister for a fortnight; and I was not as well aware as I am now as to how far the responsibility to this House may carry a Minister. He may have to answer twenty or thirty Questions a day on minute facts which are not before him. I have pointed out to Sir Antony MacDonnell, and he has quite agreed with me, that, in view of the criticisms to which my Department has been subjected during the last three or four weeks, it was necessary for me to see any
      908
      matter which was likely to be the subject of debate in this House. If that is a modification of the appointment, then it is one in conformity with my constitutional responsibility to the House of Commons.

      Alleged Shooting of Workmen's Leaders at Warsaw.
      MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government has any official information concerning the shooting, without trial, of 120 workmen's leaders by Russian troops in Warsaw; and whether His Majesty's Government has made, or intend making, representations to the Russian Government upon the methods by which the authorities have met the, workpeople's claims for improved conditions of employment and for the concession of political reforms.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is obviously impossible for His Majesty's Government to interfere in the internal affairs of Russia.
      MR. KEIR HARDIE: Have the Government received any official information of the kind I have mentioned?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have received no confirmation of the story. But the matter is evidently outside the province of the Government, and, if I may say so, outside the province of this House.

      Underfed School Children.
      MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the exhaustion of the funds for the provision of free meals to destitute school children in Manchester and elsewhere; and whether, since the destitution is as great as ever, the Government proposes introducing on an early day a measure to enable the education authorities to provide the cost of such meals out of the rates.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Such information as I have received from Manchester does not show that these funds to which the hon. Member refers are exhausted. The Answer to the second Part of the Question is in the negative.
      MR. LOUGH: If we show that such conditions exist in London, will the Government arrange to give some temporary assistance?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is an entirely different Question from the one on the Paper.
      DR. MACNAMARA: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the Report of the Physical Deterioration Committee on this point?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not prepared to make any statement of police in answer to supplementary Questions. It we have any measures to propose, they should be formally submitted.
      MR. KEIR HARDIE: Are these starving children to be allowed to perish of hunger in their thousands because His Majesty's Government refuse to give the local authorities power to supply them with food?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: According to such information as I have been able to obtain that is not the case in Manchester. If His Majesty's Government were to bring forward a measure such as the hon. Member suggests it could not deal with the existing situation, or be operative for weeks and months.

      THE HOME RULE AMENDMENT DIVISION.
      MR. C. R. SPENCERcalled the attention of the Speaker to a discrepancy in the record of the division which took place the previous night in the "Votes and Proceedings." On one page the Ayes were given as 236 and the Noes as 286; and on another page the Noes numbered only 285. Could that be rectified?
      MR. SPEAKERreplied that unless some report was made to him by the Tellers, showing that there was an error, lie must accept their report as it stood. In all cases where a discrepancy of this description occurred it was more probable that a Clerk in the division lobby had omitted to tick off the name of an hon. Member than that the Tellers had erred.

      MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
      MR. JOHN REDMONDasked leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "The present conditions under which Sit Antony MacDonnell holds the office of Under-Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland."
      MR. SPEAKER: Is not that the same question as the one debated yesterday?
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the question was incidentally mentioned in the debate yesterday, and also in Questions put to the House. I would not have attempted to move this Motion were it not that the Government have practically declined to produce the documents referred to by the Chief Secretary, documents which I understood him to say in his speech he personally had no objection to produce. In addition, I would not have moved it were not statements made at the Table to-day that there had been some variation in the terms and conditions of the appointment. I respectfully submit that I am quite in order in asking permission to move the adjournment.
      MR. SPEAKER: Although I have some doubts about it, I do not feel justified in taking the responsibility on myself of refusing the Motion.
      The leave of the House not having been given, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen,
      The Motion stood over, understanding Order No. 10, until the Evening Sitting this day.

    NEW BILLS.

      SMALL DWELLINGS (ACQUISITION) BILL.
      "To amend the provisions of The Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899," presented by Sir Thomas Wrightson; supported by Mr. Claude Hay, Mr. Graham, Mr. Peel, Sir Alfred Hickman, Captain Jessel, Mr. Moon, Mr. Pike Pease, Mr.

      911
      Jesse Collings, and Mr. Griffith-Boscawen; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 5th April, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

      PURCHASE OF LAND (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
      "To provide facilities for the sale of Land to occupying tenants and others in England and Wales," presented by Mr. Jesse Collings; supported by Sir John Dorington, Mr. Spear, Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Herbert Roberts, Sir Lewis Molesworth, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Mr. William Mitchell, and Colonel Pryce-Jones; to be read a second time upon Friday, 10th March, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]
      CHARTERED SOCIETIES BILL.
      "To provide for the further protection of Chartered Societies," presented by Sir John Rolleston; supported by Sir Francis Evans, Mr. Alban Gibbs, Mr. Fletcher Moulton, Mr. Charles Seely, and Sir James Woodhouse; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 53.]
      SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
      "To amend the Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) Acts," presented by Sir Henry Seton-Karr; supported by Sir Herbert Maxwell, Sir Robert Penrose-Fitzgerald, Mr. Grenfell, Captain Bagot, and Colonel Nolan; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 4th April, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

      KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
      Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Main Question [14th February]. "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
      "Most Gracious Sovereign,
      "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Mount.)
      Question again proposed.
      CAPTAIN NORTON, in bringing forward the Motion which stood in his name on the Paper expressed his firm belief that if it were not for the strength of Party ties a large proportion of hon. Members opposite would vote for it, and few, if any, of the Service Members would fail to give it their support. He made that statement because, for the last ten years, members of the Service Committee had year after year brought under the notice of the Government many shortcomings of the Army and many matters in which it was deficient as regarded its efficiency for the defence of the Empire. After these ten years the position of the Army was such that it had been described by the Secretary for War as being in a condition which constituted a grave danger to the Empire. It was in that condition, in his opinion, because professional advice had been disregarded in order to gain a Party advantage, and the result was chaos in the War Office and discontent in the ranks of His Majesty's land forces, and that in spite of the fact that they had had in succession as Secretaries for War three capable men, all of whom had had considerable experience in Army matters prior to accepting office. They also had been assisted by two of the most experienced and most distinguished of British officers, and the last Secretary for War had been aided and abetted by a. Council of distinguished soldiers.
      He had said that this condition of affairs had been produced because the well-being of the Army had been made subservient to political considerations, and he now desired to show the result of continuous and continuing changes with respect to the Army, coupled with negligence and mismanagement. For the first four of the ten years to which he had referred a certain military policy was pursued, and it was held that we should always have two Army Corps complete in every respect and ready for service beyond the seas and, in addition, sufficient seasoned and trained men to supply our garrisons in India and elsewhere, and to furnish forces in this country to defend it against raids during the temporary absence of, or during temporary mishaps to, our Navy. The present Government were responsible for

      913
      the well-being of the Army for nearly four years, and when the war took place what occurred? He was told personally over and over again by the Secretary for War that these two Army Corps were ready in every detail, though he pointed out several details in which they were defective, and when the war broke our and one Army Corps had been mobilised and a fraction of another, the remaining portion of the two Army Corps was found to be deficient in almost every respect. In this matter hon. Members who had seen a little mote in the eye of the Liberal Government with reference to cordite failed to see the beam in their own eye with reference to the shortage of guns. He need only instance one item to illustrate that point. The Inspector General of Ordnance said he found that there were 326 machine guns deficient in the authorised number. He hoped that no attempt would be made that day, as had been frequently done by politicians, to shelter themselves behind the soldiers, these unfortunate soldiers being absolutely under their thumb. What occurred in regard to that particular question? Lord Wolseley, a man who had done great service to the country in his time, for years prior to the South African War did all he could to induce the Government to bring the Army up to that standard which they themselves had laid down as necessary, and he had failed. In 1896 he pointed out the insufficiency of the garrison in South Africa, and his advice was ignored. In 1897 he proposed that the Army should be brought up to the standard which they themselves had laid down and he was refused. In 1899 he asked that some of the field artillery should be placed on the higher establishment, and again he was refused. A little later on in the same year he suggested that one Army Corps should be fully mobilised on Salisbury Plain in order that it might be completely ready for transport over the seas, and so that any defects found to exist might be supplied. No notice was taken of his advice for political reasons, because the foolish and despicable game of "bluff" was then being carried on, in order to suit political considerations. Then the Intelligence Department furnished the Government with
      914
      very valuable and accurate advice with reference to the Boer Republics. That also was ignored, and, in fact, everything that could have placed the Army in a position to do its duty in the South African War was ignored. He would not refer to the humiliating period when disaster followed disaster and when many gallant young men went from this country like sheep to the slaughter because we had defective guns, because we were defective in material of all kinds. He would not refer to that period because, in his opinion, it was burnt into the hearts of all young men of this generation, and they would never forget the fact that the great Imperialist Party failed to think Imperially in reference to the Army, and left us in so sad a state that we had to put more than a quarter of a million of men into the field, and to spend nearly£300,000,000 of money, in order to fight 60,000 or 70,000 Boer farmers.
      He would now proceed to deal with what followed after the South African War. They were then given to understand that they would have real Army reform, and they were told by the Secretary of State for War that two Army Corps had been found insufficient, and that in future we were to have three Army Corps completely ready, when mobilised, for service beyond the seas, and three other Army Corps to supplement them for home defence. That scheme was based upon the full and complete acknowledgment of the value and efficiency of the Auxiliary Forces. But before a very long period had elapsad the scheme vanished into thin air, and the same right hon. Gentleman came forward with a new scheme of Army reform based upon the destruction of our great constitutional force, the Militia, and the dismemberment and disorganisation of our great Volunteer force. This scheme was based upon the ignoring altogether of the Auxiliary Forces. It was a very extra-ordinary political somersault, and he would like to give one instance of that constant change which brought about both neglect and mismanagement He referred to the question of the arming of our artillery. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean stated in the House that we had no quick-firing

      915
      guns, and pressed the necessity for those guns on the Government. The Service Members Kent a special deputation to the Prime Minister urging upon him the importance of this matter, and reminding him of the fact that France was at that time armed, and most of the other European countries were arming themselves, with guns which would fire from eighteen to twenty rounds per minute, as compared with the two or three rounds which our guns could fire. In spite of that fact, and in spite of the fact that the Government were offered by the French at that time a quick-firing pun which was almost equal to their present magnificent quick-firing gun, nothing was done, and the offer of the French was declined, the result being realised in the South African campaign. It was also shown in the course of that war that we had only 108 field guns in this country, or, in other words, not sufficient to arm a force of 40,000 men. Therefore we were deficient, during a time of war, both in the number and in the character of the guns. The late Secretary of State for War, in the House of Commons on March 9th, 1901, said it was obvious that our artillery was insufficient, and yet no more guns were ordered, nor were any steps taken to order them. He said further that they proposed to give guns to the Militia and Volunteers, and intended to rely on the Volunteer batteries in each of three large Army Corps. The Committee which was appointed in 1901 decided very rightly on having18½-pounder field guns and 12½-pounder horse artillery guns, but before making their Report they were allowed to delay its issue for the space of two-and-a-half years. He said advisedly they were "allowed" to do so. What took place on April 14th 1904, when it was shown that the guns were required? Were they ordered? No, nine months were allowed to elapse without their being ordered. Possibly some right hon. Gentleman would stand up on the Ministerial Benches and say they had ordered some guns. It was true that some horse artillery guns were ordered for India. Some twenty-one batteries were ordered, but they were for India, and had nothing to do with the gunning of our troops in this country and elsewhere. The Prime Minister had
      916
      had the audacity to state that there had been no delay either in the designing or in the construction of the new gun. But, as against that, they had the fact that six years ago it was known that there was a great deficiency in the number of guns as well as in the quality, and four years were allowed to elapse before 160 batteries were ordered, and that was in face of the fact that the late Secretary of State for War had said that the Government would not shrink from their duty. But they had shrunk from ordering guns last year, because they knew perfectly well it would entail putting an extra£3,000,000 or £4,000,000 into the Budget, and because the great Imperialist Party shirked going to the constituencies. They were, in fact, afraid to face their constituents and let them understand that with our resources in coal and iron and skilled labour they had not only failed for four years to supply us with guns, but that for two years to come, as they acknowledged, we must remain in that degrading position. So it would take six years from the time they first acknowledged that we were short of guns before the Army was re-armed, whereas Germany was able to arm its entire army in two years. Was it to be wondered at, then, that the Commission reported they were not satisfied that enough had been done to place matters on a better footing in the event of any contingency?
      As with the guns, so with the rifles—a subject which he hoped to find another opportunity of going into more fully. A Committee was appointed; but instead of the members receiving a free hand to produce the best rifle they could for the infantry, they were told to produce the best rifle they could, subject to its being five inches shorter in the barrel than the weapon used by the infantry of any other army in the world. It was something like telling a watchmaker to produce a watch that would be, a good timekeeper under all climatic conditions, with the proviso it should lack a compensating balance. These rifles, in consequence of the variety of experiments made in connection with, them, cost the country£14 apiece. The rifles which were knocked about in South Africa were being converted at a cost of£5s. They originally cost £2 12s., so

      917
      that now the country was paying£4 17s. for a second-hand rifle, when a brand new one of the best quality could be obtained for about£3 10s. With all these extravagances, was it to be wondered at that the Army Expenditure amounted to£46,000,000? Yet the present state of the Army, as the Secretary of State for War said, constituted a danger to the country.
      The same waste of money took place with regard to barracks. Close upon a million had been spent on barracks on Salisbury Plain, about another million would be required, and when they were finished we had no troops to go into them. Then, again, there was a shameful waste of money in connection with the Indian reliefs and with the silly and senseless system of recruiting. He hoped some hon. Member who knew more about finance would develop the argument as to our immense expenditure without value. For four Years there had been "Teat neglect, on the part of the Government. That was followed by mess and muddle for two years, then came the Army Corps scheme, by which the Prime Minister said lie would stand or fall, although, incidentally, he might mention that the right hon. Gentleman did neither. Following that was the "clean slate" policy in 1903, and now a further fifteen months had elapsed the Prime Minister, who was an expert juggler in these matters, had made the discovery that the problem of the British Army was the problem of the defence of Afghanistan. The Prime Minister stood convicted out of his own mouth of what he might call an unpatriotic neglect of duty with reference to the Army. Never in the history of the nation had the Army been in a worse position to defend Afghanistan. The Secretary of State for War once told them that troops required two years home training in order to fit them for India. But never was there a period when men were so difficult to obtain for Indian service, year 4,000 men were sent out under a three years term of engagement. The Indian military and civil authorities protested against that on in account of the excessive expense, and the Home Exchequer agreed in consequence to pay a portion of the cost. The highest military authorities agreed that,
      918
      in the event of war on the North-West Frontier, in addition to the 70,000 British troops already in India, we should require to send 150,000 men from this country; and while the war lasted we should have to send 200,000 men annually to meet the wastage of war. How did the Cabinet intend to meet this difficulty? Did their scheme provide for the necessary number of long-service men, matured and trained, to meet the requirements of the striking force and the, Indian reliefs? They could not get the necessary recruits. In 1902 they obtained something like 51,000 recruits, and there were lost during the first year by death, desertion, discharge, and so forth, nearly 50 per cent. As 50 per cent, were lost, the payment per man, instead of £94, became in fact£188. That, was an instance of direct wastage. What did the Government scheme propose, to do to meet the difficulty? It proposed to reduce the Army Expenditure by about £1,000,000 sterling out of£46,000,000, and to reduce the Army by 140,000 men! That was how the Prime Minister was going to solve the question of the defence of Afghanistan!
      Then there was the question of these huge barracks; the idea that they could not have discipline without barracks was a very fallacious one. In the Metropolitan Police they had a splendid force and the railway workers were, a fine body of men, all well disciplined, and yet they did not live in barracks. The proposal now made meant the reduction of the Volunteer force by 50,000 men in order to save£300,000. It was proposed to practically destroy the Militia, and the Auxiliary Forces were to be almost wiped out under this scheme of Army reform, although their total cost was only £4,500,000. He did not know what hon. Member opposite thought of such a state of things. For ten years the Party opposite had had the management of the Army, and they had made two or three attempts at Army reform. Were they now prepared to give the Government another chance this matter? He hoped the facts he was putting before the House were not unpleasant to the Secretary of State for War, for he noticed that he was covering up his ears. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"]

      919
      During the past ten years the expenditure upon the Army had been unprecedented, and even now they were to remain over two years longer with obsolete guns and defective rifles, and at the same time the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces were dwindling to such an extent that they were becoming the by-word of all the countries of Europe.
      MAJOR SEELYsaid that he seconded this Amendment in no Party spirit, because he believed that the state of the Army at the present moment was a danger to the country, and his only desire was to get this matter put right as soon as possible. The mover of this Motion had laid down three main propositions. In the first place, he said that the state of our artillery was a national danger, and therefore it behoved the House to express its condemnation of those who were responsible for this state of things. In this matter of the guns the responsibility rested with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and not so much with the Secretary of State for War. The second proposition raised by his hon. and gallant friend was that nothing had been done to remedy the defects brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Whitby, namely, the fact that the chief danger was not the administration of the question of how many generals or Army Corps they should have, but the more important question of how they were going to get the best men of the nation to serve in the ranks of the Army instead of getting only that part of the population which was incapable, of withstanding the hardships of a campaign. The third proposition put forward was that for lack of sympathetic treatment they had allowed the Volunteer force to dwindle away. The hon. and gallant Member also laid down the proposition that upon the Volunteers alone could they rely for the defence of this country in the event of war.
      With regard to the guns, ho contended that it was impossible for this country to go to war with any European Power at the present time without almost the certainty of defeat. A war involved a battle preceded by an artillery duel. During the next eighteen months as, far as our forces wore concerned, a battle would not mean an
      920
      artillery duel but a massacre, for it would end in our gunners being shot without the least possibility of their replying. It was no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that he was not responsible, because the crime that had been actually committed was one which was capable of very exact condemnation. The difference between quick-firing guns and the guns which this country had got was a difference not of degree, but of kind. The quick-firing gun was quite a new thing, and it was invented in 1897 by the French. By its use they could fire twenty shots a minute, whilst the guns this country possessed would only fire two or three shots a minute. Certain definite changes in artillery had come about with the introduction of the quick-firing gun, which had made as much difference in guns as the difference between a motorcar and a four-wheeled cab. They would have just about as much chance of winning an artillery duel with their present guns against the quick-firing guns of a Continental Power as a four-wheeled cab would have of winning the Gordon-Bennett Cup. This country alone, of all the nations in the world, allowed this matter to drift until December 29th last year. The Secretary of State for War would no doubt say that he had given the order for these guns, but this would not save him or the Cabinet from their responsibility. What they required was a reply to the question why, if they had gone to war the other day, or if they happened to go to war during the next year and a half, they were bound to be smashed and pulverised by the Artillery of every Continental Power. Was it not a fact that they could have obtained a quick-firing gun, firing twenty shots a minute, from private firms in this country or on the Continent so long ago as five and a half years. He defied contradiction of that statement. No, they had still eighteen months to wait during which they must submit to every insult from every foreign Power or risk defeat in every single battle It might be said that the guns having been ordered there was nothing more to do in the matter, but the House possessed the function of condemning those who had not done their duty in this matter.

      921
      The Prime Minister had landed them into this extraordinary position of un-preparedness, and if the House wished to retain its power and see that its money was well spent hon. Members should express their condemnation of those who had so grossly abused the power which had been given them in regard to this matter. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell them why they were defenceless and why every foreign Power, including such Powers as Roumania, Bulgaria, Norway, Sweden and Argentina, had armed themselves with quick-firing guns before they were adopted by this country.
      With regard to the Regular Army nothing had been done to cure the grave mismanagement resulting from our present system of enlistment. Two years ago the, Member for Whitby pointed out that there were two British armies, one which went to war and the other which stayed behind because it was inefficient, and he pointed out that they were almost equal in size. The reason was apparent, because if they enlisted men under the present system and in the present state of the labour market, all they were able to get was the residuum of the population and the unsuccessful. He had been told by recruiting officers that 50, 60, and 70 per cent, of the men who presented themselves did so because they were hungry. He had heard it said that it was desirable that an occupation should be found for the less efficient, but, after all, the worst thing to do was to take them into the Army, because they were not, only a curse to the more efficient, but also a curse to the country. Disease and sorrow flowed from this method of enlistment, and until the elimination of this method took place those struggles and sorrows must continue. Nothing had been done to face the real problem of enlistment. What they ought to do was to devote their minds to the real problem of how to get the best men into the Army.
      There was an indictment he wished to make, not only against the Government, but also against the present Secretary of State for War, who had done a great disservice to this country, because there had recently been a culmination of the
      922
      follies perpetrated by them with regard to the Volunteers and the Auxiliary Forces. The Volunteers were dwindling away, and why was there shortage of officers and men in the Volunteer corps? Why was it that this shortage existed? Principally and mainly as the culmination of the folly of discouraging these people. The Secretary of State for War said he desired to reduce their numbers and that statement seemed to him to be a condemnation of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. What did it amount to? Why were hon. and gallant Members Volunteer officers? It was not because they liked it, but because they conceived it to be their duty. If they were told that there were more Volunteers than were necessary, every officer would begin to wonder why he should take all this trouble in the matter. Every officer, since the moment the Secretary of State for War made that extraordinary statement, had found it difficult to recruit men. The Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition had laid down the principle that it was upon the Volunteers they had to look as the only school of arms they possessed, and that they must rely upon them in any war which was worthy of the name. In 1903 the Prime Minister pointed out that the Regular Army could do nothing but commence any campaign, and after that they had to rely upon the patriotism of the people. In the year 1894 or 1895 the Prime Minister said that the vigorous growth of Volunteers was one of the most encouraging signs of the times. They only needed to look back to the last time they went to war in order to see how true all this was. The South African War was the smallest war they were ever likely to be engaged in for it was a war against some 80,000 farmers. During that campaign he had to command men in the field who did not know one end of the rifle from the other, and there were other hon. Members of the House who had to command men who had never been taught to shoot. As a consequence of this they had to suffer the great humiliation of the loss of a British general and nearly all his men, who were captured by the enemy. They had to consider really whether in point of fact the Volunteers were really of any use. As to that point, he trusted that the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield, if

      923
      he took part in the debate, would read one or two extracts from a pamphlet he prepared giving the opinion of the Regular officers who served in South Africa. The best way to test whether men were valuable soldiers or not was the actual test of war and the test of an actual battle. He had in his possession the first order of one of the divisions of the troops in South Africa, issued after many months of an arduous campaign in which many thousand men were engaged on both sides and many losses were sustained. There were in the division to which he alluded about 1,000 Auxiliaries, the total number of men being about 10,000. The Lieut.-General's order was issued in the Orange Free State after four months of hard labour in the field. The first two names appearing on the list were two Guards belonging to the Grenadiers and the Scots Guards. For Distinguished Service in the Field the order contained eleven names, and the first four out of those eleven belonged to this despised Auxiliary Force which they were now going to reduce, and which it was said were not fit to meet Continental troops. Those names were put down not for publication or with any idea that they were to be quoted in the House, but simply in the ordinary way of routine military business as recommendations for Distinguished Service in the Field. He happened to know those four men, and he knew how they got their training, and if the Secretary of State for War had his way and was allowed to reduce the redundant units, two out of those four names would have been abolished as being redundant. If they looked facts squarely in the face they would see that what they wanted was to be able to obtain vast numbers of men. It was possible that they might require 500,000 men, and how were they going to get them under the present system? In an Answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to a Question two days ago he said that he did not now propose to reduce the Vote for the Volunteers. He had, however, already achieved this result, and the numbers continued to dwindle. The Volunteer service was a very delicate thing, and if this force was told that their services were not required, or that they only wanted a smaller number, the whole
      924
      force might vanish like a dream. The true function of the Secretary of State for War was to take from every man what he could give in the way of military service, encourage every man to give something, and pay as much as they could afford to the men for their loss of time. Above everything they ought to encourage every man to give something, however little. He commended that principle to the Secretary of State for War, who, by his action, had ignored this principle. The Prime Minister stated that he relied upon the skill and patriotism of the people in the last resource, but the action of the War Office and the Secretary of State for War tended to reduce the military skill in the country, to sap their patriotism and discourage their military endeavours by telling them that they were not wanted. In the matter of guns they had undoubtedly left the country defenceless for another eighteen months. He hoped the House would look this matter fairly in the face and realise how great were the evils which might arise from this negligence. He hoped the House would assert its power and take away from the Government in this matter the power which they had so grossly abused.
      Amendment proposed—
      "At the end of the Question, to add the words, 'But humbly to represent to Your Majesty that the continuous and continuing changes in the War Office are destructive of the best interests of Your Majesty's Army, have gravely disordered the system upon which the regular forces at Home and Abroad are raised and trained, have discouraged the Militia and Volunteers, and disclose negligence and mismanagement on the part of Your Majesty's Ministers, more particularly as to the armament of the Artillery, whereby, in spite of the increased cost of the Army, its efficiency for the defence of the Empire has been diminished'"—Captain Norton).
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid there was a great deal in the speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight with which he cordially agreed, especially with regard to the Volunteer force, to which branch of the service he intended to confine his remarks. It would be difficult to put the matter better than it had been put by

      925
      the seconder of the Amendment. Everybody knew the difficulties with which the Volunteer force had had to contend since its re-establishment in1851—difficulties which had been put in its way, not by one Government more than another, or by one set of military advisers more than another—and it was entirely by the perseverance and determination of the Volunteers themselves that the force was still alive and had been able to render to the country services which had been recognised by every Commander-in-Chief and by all the generals who had Volunteers under them in the recent campaign in South Africa. That war entirely dispelled any illusions which might have prevailed as to whether or not Volunteers would be fit for service in the field should the necessity arise, as over 36,000 came forward in one capacity or another, and, so far as he had been able to ascertain, not a single unfavourable report was made upon their conduct in the field. That they rendered considerable service in a time of great necessity could not be disputed.
      CAPTAIN JESSELasked whether the hon. and gallant Member was referring to Volunteers pure and simple, or included also the Yeomanry.
      SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he was speaking more especially of the Volunteer force, and, if desired, would place at the disposal of the hon. and gallant Member for St. Pancras a number of extracts from General Orders on the subject. What had been their reward for all these, services? First of all, there were the new regulations of 1901, issued without the knowledge of or consultation with General Turner, the Inspector-General of Auxiliary Forces, who saw them for the first time when published in The Times. Those regulations, which were very offensively worded and naturally created great consternation in the force, were so impracticable in their character that they had to be at once suspended, and were, after inquiry, materially modified. The fact that such regulations could be drawn up and thus issued showed the confusion of mind which existed at the War Office with regard to the Volunteer and Auxiliary
      926
      Forces. That the officer mainly responsible for those regulations was still retained m his position at the War Office was very extraordinary in view of the regulation that officers on the Headquarters Staff must return to regimental duty on the expiration of a certain period. Then came the advent of the present Secretary of State for War, whose great industry and desire to discharge his duties to the utmost of his ability none could deny, and who undoubtedly had been an earnest student of military affairs. The first speech of the right hon. Gentleman after his appointment, delivered at Liverpool on January 21st, 1904, gave the greatest hope and encouragement to every member of the Volunteer force. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said—
      "There are some men, not necessarily the best, who can give a great deal of time to their military duties; there are others who, because of their serious and constant occupation, can only give a certain amount of time. Do not for a moment think that the Volunteer who cannot give a large amount of time to Volunteer work is the less valuable Volunteer of the two. Whether I am in this office a short or a long time, the Volunteers will find in me a most sympathetic person. I cannot believe that among the 250,000, more or less, young Englishmen and Scotchmen anxious to give their service, to the country in time of war we cannot get a force of enormous value. I do not think the problem is solved yet; but, believe me, it requires a great deal of sympathy and a considerable dose of common sense."
      That speech gave rise to the hope that as soon as the right hon. Gentleman got fairly into the saddle he would do his best to encourage and develop the Volunteer force. A Royal Commission appointed shortly before to inquire into the question held a large number of sittings and examined over 130witnesses, and the fact that the Secretary of State repeatedly pressed for their Report gave colour to the assumption that he was anxious to deal with the problem as soon as possible. The Report, when issued, contained the following paragraph—
      "The Volunteer force owes its origin and continuance mainly to the energy and goodwill of its officers and men, and the fact that it is not maintained at war conditions is in no way attributable to them."
      It was attributable to the War Office, and therefore it was for the War Office to set to work to remedy the defects as rapidly as possible. Unfortunately the

      927
      Report contained recommendations of compulsory service—
      MR. LEWELLYNsaid the Report recommended, not compulsory service, but compulsory training—a very different thing.
      SIR HOWARD VINCENTaccepted the correction, seeing that the hon. Member was a member of the Commission. The Report, at any rate, recommended compulsory training, and that recommendation attracted the attention of the country and gave the idea that the Commissioners were in favour of compulsory service, with the result that many excellent recommendations in other directions had been practically lost sight of. The Commission made valuable suggestions with regard to both Militia and Volunteers, but although several months had elapsed nothing whatever had been done. The Volunteers did not know where they were, and he appealed to the Secretary of State not to keep them longer than was absolutely necessary in the present condition of uncertainty and suspense. A Director of Auxiliary Forces was appointed, but on the re-organisation of the War Office he was made a mere officer of the Adjutant-General's Department. It was not proper that the head of the Auxiliary Forces should be a mere adjutant of the Adjutant-General; only by having a separate department could satisfaction be given. His right hon. friend had now assured them that the Director of Auxiliary Forces should have direct access to himself. He thought the Director of Auxiliary Forces had done all that was expected of him, for he had attended an enormous number of prize distributions, where he had stated that he wished something could be done to solve the mystery which existed in regard to the future of the Volunteer forces. He had told the Volunteers as lately as last night the same thing, and under those circumstances no wonder that there was great uncertainty, suspense, and apprehension prevailing in the mind of every deserving member of the Volunteer force.
      What was the reason for all this? The Secretary of State for War met a large number of Members of both
      928
      Houses of Parliament last summer connected with the Volunteer force. His right hon. friend was exceedingly accessible but he was very anxious to impress his views upon those he received, and not quite so anxious to hear the views of those he honoured by an interview. That was somewhat the case upon this occasion. They all liked to read the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, but when they met him in this way they liked to have an opportunity of expressing their views instead of listening so much to his orations. So far as he was able to form an opinion he thought there was no subject upon which all hon. Members were agreed that no parsimony should be shown as that of the support granted to the Volunteer forces. His right hon. friend took a different view and was bent upon cutting down the cost, which amounted only to £6 per man, of the Volunteer force. He hoped hon. Members connected with the Volunteer force would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that it was necessary to have generous treatment in this matter. What had been the result of this extraordinary action as regarded the Volunteer force. Only the day before yesterday his right hon. friend said there were 2,700 officers short. But this was explained by a statement that it was due simply to decline after the war fever. He would give an instance when there was no war fever. In the year 1898 nobody had any I idea that the Volunteer force would be wanted for active service. At that time there were 1,300 officers deficient. At the present time, seven years after that, the deficiency was more than double, for they were 2,700 officers deficient at the present moment. His right hon. friend knew that the one great lesson which ought to have been learned in South Africa was that men were forthcoming in large numbers provided they opened the door wide enough, and by doing that they could get any number of men. There was, nevertheless, the greatest difficulty in getting competent and thoroughly efficient soldiers. With regard to the United States, the American Government had very closely followed this question of the great want of officers experienced by us in South Africa, and since the war they had adopted legislation providing

      929
      for the establishment of a large, corps of officers for the Volunteers. This country had done nothing whatever of that kind, and they had allowed the Volunteer officers to dwindle away simply because they had received no encouragement. They did not want flattering words or after-dinner speeches, but he thought they were entitled to be treated fairly and justly and encouraged. Why were they 2,700 officers short? Simply because in the present condition of affairs it was impossible to tell what shape the force might take. They did not know what the new regulations would be. They knew nothing as to the time of camping, and they did not know whether it would be inconvenient or not. He was aware that in some parts of the country this matter operated differently. In some districts there was a regular suspension of work at Whitsuntide, and then the men could manage to leave their employment without loss. If the time was well chosen in country districts there was not much difficulty about arranging for the camps after the harvest. But in cases like the Metropolitan Volunteer Corps, which consisted largely of clerks in banks, insurance officers, and other commercial institutions, the question of the camp operated in a much more difficult way. The system of making the man undertake that he would go to camp debarred from the service a very large number of men who might otherwise be very useful. He was not arguing that class corps were better than the others, but he thought it was desirable that they should get men of intelligence and education into their volunteer Army, because they were the men, when they wanted a large number of officers for the Regular Forces, who were likely to prove exceedingly valuable and useful in that direction. Therefore, it was a very great pity to do anything which prevented this class of men from coming forward.
      He had in his possession a return of the Metropolitan Volunteer Corps for January, 1902, and they represented 8,000 in that year. Now, in February this year they only numbered 5,000, or a falling-off of no less than 3,000 men in three years. Altogether they were seventy-one officers and 5,000 men short of their establish-
      930
      ment. In the middle of October last year he wrote a letter to his right hon. friend, impressing upon him the necessity of letting the Volunteer force know what was going to be done. He pointed out to him that this was the time that the men made up their minds whether to leave the force or to remain in it. Now they found themselves at the end of February and still nothing whatever had been done. The consequence was that the force was thoroughly discouraged, and he could not conceive why something had not been done. They had been in possession for some time of the recommendations of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission, and many of those recommendations were of a very simple character and were not very costly, in fact, the whole of them would not cost more than about £200,000. He believed in economy, but not at any price, and if for £200,000 they could put the Volunteer force in the state recommended by that Commission, then he thought it would be money well expended. His right hon. friend proposed to reduce this force from 250,000 to 180,000. The reason why so many Volunteers were leaving was because naturally they would not stay on in order to be turned out. He called upon the right hon. Gentleman that afternoon to make a clean breast of it, and to solve this mystery and let the Director of Auxiliary Forces know what the future of the Volunteer force was going to be.
      His right hon. friend, speaking at a dinner on February 1st, said—
      "It was his opinion that money could only be got by reducing the total of the Volunteer force and applying the savings to the perfection of the remainder. Until the Volunteer force accepted that view of the situation what they all desired would not be done."
      He was sure his right hon. friend did not intend to threaten the Volunteer force, but that statement could only be read as a most deliberate threat. "Unless you accept my scheme you shall have nothing at all," If that was a view which his right hon. friend allowed to escape him in the heat of the moment he was sure it would not commend itself to his earnest desire to benefit and to put on a better footing the whole military forces of the country. To say to the commanding officers, who

      931
      had done their utmost in the face of great discouragement to improve their regiments and to improve the force, that unless they accepted the whole of the ideas of the Secretary of State for War, who, however able, industrious, and persevering, had no real practical experience of the force, they should have nothing at all and that everything should be hung up until they came into line—that was a view which was quite unworthy of his antecedents and of his great desire to benefit the force. This was a matter of very great urgency and importance. He earnestly hoped that they would have an end now to the mystery, and that before many hours were out they would hear from the Secretary of State for War exactly what he intended to do in regard to the Volunteer force. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he knew what he wanted and that he knew how to get it. Those Members of the House who spoke as representing the Volunteer force knew what was wanted in regard to the Auxiliary Forces, and he thought they were determined to get it if they possibly could, not from any selfish motive but because they knew that by the encouragement of these the military forces of the Crown would be put on a better and surer footing. It was only by this means that the country could be rendered safe against invasion, and that forces could be furnished in adequate strength in times of necessity.
      MR. McCRAEsaid it was not too much to say that the question before the House that afternoon was the most pressing they could discuss. The Fiscal question and Home Rule would become very secondary matters indeed if the state of the Army was allowed to continue as it was at present. He did not intend to deal with the Regular Army. He would devote his remarks to the Volunteer force. The question which he would submit to the Secretary of State for War was this—What is the object of the Volunteer force? It existed for the purpose of national defence. He should like to say that it was to the credit of the Secretary of State for War that he had taken the Volunteer force as a serious factor in the question of national defence. He would also
      932
      say that he admired the courage and ability with which the right hon. Gentleman was maintaining the struggle—he thought all in the House would admire the determination he had shown, with perhaps the exception of a few of his colleagues in the Cabinet—to place the Army on a better footing.
      He wished first of all to examine the position of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Volunteers. In a speech in that House the right hon. Gentleman said—
      "The defence of these islands against hostile raids must therefore be left very largely to the Volunteers."
      That was very sound policy indeed. The Volunteers themselves, he thought, were quite prepared that that responsibility should devolve upon them, but he should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it was not perhaps the view of those who were not so familiar with military matters. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had heard of Lord Esher. That noble Lord had evidently had a good deal to do with the reform of the War Office, though according to all accounts confusion had been succeeded by chaos. He must admit that his belief in the ability of Lord Esher to formulate military schemes, without, as he understood, any military training, had been somewhat shattered by a speech which he made in Scotland with regard to the Volunteers. Speaking in August at Callander, Lord Esher said—
      "Well, he supposed they had often asked themselves what the uses of the Volunteers might be, and at the first glance it was generally supposed that the Volunteers existed for the purpose of repelling invasion. Well, he thought that, according to modern ideas of military and naval strategy, that was an illusion."
      That was the view of a good many of our military authorities, and he was afraid that the Secretary of State for War had been subjected to a good deal of cross-pulling on the question what the Volunteers were to do. With regard to the quality of the Volunteers the right hon. Gentleman had said in the House that he believed the Volunteer force contained the best material we had in the whole Army, and a divisional commander in South Africa at the time of the war said that the only decent fellows sent out were the Volunteers and the Militia. There was no doubt at all about the quality of

      933
      the men and their capacity to perform the duties which the right hon. Gentleman said he wished to devolve upon them. He believed the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman were very good, but in this case he was afraid they were paving-stones to perdition. How did he propose to fit the Volunteers for the task which he was going to lay upon them? First of all by reducing their number. He proposed to reduce the establishment of the Volunteers by 147,000 men—from 347,000 to 200,000—and he proposed to reduce the actual strength from 240,000 to 180,000. He next proposed to divide the force into two distinct classes. What he would call for convenience of phrase the first-line Volunteers were to be put into a class amounting to 60,000 men, and the remainder were to be put into the second class of 120,000 men. Then the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to reduce the expenditure on the Volunteers. All were agreed with regard to national expenditure that a crisis had really come and that something must be done to reduce it. The Secretary of State for War himself bad said that the annual Estimates showed that the cost of the Army was excessive. They all agreed with his main proposition. The present expenditure on the Army went to show that large expenditure was no guarantee of efficiency. The Army Estimates for the present year amounted to £28,900,000. Under the new scheme, the Secretary of State for War proposed to make a saving on these Estimates of £1,092,000. Where was he going to get this reduction? Excluding the Militia proposals, which the hon. Member thought had gone by the board and need not be considered, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to reduce the Army Estimates by £1,000,000, and of that sum £300,000, or a third part, was to be taken off the Volunteers, and yet the total cost of the Volunteers was only £1,200,000. The right hon. Gentleman was simply going back to the old policy of attempting to starve the Volunteer force. When the present Government came into power the expenditure on the Volunteer force amounted to £800,000, and in four years they had managed to reduce that sum to £628,000. In the year after that came the war in South Africa and the expenditure suddenly went up to £1,700,000. What
      934
      the Secretary of State for War was now attempting to do was to bring back the expenditure on the Volunteers to the amount at which it stood in 1895–6. Was the, right hon. Gentleman prepared to apply the same test to the Army Estimates? Was he prepared to reduce the Army Estimates from £29,000,000 to £18,000,000, the figure at which they stood in 1895–6? The whole position in regard to this was untenable. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a Question the other day, told them that there was to be no reduction in the Volunteer force for the current year. On behalf of the commanding officers he must thank him for that answer.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): On the Volunteer Vote.
      MR. McCRAEsaid he was very glad of that at any rate. The answer allowed the commanding officers to know how they stood for at least one year. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to state whether it was only for one year that there was to be no reduction on the Vote. Was it a reprieve, or was it merely a postponement of their sentence? He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in full retreat and going to give up the proposal for a reduction of the force. Out of the reduced expenditure on the Volunteers the right hon. Gentleman proposed to spend £50,000 per annum on rifle clubs, complete a system of transport for the Volunteers, a divisional staff for the Volunteers; and, in addition, he intended to make an increased grant for efficiency. His plan of finance was like the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham with regard to old-age pensions. It was so simple that anyone could understand it, but he confessed that he thought the right hon. Gentleman would find, when he came to the details in the Volunteer Estimates, that the position was one which he could not really maintain. Since the day when the Irishman attempted to lengthen his blanket by taking a piece off the top and sewing it on to the bottom, a more futile and indefensible proposal could hardly be conceived. Lord Esher evidently thought that the

      935
      main purpose for which the Volunteers existed was to increase or to foster the military spirit of the country. He said there, as a commanding officer, that if that was the reason for the existence of the Volunteers the country was spending far too much money on the force. They wanted to be taken seriously, and if the right hon. Gentleman wished to put the force on an efficient footing, his only alternative was to increase the expenditure upon it rather than reduce it. They only asked for a few thousands out of the million or two which, it was generally conceded, could be saved in Army administration. Let him affirm that the Volunteer force had any objection at all to submit to increased efficiency, but there was one limit which must be placed to that demand, and that was that that efficiency must not mean the sacrifice of the men's daily employment. When the regulations were promulgated by the predecessor of the present Secretary of State for War, and for which the latter was therefore not responsible, in regard to attendance in camp, very many of the men had to choose between giving up their daily employment or resigning their position as Volunteers. The consequence was that a very large number of the best men in the force had to resign because they could not submit to the test. Not only that, even the numbers were kept up only by a reduced physique on the part of those enlisted. The fact was that for many years the War Office had been experimenting with the Volunteers. They had been subjected to the process of vivisection, and it was only their strength and inherent vitality that had prevented the force from being shattered beyond recuperation.
      Now, the name of the late Inspector-General of the Auxiliary Forces had been mentioned, and he had great experience. He meant Major-General Turner, and he did not know why the Secretary of State for War should laugh. Major-General Turner was, he thought, an officer who had shown that at any rate he understood the Volunteers, which was more than could be said for the War Office. That officer said the other day that—
      "He complained much of the treatment which the Volunteers had received. It was impossible that our Volunteers should fulfil the hard and fast conditions laid down for the
      936
      Regulars. The result of attempting to impose upon them those conditions was that the best London corps were dying away."
      No doubt those regulations had now been modified or withdrawn, but after much mischief had been done, and he was quite sure of this—and he did not want to put the case too strongly—that the Volunteers had suffered a great wrong in consequence of those regulations. They did not apply equally to all the force. His own battalion was not affected, as it was composed principally of artisans, who could go into camp on the trades holidays, and moreover, they were over strength. But he was speaking for corps not so happily situated. What was wanted was elasticity of treatment in regard to the force. He would like to know who had advised the Secretary of State for War—for he must have had some expert adviser—to put the Volunteers into two distinct classes. Really that proposal was fundamentally wrong. He had for years advocated that every man in the country who was capable of bearing arms should get a course of training similar to that which was given to the Volunteer force. No doubt the country was against that being done-compulsorily, but it should be our aim to get as many men as possible, so that in the hour of need there should be a foundation to work upon. He believed that the secret of this muddle and the reason for this policy which he had described as unwise, uncertain, and erratic, was that our military administrators had lost faith in the voluntary principle. A great many of them had a hankering after conscription. He did not hesitate to say that the proposals of the late Secretary for War were intended, by smashing up the Volunteer force, to pave the way for conscription; and he was afraid that, with all his good intentions, the present Secretary of State for War was going in the same direction. The right hon. Gentleman might have different aims and a different policy, but the effect would be the same, and he would find that by reducing the Volunteer force he was cutting at the root principle of the voluntary system.
      What was going to be done? There must be continuity of policy in the first place. It must be open to every Volunteer to o into camp for fourteen days

      937
      and get the grant now earned by the selected battalions. They ought to have a transport service—an Army Service Corps for the Volunteers alone. He would ask the Secretary of State for War, who was so anxious to bring forward proposals which struck at the root, of the principles on which the Volunteer force was founded, to consider that there were various ways in which that force could be built up upon a system which would put it on a better footing. Whatever method was adopted by the Secretary of State for War the Volunteer force, if it was to be of any use at all, must have transport of its own. There was in existence a proposal approved of by the War Office, and recommended by the Royal Commission, yet no effort had been made to put it into operation. Much had been said of the efficiency of the officers. There, again, the officers were quite prepared to undergo training and pass the necessary examinations; but it must be kept in mind that the Volunteer who gave his time should not be called upon for such a drain, as at present, on his pocket for expenses. He emphasised the fact that the Volunteer officers did not shrink from any test in regard to efficiency short of that which interfered with their ordinary employment. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War to reconsider his proposal to reduce the number of Volunteers and to divide them into two distinct units. Grade, if he liked, the grant for efficiency, but do not make the second-line Volunteers feel that they were serving in a lower-grade corps, which would be the result of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal if carried out. He hoped they were to have an end of all this marching and counter-marching, orders and counter-orders. Let them have some definite policy. Even a bad policy was better than the sort of treatment they had been subjected to during the last few years. The Secretary for War should let them know where they stood, should give them a clear policy, and pledge himself to end a system which was a curious mixture of apathy, ignorance, and misunderstanding.
      MR. WYLIEsaid he intended to confine his remarks to that portion of the Amendment which dealt
      938
      with the Volunteers. At the end of last Session 60,000 (a fourth) of the Volunteer Forces were under sentence of extinction and 120,000 were to be deprived of 30 per cent. of their grants, but he was glad to learn that in the meantime they had been reprieved. Since the end of 1901, when the very severe Order in Council by Lord Roberts and the War Office was issued, a large number of Members of this House had not ceased to bring forward the claims of the Volunteers for fairer treatment. The Norfolk Commission was appointed in 1903, and after very careful investigation and the examination of 134 witnesses, that Commission issued a Report last year which was admirably clear, concise, and comprehensive. It was with the utmost satisfaction that many of them found therein ample justification for the time of the House they had taken in pressing the claims of the Volunteers, for it thoroughly homologated the opinions they had advocated in and out of the House. There was amongst many Volunteer officers considerable misapprehension of the general terms of that Report. They had been so depressed with the sweeping criticism of the Report that the Volunteer force was not capable of dealing with a regular army in the field, that they construed it into an indirect intimation that their services would no longer be required. But the whole tenour of the Report was that until they obtained a larger and more comprehensive system of military training the Volunteers must not only be maintained in their present numbers but very much increased in efficiency. The Royal Commission very generously recognised the good services they had done, and held out encouragement to proceed to batter things. He pressed on the Secretary of State for War the necessity for carrying out the recommendations of that Report at the earliest opportunity. Now, during the late war, and for a short time after, it was thought that we could not have too large an Army, and the Volunteers were largely increased. But the fir for lavish expenditure and a very large Army was immediately succeeded by a cool mood for parsimonious retrenchment and wholesale disbandment. No one had had

      939
      more severe experience of this fickleness in policy than the late Secretary for War. His right hon. friend was incited in 1900 and 1901 to form as large an Army as possible, and exposed to unmerited obloquy because of the failure of his scheme, some of the leading parts of which had not had the beginning of a trial. The present Secretary of State had had set before him the very difficult problem of increasing the efficiency of, and reducing the expenditure on, the land forces. His right hon. friend proposed to decrease the Regular Army, the Militia, and the Volunteers. He would not say anything about the Regular Army and the Militia, except that it was easier to disband men than bring them together again. His remarks would be confined to the Volunteers; and they would be founded in a great measure on the opinions of a number of very able Volunteer officers, and also principally on the Report of the Commission.
      He would ask hon. Members to remember that the cardinal principle on which the Report was based was that no officer, non-commissioned officer, or private should be put to any expense, but that everything should be paid by the State. That had been opposed by the War Office in the past. The first thing that struck him in the proposals of the Secretary for War was that, although home defence was to rest on the Volunteers, the establishment was to be reduced by over 40 per cent., the effective strength by 25 per cent., and the expenditure by about as much—even the present expenditure, £1,200,000, was less than the cost of a single battleship—in connection with a branch of the service which was to be entrusted with the most important duty of all, home defence. He quite concurred with his right hon. friend in his expression of opinion as to the inefficiency of a considerable number of the Volunteer forces. Lord Roberts was just as frank; and explicit; and in 1901 he and the War Office authorities proceeded to reform the then existing state of affairs by the celebrated Order in Council demanding more arduous training, without increasing the grants. He believed that if the Order in Council then issued had been accom-
      940
      panied by an increased grant, so that the Volunteers might be able to receive about £1 a week for their camp training there would have been no complaint. But the usual parsimony in connection with the Volunteers was exercised. The great success of his right hon. friend the previous Secretary of State for War in connection with the Yeomanry was due to a liberal apportionment of grants which enabled every Yeoman to return from camp with £5 or £7 in his pocket. He was very glad his right hon. friend recognised the necessity of increasing the efficiency of the Volunteers by means of an increase of grants, and intended to apply this principle to 60,000 of them; but he would be interested to know to what extent his right hon. friend was prepared to increase the grant. If his right hon. friend was as liberal as his predecessor was in connection with the Yeomanry he would predict a great success for his scheme. Its great defect, however, was that he proposed to carry it out at the expense of the other Volunteers. His right hon. friend proposed to dismiss 60,000 of the most inefficient Volunteers. That was a very drastic proposal. Why were they so inefficient? The Report of the Commission stated it was no fault of the Volunteers; but was principally the fault of the War Office because of the parsimonious policy which had been adopted. A great deal of the efficiency of some of the Volunteer Corps was owing to subscriptions from officers and from gentlemen resident in the district. A large amount of the inefficiency of others was due to the fact, that officers could not afford that expense; and that there were no gentlemen in the several districts who subscribed. Many of the Volunteers proposed to be dismissed had rendered splendid service to the country; they had guarded the country when the Regular Forces and the Militia were abroad in South Africa; and they had sent many of their members to the front. It would be much more judicious to give them a chance under the more liberal auspices proposed by the Commission, demand a minimum standard of efficiency and let those who would not come up to it quietly drop out He considered the other proposal, viz., to reduce the grants to 120,000 and form them into a second class even more

      941
      objectionable. The Secretary for War relied upon them to act as second battalions to the efficient regiments, but with grants reduced by 30 per cent, they would melt away like snow in summer. In that he had the concurrence of every Volunteer officer with whom he had spoken.
      The proposals of the right hon. Gentleman were quite contrary to the Report of the Commission, to the opinion of almost all Volunteer officers, and based on the supposed necessity for retrenchment. To listen to some hon. Gentlemen one would imagine, that this was the most overburdened country in the world; whereas, on the contrary, according to its wealth, it was one of the most lightly taxed. The taxation of France was £10,000,000 greater, though its population and wealth were smaller, and there was, therefore, no necessity to rush into a parsimonious policy. The policy which the Government should adopt lay in an entirely different direction. The growing necessities of the Empire and the need for improvement in the physical condition of our young men so impressed the Royal Commission that they recommended what might be called a modified form of conscription—universal military training. No form of conscription, however, was within the scope of present practical politics, nor need it ever be if we rightly utilized the Volunteer spirit and if we made use of our Volunteers. No country had so many young men and boys who were not merely willing but anxious and eager for military training. The policy to adopt would be to very largely increase the Volunteer forces, with a moderate increase in the grant not to exceed £10 per head, which would entail a proportionately small expense, through which would pass all the vigorous youth of our country, who would then form a reserve ready to be called upon in case of emergency. But this also was not at present within the range of practical politics. But he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that there was a scheme in accordance with the recommendations laid down by the Royal Commission which was within the scope of practical politics and which might be adopted by the right
      942
      hon. Gentleman, viz., to maintain the present numbers and to secure much greater efficiency by a corresponding increase of grants and facilities. The amount of money that such a scheme would require had been computed by the hon. Member for Sheffield at £200,000, but in his (Mr. Wylie's) opinion that estimate was far too moderate. He believed the increase would be at least £500,000. The right hon. Gentleman had said, the expenditure upon the Army precluded any advance upon the estimate he had made, but the right hon. Gentleman had, he thought, entirely misapprehended the feeling of the House and the country so far as the Volunteer Forces were concerned. He believed that if the right hon. Gentleman would bring forward an Estimate for £1,750,000 for the voluntary forces he would get his Vote, if not without its being challenged, at least by a large majority. The right hon. Gentleman was himself an old Volunteer officer and in that capacity had acquired that practical military training which had proved of such service to him in dealing with military questions. Like many of his predecessors in the War Office he had apparently succumbed to the united influence of the Treasury and the War Office. The Chancellor of the Exchequer demanded retrenchment; the authorities at the War Office still retained their old professional contempt for the amateur and had no doubt insisted that the retrenchment should be at the expense of the Auxiliary Forces and not the Regular Forces, and the Secretary of State for War sought to restrict the already far too narrow basis on which our military strength rested by confining it to our very small professional Army and 60,000 semi-professional Volunteers. But, after all, the final decision rested with the House, and if the right hon. Gentleman would bring such an Estimate as he (Mr. Wylie) had ventured to suggest he felt confident the House and country would approve of it. For years the country had been recognising the necessity of improving the physique of our young men and the necessity for military training, and the Royal Commission had been so impressed that it had recommended universal military training. The right hon. Gentleman had now a

      943
      great opportunity of taking not a retrograde but a forward step, and it was to be hoped he would not miss the opportunity.
      SIR JOHN KENNAWAYas a Volunteer for more than forty years, wished to try to face the salient points of the most difficult problem the Volunteers now presented. The Volunteer force, formed just sixty years ago, had had an excellent moral effect as a defensive force, and a great physical effect upon the youth of the country, and this system had trained hundreds and thousands of our young men into habits of discipline and obedience. But, after all, this military force must be tested by the question whether it was efficient for the purpose for which it was created and whether it was ready to do what the country expected of it. It was clear, from the findings of the Royal Commission to whom the Government did well in referring the matter, that the Volunteer force, excellent as it was, would not be able to resist the highly trained troops of any country that might invade our shored, because the officers had not the opportunity of being properly trained, nor had it sufficient equipment and commissariat necessary to take the field. The question to be considered was how to make the force a reality, equal to the conditions of modern warfare. Half-trained men would not do, and to make the men efficient a large sum of money would have to be spent on additional training. That was admitted on all sides. The only alternative was to reduce the force, and to spend on the smaller number of men the same amount of money as was now allocated. The country would not begrudge the money necessary to make the force efficient, but the present was not an opportune time to increase the Estimates. An additional £500,000 had been suggested, but if all the expenses of the Volunteers were to be paid so that the men were not losers by their patriotism the extra expenditure might easily amount to much more. Another question was as to the size of the force which could be usefully employed in defending our shores. Too large a force would become unwieldy, and the men would simply get in each other's way.
      944
      The alternative of a reduction in numbers was not popular, but the only choice lay between an indefinite increase of expenditure and the making of a smaller force thoroughly efficient. It was a very difficult problem. The Volunteer force was so entwined with our national sentiment that it should be treated with the utmost consideration and allowed the greatest elasticity. He hoped that as a result of the efforts now being made there would be secured a continuity of policy, the lack of which had caused so much inconvenience in the past. The demand for them to go into camp for a lengthy period was outside the conditions on which the men had joined the Volunteers, and if the men were to be called upon to spend long periods away from home the country must be prepared to recompense them. He trusted the Secretary of State for War would be supported in his endeavours to deal with the matter on right lines, Salus populi suprema est lex. The country must have an efficient force for the defeance of these islands, ready to meet any emergency which might arise.
      MR. FREDERICK WILSONsaid that the House and the nation must remember that there were only two policies before the country. There was the policy of conscription, and, opposed to that, there was the policy of the encouragement of the Volunteers. It must come to one or the other. We had a nation full of fight; every schoolboy wanted to fight somebody, and we ought to be full of pride for our high-spirited race. Yet we could not get men for either the Regular Army or the Volunteers. They would not come. We were a fighting race, but our men would not go into either portion of the Army. There must be something wrong in the treatment by the authorities when they could not fill the ranks. There was no doubt in his mind which was the better policy, conscription or the encouragement of the Volunteers. Why should they encourage the dear Army at the expense of the cheap Army? Yet the policy of the Government seemed to be to expend money on the more expensive branch and to economise on the cheaper. The hon. Member for the Honiton Division seemed rather to disparage

      945
      the Volunteers as a fighting force; but did they not do well in the Boer War, and did not the Boers themselves show what a race trained to shoot could do? He did not speak as a colonel of Volunteers, he had not been a colonel; he had never attained more than the rank of a full private, but he knew that among the private Volunteers there was a love of rifle-shooting, which was almost wiped out of the force to-day, for they had lost their ranges. When the long-shooting rifle came in, range after range was closed, and there was now no inducement of pleasure to be a Volunteer; there was now no fun in it. Volunteering in the old days was almost freemasonry; it was the best Saturday afternoon's holiday. At present, however, the English race was spending its energies in kicking a football about on Saturday afternoons. If they encouraged the grand old martial spirit of the English race they would soon fill their Volunteer ranks, to say nothing of the Army. The difficulty of the Army was different from that of the Volunteers. They had got to till their ranks, not so much as to find officers. If they began at the bottom of the ladder they would soon have men qualified to rise to the top of it; and he trusted this Government, or any succeeding it, would bear distinctly in mind that there was one way to escape from a vast expenditure on a large Army, and that was to encourage the Volunteer, who was ready for home defence and was prepared, as shown in the Boer War, on emergency to go abroad and light and die for his country.
      MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid the course of the debate would, lead one to suppose that we had no Regular Army at all, the speeches so far having dealt almost exclusively with the Volunteers. He feared that his remarks would be considered somewhat out of sympathy with the speeches of hon. friends with whom he had acted on Army questions on previous occasions, but he was glad to think that their personal relations were not affected. Reference had been made to the "useless quality" of great numbers of the men enlisted into the Regular Army. He quite agreed that that process should be stopped, and that the element which was admitted on all hands to be such as would never
      946
      be of any military value should be got, rid of. But would it not be admitted that a similar element existed in the Volunteers? And if a reduction was to be made in the Regular Army on that ground, would not the same argument hold good with regard to the Volunteers?
      Another point to be noted in this debate was the absence of any reference to the universal cry as to the necessity for economy in the expenditure connected with the armed forces of this country. Immediately a particular branch of the service was threatened with anything in the nature of reduction an outcry was raised and claims were put in for that branch. What the right hon. Gentleman had to consider was not so much what ought to be done, but what really could be done; and true economy must depend upon spending the money to the best possible advantage. If reductions were necessary they could only or mainly be brought about by the reduction in establishments and men, and if these reductions could be carried out, as he believed they could, without any material loss in the fighting power of the forces of this country, the Volunteers would have to take their share in the reduction. He knew the line he was taking was not a popular line, but he asked the House to believe that, though his views might be unpopular, he put them forward with the idea of doing the best all round for the armed forces of the country.
      A good deal had been heard that afternoon about the utility of the Auxiliary Forces for keeping up the martial spirit of the country and providing a reserve, force to be called upon in case of emergency. But while that was true enough the House must beware of mistaking mere numbers for military strength. There was abundant evidence in the many voluminous Reports to show that we were maintaining in many branches of the service, boys who would not within a long period be fit to take the field, but who swelled the Estimates, and deceived the nation as to its military strength. Besides those there were numbers of men who would never become effective soldiers at all. That remark applied to the Volunteer Auxiliary Forces with even greater force than to the Regular Army, and if efficiency

      947
      was desired, surely the proper thing to do was to fearlessly get rid of all those. Broadly speaking, that was what the scheme of the Secretary of State proposed to do. The right hon. Gentleman had the courage to look facts in the face; to get rid of useless material and to spend the money so saved in making the material which remained more effective and more efficient. It seemed to him that there had been in the Press a great deal of, if not unfair, at least ill-informed criticism of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. They ought to look at the whole position. The military ideal could never exactly coincide with political exigencies, and the only course open to us was to make them coincide as far as possible. This was what the right hon. Gentleman had done. He did not believe any Secretary of State for War had ever been in closer touch with military opinion or had consulted his military advisers more freely and fully than his right hon. friend. If this scheme which was put forward, was rejected because in the opinion of some it did not reach perfection, and if they did not make the best use of what could be got and insisted upon what could not be obtained they would never reach any reform at all. The constant desire to pull up everything that was sown in order to see whether it was growing was greatly to be deprecated. As to the Volunteers, what did the right hon. Gentleman propose? There were three categories of Volunteers, first, there was the very good first-class material; men who gave a deal of time to their training. Then there was a second class composed of men who did not do so well but who gave what time they could towards making themselves efficient, and there was the third group which was classed as efficient but which was unfit for service with any mobile army. The scheme of his right hon. friend differentiated between these three classes and encouraged the first class, composed of the best material, by every means, and also the second class which would come to fill the ranks of the first and which would be stiffened by the men already in the first class. But that could only be done by the reduction of the third class which was known to be inefficient. He could not understand hon.
      948
      Members saying that they must have enough money to make the Volunteer force as it now existed efficient. He did not believe that a sum sufficient for that purpose would ever be granted by Parliament, and if it were he did not think the expenditure would produce the desired result. The fact was it was impossible to get the money to keep the Volunteer force in its present state efficient, and so far from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State being an enemy to the force he was the best friend they had, because he desired to convert what in many respects was a sham into a reality, and to give us a force of 60,000 or 70,000 men upon whom we could depend in time of war. The question was essentially one of quality rather than quantity. As was well known, the Volunteers were lacking in nearly all the essential accessories without which an Army is incapable of taking the field. Surely it was better to provide these things for a smaller force fit to use them, than to waste money on the maintenance of a large force with only a paper value? At present the tares were choking the wheat, and the money urgently needed would never be forthcoming unless reduction of men known to be useless were submitted to. Such were facts upon which the House was asked to pass a vote of censure upon the Government for what they had done and proposed to do. He trusted the House of Commons, by an overwhelming majority, would say that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the proper course. When his right hon. friend replied to all the criticisms, which had now been going on since March last, he would be able to show that there was no foundation for them, and the country might be confident that a great step in advance had not only been taken with regard to Army reform but with regard to the reform of the Volunteers as well.
      SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid one of the lessons of the South African War which ought to be taken to heart by every War Minister was that he should do nothing to discourage the efficiency and strength of the Volunteer forces, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would move

      949
      in the direction of making that force not only more efficient but more numerous. He believed there was in this country an enormous amount of material for the Volunteer force, not for aggressive purposes, but for the highest of all purposes: the defence of our hearths and homes. Another lesson of the war was the importance of mobility in warfare and the necessity of creating in this country a mobile force after the fashion of our opponents in the Transvaal. The third lesson was in connection with the artillery. It was a standing disgrace to our land that we should be fighting a war with a force better armed than we were. That lesson had been taken to heart. Since the right hon. Gentleman had been in office he had given orders for putting us in possession of adequate artillery in the course of twelve or eighteen months. It was manifestly a danger to this country that we were supplied with artillery which was inferior to any great Continental Power. But a more serious lesson of the war was that from neglect of certain precautions we lost an enormous number of men. In the course of the war we lost 13,250 men from disease, mostly from a disease which of all diseases was the most preventable. He laid it down as a canon which every War Minister ought to regard, that while in a civil community an outbreak of enteric fever was a scandal, an outbreak of enteric fever in the course of a war was a crime. The Secretary for War"s predecessor in office, after the recommendations of more than one Commission, started a system in the Army Medical Service by which there should be a college for the teaching of science in London and also a large hospital where they could learn the latest methods of defeating and possibly preventing disease. How far had that scheme progressed? He saw or the Embankment a large hospital which had been completed for more than a year. It was still empty and unused. But where was the medical school in which officers were to be taught the latest scientific methods for preserving the physical efficiency of the general force? He believed the college was working in cramped buildings and without a sufficient amount of money. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to reform the present condition of affairs and develop the institution as it should be
      950
      developed? The right hon. Gentleman had had the courage to approach the Treasury, and had obtained an increased grant. The institution wanted £30,000 or £40,000 to equip it adequately, and he hoped he would obtain sufficient money for the purpose. At the commencement of the Russian-Japanese War a distinguished Japanese officer said to Major Seaman, an American medical officer, who relates the story—
      "Russia may be able to place 2,000,000 men in the field. We can furnish 500,000. You know in every war four men die of disease for every one who falls from bullets. That will be the position of Russia in this war. We propose to eliminate disease as a factor. Every man who dies in our Army must fall on the field of battle. In this way we shall neutralise the superiority of Russian numbers, and stand on a comparatively equal footing."
      The result had been that whereas it had been a canon on the part of medical departments in the past that four men were killed by disease for every man killed by the enemy, the Japanese had grappled with this problem, and they had found that instead of losing four by disease to every one killed, the rate had fallen to 1 per cent. of their forces because they had the science and knowledge to prevent it. That was one of the greatest triumphs in Army administration, and he wanted to know whether the Secretary of State was trying to imitate the Japanese, in order that when the British Army was again engaged in conflict, and he hoped that the time might be far distant, we might be able to deal with the pestilences that tracked every army, and that we should only have to deplore those losses, which were the legitimate losses of war, inflicted by the enemy. All the Reports of the Commissions and Committees that sat on the South African war converged on this point—that we wanted improved methods of sanitation. We wanted forethought in the Boer War to meet possible contingencies. There was no part where this was more apparent than in the administration of the medical department, which would not recognise the warnings of the terrible amount of disease they were likely to have among the forces in the field. The consequence was that men died like flies on the veldt in South Africa, and many a brave fellow lost his life and many a family was

      951
      put into mourning on account of lives lost which ought to have been saved by the exercise of forethought. In solving this problem the Japanese had for the first time in the history of the world realised the true inwardness of the medical department of the army. It was instituted and constituted for the purpose of preventing disease. The Japanese knew that under the old theory and old systems 400 men were lost by disease for every 100 lost by the action of the enemy, and, recognising that, they had made their medical department not so much a department for treatment and operating, but a great department for looking after the health, the feeding, and the physical efficiency of their army. How had they done it? They had put a medical officer everywhere. Our system was to put the medical officer in the background and to keep him there. There was no respect for science in the British Army. It had never had the recognition it ought to have in the Army. Manchuria was a country where the sanitary conditions were very much worse than those in South Africa, but the Japanese medical officers went out behind the first screen of scouts, and made it their duty to attend to every detail before the advancing army. Every water-supply was tested by the medical officer, and a notice was put up in those cases where the soldiers must not drink, in other cases instructions were given that the water must be boiled before use. That was done as the army marched, and so good was the discipline of the soldiers that they never disobeyed the orders of the scientific advisers. When they visited towns where fever was epidemic, the soldiers were encamped under conditions where they were not likely to be infected. If we had done that in South Africa, hundreds of lives would have been saved in cases where the men were encamped on ground which had previously been occupied by patients suffering from enteric fever.
      Throughout the whole department of transport the same care was exercised in connection with all the possibilities of the campaign, and by attending to that carefully day by day, with the highest scientific skill, this nation of the East had shown the civilised West how
      952
      to preserve human life. They did not stop there. The medical officers of the Japanese Army, when the troops were in camp or in stationary positions, used these opportunities to teach the soldiers all the devices by means of which they could preserve health, what food to take, how it should be cooked, and how to avoid all those maladies which came from inattention to personal cleanliness and sanitation; and so the whole army was preserved in a state of efficiency and preparedness for warfare, which no other army ever had before attained. It was almost like a fairy tale to read the details recently published in regard to General Oku"s division—or left wing of the Japanese Army in Manchuria—an army about equal in numbers to what we had in South Africa. That record came to this: that during the first five or six months of the campaign they had only 40 deaths from disease. There were only 193 cases of enteric fever and 342 cases of dysentery. What was our record in South Africa in the first year of the war? We had no fewer than 3,774 deaths from typhoid fever alone, out of some 12,000 cases. And so it was with other diseases. The disease of beri-beri, familiar to this House in connection with the Chinese labourers in South Africa, had been overcome by the sanitary precautions of the Japanese medical authorities, and had ceased to be the scourge it used to be in Eastern armies. It might be said that all this was beside the question; that it happened in another country where; the climatic and other conditions were not the same. But the climatic conditions in Manchuria were worse than in South Africa. It was science that had done it, because the Russian Army had had a scourge which the Japanese had been able to avoid. It had been estimated that the total number of sick and wounded in the Russian Army, up to the time of the great battle on the Sha Ho, was 150,000, or 30 per cent. of the force. The central board at Kharbin registered 32,000 sick and wounded from June 15th to August 15th, of whom only one-fifth were wounded. Dysentery, enteric, and rheumatic fever prevailed. The Japanese system was an example which it would be well for the military heads of our Army to follow.

      953
      They should take every opportunity of learning from this Eastern people the details of their methods, in order that when a British force was again placed in the field we should have the scientific administration which our allies enjoyed. The great marvel of it was that the Japanese had managed to overcome the ordinary scourges of an army with a loss of 1 per cent. of their men from all diseases, while we lost in our recent war more from enteric fever alone. This example of "knowing how to do it," which this people of the East were setting us, should be followed and imitated in the interests of humanity and efficiency by every civilised Power in the world. He hoped the Secretary for War, when he applied himself to this portion of his Army work, would try to bring about that efficiency which existed in the Japanese Army by insisting that the chief and most important duty of the medical staff was the prevention of disease among the soldiers and the looking; after them with the almost paternal care exercised by the Japanese medical officers. In that way, and in that way only our troops might be always kept fully efficient for the duties they had to perform in the field. New artillery, rifles, long or short, would not by themselves save us, but men strong and vigorous, able to face their foe, were the best defence for a civilized nation.
      SIR HARRY SETON-KARRsaid it was impossible to follow in the same line the very interesting speech which the hon. Member had just made with so much ability. There was, however, one subject covered by the Amendment to which he desired to call the attention of the House. He referred to one of the great changes recently introduced into the Army by his right hon. friend—the re-arming of our infantry. The subject had been very briefly touched upon already by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment, but not in any detail. He did not think it was necessary for him to apologise to the House for saying a few words upon it, because in spite of what the hon. Gentleman opposite had said, he was one of those who thought it was of the greatest importance that our soldiers should be
      954
      armed with the best and most efficient weapon, without which they could not do themselves justice in a state of war. As the House was well aware, in December last a report was issued on the trial of a short rifle for the Army and Navy. He did not want to say anything that would be in the slightest degree offensive to the authors of that report, but he considered that it was in a certain sense—he did not say intentionally—misleading. It professed to be a report on the trials of the short rifle with which the Army—cavalry and infantry—was to be armed by a test called the figure-of-merit test up to a range of 1500 yards. The change from the long to a short rifle was not touched upon in the report, although it was true that there was a table of comparisons between the figure of merit for the long and the short rifle. It would not be contradicted that that was not a test between the merits and advantages of the long and the short rifle. Now the issue of the flew short rifle to the Army would cost something like £3,000,000, and it was now, in fact, being sent out to India. His contention was that the new short rifle, which was five inches shorter than the old rifle, had been insufficiently tested in comparison with the rifle at present in use. It was not his intention to go into scientific details, but the man in the street wanted to know whether this great change was being made without a proper test having been instituted between the long and short rifle—all other things being equal—to discover which was the best weapon. The War Office experts had carefully refrained from entering into this question. They had not endeavoured to find that out. They practically said that the Committee had examined the short rifles; they told how it shot in certain cases, but they had not tested the long and the short rifle under equal conditions. He did not pretend to be a scientific expert but he knew something of the practical use of a rifle. Everybody was aware that the question was a very important one, and had involved very serious differences of opinion between large bodies of experts of all sorts in this country.
      It was an established fact that, other things being equal, a long-barrelled

      955
      rifle would carry much further and shoot harder and straighter than a short-barrelled weapon. That principle had been already acknowledged in connection with big guns. The longer barrel, within reasonable limits, utilised more energy than the shorter one. It was also more accurate and easier for the private soldier to shoot straight and be nearer the mark, from the longer barrel, because the sights were farther apart. There were other details with which he would not weary the House, but these were the main factors which it was desirable to keep before the minds of hon. Members. It was perfectly easy, by altering the boring and the size of the cartridge, to make the short rifle shoot better than the old rifle up to a certain range. As a matter of fact that had been done, and according to the table in the report the test of the short rifle appeared to the casual reader to be far better than that of the long. But he should like to call attention to a report published in The Times newspaper a day or two ago, from which it appeared that five experts were taken down to Bisley on a sort of amateur trial of both the long and the short rifles. The competition was carried out by men who thoroughly understood the subject. He knew no more about the trial than he had read in the report in The Times, which he believed was perfectly authentic. These gentlemen tried three of the new short rifles and three old long rifles, and three old long rifles fitted with wind-gauge, sights, and some extra improvements in mechanism adopted in the short rifle. It was a remarkable fact that in this test the new short rifle came out last. Having regard to the serious discrepancy between, that test and the test published in the Army report, he asked his right hon. friend to reconsider his position with regard to the issue of this new rifle. The actual shooting powers of the new short rifle compared with the old rifle should be tested. If they took five inches off the barrel of the old rifle, our soldiers would to that extent be handicapped in a personal encounter with the bayonet. It was said that all that was necessary I was to increase the length of the bayonet. The answer to that was that a longer bayonet would alter the trajectory and the shooting power of the rifle. If our
      956
      soldiers had to shoot with the short rifle with a longer bayonet fixed to it, he doubted whether they would hit a haystack. It was also stated in the report in The Times that with the short rifle there was a flash. That meant that a certain amount of energy was wasted. Moreover, the flash would disclose to an enemy the position of our infantry in the field. He could not see that the need for uniformity in the length of the rifle carried by the infantry and the cavalry was so great that they should compel the infantry to carry a rifle with inferior shooting power. They could not rest satisfied with this state of things. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman took the opinion of his experts on this matter, but he (Sir H. Seton-Karr) drew attention to it because it was one which, in his opinion, required explanation. The policy of shortening, the barrel of the most important weapon we possessed had been decided in a similar sort of way. There had been no direct tests of the short as against I the long rifle. The whole thing seemed I to have been decided in a very off-hand sort of way, and he applied to his right hon. friend to reconsider the matter.
      In conclusion he would point out that this was a matter of Imperial importance. It might be that at some future time we might require the co-operation of our Colonies. Had the Colonial Governments pronounced upon this weapon? Their opinion was worth taking, because from the very nature of their environments our colonial fellow-subjects were better judges of a rifle than we could be in this country; they had a better chance of using them at long ranges, and that being so, the House would agree with him that if we were ever in a position to have to ask our Colonies to assist us with men, it was very important that they should be armed with a weapon in which they had confidence. He felt very strongly upon this subject, and could not help thinking that some mistake had been made; he therefore hoped that his right hon. friend would, if he thought the matter required further consideration, at once stop the issue of the rifles and have the matter considered by another body of experts.
      MR. GUESTsaid misfortune seemed to dog the steps of the War Office whenever they tried to reform the military system. It appeared that in trying to level up the grade of the cavalry rifle they had only succeeded in levelling down the grade of the infantry rifle. He did not rise, however, to indulge in wholesale criticism of the policy of the Minister for War. Blunders there had been, and enough of them, but experience had been gained, and he thought that they were in a better position in regard to Army reform than they were two years ago. Advance had been made, even if it were by the humiliating process of eliminating blunders. They would be really on the threshold of some real improvement if the military authorities and the Secretary for War would divest themselves of one cardinal remaining misapprehension, which had been responsible for nearly all the difficulty, muddle, and confusion in which they were to-day. That misconception was that it was necessary for this country to have a large Regular Army. Until that idea was got rid of this country would make no substantial advance in Army reform. There were three considerations which rendered it desirable that there should be a small Regular Army. The first consideration was that the Army was limited by the number of recruits that could be obtained year by year without lowering the standard of recruits. There were also the considerations of cost and policy. A large standing Army was a menace to peace, whereas a large Auxiliary Force was a guarantee of peace. The Army should I simply exist for the purpose of garrisoning our possessions, providing a reserve, and creating a machine by which there might be in this country, to resist foreign aggression, a large number of people with some military training and military instincts. It was no part of the duty of the Army to go wandering over the plains and highlands of Central Asia to acquire fresh territory. In a democracy every war must be a popular war. If the country felt that it had been wronged, or that its honour was at stake, and through its representatives in the House undertook a war, the authorities could count on the patriotism of the Auxiliary Forces. But in every War
      958
      Office there was a professional contempt for the Auxiliary Forces, a contempt which survived the most startling proofs of their worth under actual conditions of war. The flimsiness of the professional prejudice might be ganged from the fact that when professional soldiers and Volunteers found themselves side by side on the field it disappeared at the first brush with the enemy, or at the first puff of powder. But as soon as the war was over, the services, efficiency, and capacity of the Auxiliary Forces were forgotten, and the old feeling of dislike and contempt reasserted itself. Even Ministers, such as the present Secretary of State for War, the "blue-water school" themselves, were attacked by the same disease.
      Volunteer effort was a delicate plant which could not be treated by artificial methods. If the authorities discouraged the patriotic efforts of people who, at great inconvenience, gave a great deal of their time to the service of their country, they would kill the force, there would be nothing of it left. If the Volunteer forces were not up to the standard of efficiency, let the Secretary of State for War set to work to improve and encourage them by spending more money on them. There were many economies which could be effected in the Regular Army which might provide means for the Auxiliaries. Let the right hon. Gentleman call upon the local authorities to assist him in his efforts. The Auxiliary Forces were the raw material, and one of the duties of the War Office should be to provide a machine capable in time of war of translating that raw material into an effective fighting weapon. For that purpose the military policy should have ill view the organisation of those branches of the service and those parts of the military machine which could not be improvised. They must train officers and have a general staff, stores, and, above all, arms and other things which could not be supplied at the last moment. Then, if they relied on the patriotic and military spirit which they would be able to keep alive and foster by means of the Auxiliary Forces, they would have a better fighting machine on the whole than if they tried to collect from the gutter and from among the unemployed what they themselves described as the

      959
      dregs of the population. But all efforts in this direction were vitiated by the non-recognition of the fact that our Army was nothing but an amateur Army. Too many men took up a military career with the intention more of amusing themselves than of forwarding its interests or adding to its efficiency. This was largely due to the fact that officers were not paid sufficiently well to enable the authorities to exact the wholehearted devotion to the service which the country ought to expect. When an officer became a colonel it was idle to expect him to devote the whole of his energies for the paltry consideration he was to receive. If a colonel did his duty he would be worth £1,000 a year. There was too much inclination to suppose that they could demand from those in the Volunteer force very much more than they were prepared to pay for. He hoped they would have from the Secretary of State for War some statement that he had resolved to improve the Army without destroying the Auxiliary Forces. If he did carry out this policy of reducing the Auxiliary Forces he would be doomed to disappointment.
      SIR CARNE RASCHsaid he was only going to trouble the House with a few words about quick-firing guns and short rifles. He had never been an admirer of the War Office, but he thought the criticism of it had been more acidulated than it ought to be. The hon. and gallant Member for Newington had rather unduly piled on the agony as to one or two matters. As an object-lesson upon this question he would like to point to what was happening on the Continent, where two great Powers who re-armed the artillery five years ago were now about to re-arm it again, one at a cost of £2,000,000. During this time the War Office had been marking time and had adopted two stopgaps, namely, the sixteen batteries of guns bought from Austria and the equipment invented by Sir George Clarke. Fortunately the English batteries, with guns firing four shots a minute, had not been pitted against the French batteries with guns firing twenty shots a minute. He had been informed that on March 5th of last year the order for the quick-firing guns was given by the War Office.
      960
      They were put in hand the following month, and in a month"s time the War Office would be in possession of fifty quick-firing guns, and in a year"s time something like 500 would have been delivered. It should not be forgotten that if the War Office had re-armed the artillery five and a half years ago they would have had to come down to the House and ask for £2,500,000 more to carry out the re-armament of the artillery a second time.
      He could not help thinking that the attack which had been made upon the short rifle was somewhat belated, because they had been in possession of it for the last two years, and they had all had ample opportunities of examining it. Although he was an old instructor in musketry he did not consider himself an expert. What he would say, however, was that the Lee-Metford could not be regarded as a good weapon, because it was unhandy and heavy and did not come up handy to the shoulder. They wanted a rifle that came up handy to the shoulder and was well balanced. The trajectory of the short rifle and the Lee-Metford was practically the same up to 800 yards. He would rather have a short rifle and a short bayonet than an ill-balanced one and a long bayonet. The Times pointed out that in consequence of the shortening of the rifle the British soldier"s bayonet would be five inches shorter than his adversary"s. Surely the resources of civilisation were not exhausted, and it was within the competence of the War Office to provide a longer bayonet if it was necessary, and he did not think it was. With regard to the shooting at Bisley that was very different to what occurred on active service. The flash fire from the muzzle they could not help, and if they had a short rifle they would have to take the disadvantages as well as the advantages.
      As to the Militia, he hoped the Secretary of State would stand to his guns in that direction, and that he would end or mend that force. He would rather that the right hon. Gentleman should mend it. After all, what was the use of a force which was short of officers, which had no staff, no guns, and no transport, and which was 50 per cent. below strength at the, present

      961
      moment? Such a force, as his hon. friend the Member for Stepney had said, was a patent fraud. The other day The Times pointed out that the Militia was the backbone of the Peninsular Army. That was so; but at that time the Militia was recruited by ballot, and he should like to know what hon. Gentleman would bring in a Bill to restore balloting for the Militia. He brought in such a Bill once, but the five hon. Members who backed it withdrew their names before he could even bring it to the Table. Whether they acted under pressure from their constituents or not he could not say. During the last year or two the criticism of the War Office had been rather too acidulated. He thought his right hon. friend the present War Minister was doing well. During the last eighteen months more had been done for the Army than had been accomplished since the time of Lord Cardwell, whom, though execrated when he was in office, he regarded as the greatest military administrator the country ever had. But it was idle to talk of Army re-organisation unless the recruits were forthcoming, and the recruiting of an Army which had to serve in the tropics was by no means an easy matter. He had heard of a regiment which lately went marching through its territorial district beating up recruits. At the end of three weeks it got only one recruit, and he had a difficulty in passing the doctor. On the following Sunday the pastor of the village in which the recruit lived asked the prayers of the congregation for their erring brother, and opened a collection to buy him out. That was an example of the difficulties which the Secretary for War had to encounter.
      MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid it was quite true, as the last speaker had said, that the Militia was weak, but everything had been done for years past to snub it, and do away with it as much as possible. The recruits had been taken out of it and put into the Army. It had been bled to strengthen the Regular Army. Militia officers had been snubbed to such an extent that there was not now the same desire, as in the old days, to join the force. It was not only in the Peninsular War that the Militia rendered good service; it also did a good deal in the late South African
      962
      War, and we should have been in very great difficulty if we had not been able to send these men out there. The Militia was ready to be used at a moment"s notice whenever we wished to embody it, and it was a useful reserve in that sense. He was glad to learn from what had been said in another place that therewas a probability of the, Militia being taken a little more notice of in the future than in the past. He agreed with the suggestion that the Militia should be enlisted for foreign service in time of war. That was a view which he had repeatedly pressed on Secretaries of State for War. It would not affect the recruiting, but it would give us a valuable force, which could be used at much shorter notice than at the present moment. There was one thing which he hoped would be avoided, and that was the destruction of the Militia by trying to improve it by the imposition of conditions which could not be fulfilled. It might not be so good as we should like to have it, but it was to a certain extent a voluntary force, and we could not expect to get from its members what could be exacted from men who gave their whole time to the Army, and who got regular pay all the year round. It should also be remembered that Militia officers did not go into that force for a career. They sacrificed a certain amount of their time, and he hoped the proposal that they should be a year with the Regular battalion would be done away with. If that were to be put in force he was quite sure the deficiency of officers would be greatly increased. By all means give every possible opportunity to the officer to serve two or three months during the, period of his Militia engagement, but do not force him to go for a year at a time when, if he was not going into the Army, he would be at business or finishing his education. If they wished the local squires and men who could spare a certain amount of time, to become officers they must not be asked to give up that time from the careers on which they had entered.
      There was some sort of new scheme and some of them in the House wanted to know where it was tending. He understood that the scheme put forward by the right hon. Gentleman last year was to be modified on certain points, beginning

      963
      with the gradual abolition of the small depôts, which were expensive and inefficient. A large factor in any scheme at the present moment must be a considerable curtailment of expenditure on the Army Votes, and he was quite willing to see the Votes for his own favourite hobby cut down to secure economy. Unless economy was immediately introduced, even if necessary by the reduction of numbers, the demand in the country for economy would become so great that they would be obliged to cut down the Army to the non-efficient point. There was one part of the Army, and that the most expensive, on which economy could be directly exercised. He meant the staff and the Organisation Department of the War Office. The staff went on increasing in numbers under the new system, and yet these highly-paid higher officers were not compelled to become more efficient. The example of foreign nations on this point should be followed. There should be fewer general officers, colonels, and higher-grade staff officers, and they should insist that those retained should be more efficient, even if they were granted higher pay. The promotion of officers from the lower ranks should not be carried on simply to increase the flow of promotion, and only those should be promoted to higher ranks who were efficient.
      Several questions had been raised as to the new guns. France had the best guns in Europe at the present time, but it was said that by the delay in the provision of new guns our Army would get a better weapon. If that argument were to prevail the old Waterloo guns might still have been in use. There would have been a great saving in life and expenditure if we had had proper guns in the South African War instead of obsolete ones. During the last seven years it had been pressed over and over again on the War Office that our artillery was obsolete, and nothing should be allowed to stop the re-armament of our artillery in the shortest possible time. With regard to the new rifle, it was by no means true that the present weapon was obsolete, yet the War Office had plunged into an expenditure of £3,000,000 on a new rifle, to which certainly half the expert opinion was opposed.
      964
      He begged the War Office to wait before they spent this large sum on a rifle which was not accepted as an improvement on the one we had already by any large majority of expert opinion. Certain things, such as fouling and heating, could not be proved by the ordinary tests. But the increased flash and the detention of the bullet by the extra rifling showed that the short rifle would foul and get hot. He deprecated very much such an expenditure on a rifle which had not been proved to be absolutely necessary. But one thing had escaped the War Office; they were not in touch with the Auxiliary Forces. They did not understand them. He knew the present Secretary for War did understand them, but most people at the War Office were entirely ignorant of the Volunteer and the Militia systems and the way in which they were worked. It was quite true that some of the new officials put into the office did understand these forces, but they were in subordinate positions, and the War office as a whole should study more than hitherto the efficiency of these forces in the field.
      And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening"s Sitting.

    EVENING SITTING.
      The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

      ADJOURNMENT (UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 10).
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: Mr. Speaker, at Question time this afternoon, when the subject of the appointment of Sir Antony MacDonnell and the conditions under which he held that appointment came up for consideration, I used the expression, in speaking of the Government, that in my opinion they should tell the truth about this matter at once. You, Mr. Speaker—as I readily admit—most properly called me to order for that expression, because it

      965
      might have conveyed the impression that I thought that in the answers given by the Government they were actually stating what was untrue. I did not intend to convey that impression and apologised for my mistake. What I did intend to convey was that the Government was not telling the whole truth, and I desired to press on them that, in a matter of this supreme importance, they were hound to take the House into their confidence and to tell the whole truth. The conditions on which Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed, the conditions on which he has held the office of Under-Secretary up to this moment, and the conditions on which he is to hold it from this time on are in doubt and uncertainty, and this is a matter of such supreme importance that I venture to suggest to the House of Commons that it is its duty to probe it to the bottom and to learn the whole truth. This is an important question from many points of view. First of all, it is important because of the gravity of the matter at issue, and secondly, because of the character and position of Sir Antony MacDonnell himself. The position which this distinguished Civil servant holds in Ireland is one which had its origin a long time ago. I believe the creation of the appointment was in 1777, that is before the Union, and the appointment is one which I think I can easily show has been held almost ever since by men who were not mere Civil Service clerks, but men who were politicians, and who had given to them the power and privilege of making suggestions not merely as to administration but as to policy. I remember that in the year 1902 my hon. and learned friend the Member for Donegal asked a Question of the present Chief Secretary as to the character of the office of Under-Secretary, and the right hon. Gentleman said in reply that the Under-Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant was the permanent representative of the Executive Government in Ireland. That answer precludes the idea altogether that the Under-Secretary is a mere Civil Service clerk without any right of suggestion or initiative as to policy. I will not allude to-night to the appointment of Mr. Thomas Drummond further than to say in passing that of course that was not
      966
      the appointment of an ordinary Civil servant. Mr. Drummond went to Ireland to initiate and carry out a policy, but I will come down to more recent times. What about Sir Robert Hamilton? Undoubtedly, when Under-Secretary he initiated a policy and exercised the widest possible powers. What about Sir Redvers Buller? He was appointed Under-Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland by a Conservative Government, and in the evidence he gave before a Royal Commission, evidence given, I believe, while he actually held the office—
      MR. LONSDALE: What did he initiate?
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: I hope the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to allow me to develop my argument in my own way, and I hope when I have finished the House will be delighted and entranced, as it always is, by his reply. Sir Redvers Buller gave evidence before a Royal Commission in which he did suggest a policy and did propose to take a certain initiative with reference to the action of the Government in relation to landlords and the land question. Then what about Sir West Ridgeway? He also was appointed by a Conservative Government, and I hope I may be allowed to quote from a recent declaration of his showing the powers he possessed while in the office of Under-Secretary, and how he exercised them. In explaining the other day in The Times newspaper his adhesion to the Reform Association of Lord Dunraven he used these words—
      "My views and opinions are not of recent birth; they were conceived during the period of my service as Under-Secretary for Ireland, and were embodied in a Memorandum written in 1889."
      So Sir West Ridgeway was not a mere Civil Service clerk; he was a man with sufficiently wide powers to entitle him to prepare a Memorandum suggesting a fundamental change of policy on the part of the governors of the country. He goes on to say—
      "In that Memorandum I advocated the concession of a liberal measure of local government in provincial as well as county councils, the administration of the education grant and other funds raised for that purpose by a local body at least partially-elected—"

      967
      Why, I thought that was one of the two proposals in Lord Dunraven"s reform programme which had excited the ire of the Chief Secretary. The letter goes on—
      "decentralisation of finance, the reorganisation of Dublin Castle, and especially the abolition of that chaotic anachronism, administration by semi-independent boards, whereby three men do the work of one. The policy of extreme Unionism in Ireland is purely negative; that policy is to stand still and do nothing, Ireland is to rest and be thankful. While the rest of Europe progresses and develops, Ireland is to be stationary, to remain stagnant, and, if in the course of nature unhealthy ferment follows, it is to be corrected by the antiseptic of coercion."
      Could one conceive a more direct exercise of initiative and a suggestion of policy on the part of an Under-Secretary? That is the experience of the powers exercised by gentlemen occupying this position in the immediate past.
      I now come to the position of Sir Antony MacDonnell. We have had a certain account given by Lord Lansdowne and by the Chief Secretary as to the particular terms on which Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed. These conditions are contained in certain letters. We demand the production of those letters. There is a Rule of this House that any Minister who quotes a document in support of his position is bound to produce that document, and when we asked the Chief Secretary to obey that Rule his answer was that he did not quote the document. Now I will show that he did quote the document, and I submit respectfully to him and to the House of Commons that he is bound to produce that document, and that until he does produce it it is inevitable that there will be dissatisfaction and probably great misapprehension in the public mind on this question. I hope I may be allowed to make a quotation from the speech the right hon. Gentleman made the other night on this subject. He said—
      "I could not invite such a man as Sir Antony MacDonnell, with such a record, to come and help me as a mere clerical assistant, and, apart altogether from anything that specifically passed between us, if it was proper to make such an appointment—and I hold it was proper—it was impossible to make it without accepting Sir Antony MacDonnell as he was, as a man sworn of the Privy Council the same day as I was myself. Do you suppose that a Minister
      968
      could invite a man who had rendered greater service to the country than he could ever hope to render to sit on an office stool and merely to register the papers that came into the office?"
      Then he goes on to say—
      "We embodied in our letters the conversation in which we had been engaged. These letters made it perfectly plain and clear that Sir Antony MacDonnell was invited by me rather as a colleague than as a mere Under-Secretary to register my will. I was glad to have his advice, to welcome his suggestions, and it was made clear, subject of course to my control, that he was to enjoy a certain freedom of administrative action. I made it clear to Sir Antony MacDonnell. Those letters are extant—they are in Sir Antony MacDonnell"s possession—and they show that no such problem was contemplated by him at the time of his appointment, as he suggested to Lord Dunraven."
      Will the right hon. Gentleman get up and seriously suggest that that is not a quotation from a document? In defence of his position he brought forward these letters, and said the letters would show that Sir Antony MacDonnell was precluded from considering this particular question, about which it was said his conduct was indefensible. I submit that if ever a document was quoted in support of a Minister this document was, and I say it is a mere subterfuge, and a most unworthy one for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is exempt from the duty of pro-during the document because he did not quote the exact words. I call for the production of the document. Is there anything in the document of which the Government is ashamed? Is there anything in it inconsistent with the case they have been trying to make in their own support? If there is not, why is it not produced? If there is, was a more discreditable performance ever made by a Minister of the Crown than the assertion that he was not bound to produce it on the technical ground that he did not quote the exact words? The right hon. Gentleman went on to make further reference to these letters, and he said that among the subjects which these letters would show that Sir Antony MacDonnell was entitled to discuss with, various people in Ireland was this—co-ordination, direction, and control of the detached boards in Ireland.
      "Co-ordination or co-relation … does not suggest to me, and never will suggest to me, the introduction of another board which is to be of an elective character."

      969
      and he went on at the end of the reference to say in his speech that these proposals—let the House mark this—these two proposals of Lord Dunraven that there should be devolution of certain powers of this House to a body in Ireland, and that there should be a partially-elected board to deal with Irish finance had not been before him. I assert that the charge which is made against the right hon. Gentleman is not that these actual proposals, in the detail with which they were put before the country in Lord Dunraven's second pronouncement, were before the Government. That is not the charge I make. The charge I make is that the substance of these proposals were before the Government. So far as Sir Antony MacDonnell was concerned, judging by the statements made by Lord Dunraven in the House of Lords, and judging by what we think we know of Sir Antony MacDonnell's opinions, these exact proposals in the precise words in which they were put forward would not represent Sir Antony MacDonnell's view of the proper settlement of the Irish question at all. These proposals were put forward not by him, but by Lord Dunraven and his association on their own responsibility, and the responsibility for them is not the responsibility of Sir Antony MacDonnell, but the responsibility of Lord Dunraven and the Reform Association. The charge is that general powers to confer and discuss on similar subjects to these were conferred on Sir Antony MacDonnell, the charge is that Sir Antony MacDonnell, under the terms of his appointment, had power to consult not merely with Lord Dunraven but with anybody he chose in Ireland upon practically all questions, including specifically the question of local government in the country. He had, on the authority of Lord Lansdowne to discuss what was called the co-ordination of the various forty-one boards of which the Government of Ireland consists. He had, according to Lord Lansdowne, full authority to confer with anyone he liked in Ireland on the question of what Lord Lansdowne called improvement in the antiquated and complicated system of government by Dublin Castle. The Chief Secretary knew all about these discussions that Sir Antony MacDonnell was conducting. He has told us that
      970
      last August he went on Ins holiday and that he did not pay particular attention to the first pronouncement of the Reform Association. The Association issued its first report on August 30th. I do not know when the right hon. Gentleman went on his holiday. Upon what date did he go? When he went did not he know that he was leaving Sir Antony MacDonnell behind to continue these conferences with Lord Dunraven?
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must remember that this matter was discussed at great length for two days, and the hon. Member is only entitled to discuss the definite matter on the Paper. He is not entitled to go into the question as to what the action of Sir Antony MacDonnell was, nor how far Lord Dudley or the Chief Secretary knew about it. The question is what are the terms on which he is employed.
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: I quite understand, Mr. Speaker, and you will find that I am not in the slightest degree transgressing your ruling. I moved the adjournment for the purpose of calling I attention to the present conditions on which Sir Antony MacDonnell holds his appointment, and I submit respectfully that I am entitled to consider the conditions on which he has held the appointment up to the present, and then to go on to ask whether those conditions have now been changed.
      MR. SPEAKER: What are the present conditions? As I understand, this Motion was based on an Answer given that certain fresh instructions had been given since this matter was first raised in the House, and it was on that really that leave to move was given. Of course quite agree that involves what are the terms as a whole on which he now holds it. The hon. Member appears to me to be going beyond that, and re-opening the whole discussion as to how far the Government was to blame for the attitude they have taken during the last few weeks towards Sir Antony MacDonnell. That is not the point.
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: In order
      to arrive at some understanding of what are the precise terms, I must include

      971
      what the terms were on which he was appointed, and then go on to ask how those terms have been varied, but I will bear in mind the suggestion that you have made. You will find that I will not in any sense depart from it.
      MR. SPEAKER: I will leave it to the hon. Member, who, I believe, always endeavours to follow any suggestion from the Chair, but it appeared to me that he was going beyond the terms of the Motion.
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: I will endeavour not to do so. We are in this difficulty about these terms and conditions, that the right hon. Gentleman has not produced the document, and we are trying to ascertain what were the conditions on which Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed, with the object of asking how far they have now been varied. We have really to grope about to ascertain what the conditions really were. The right hon. Gentleman has said that Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed on conditions which did enable him to discuss questions of local government in Ireland, the question of co-ordination of Irish public boards, and the question of a large improvement in the antiquated system of Dublin Castle, but he has said these terms and conditions did not justify him in having anything to do with these specific proposals, namely, devolution and the creation of a financial board. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question. I want to ask him whether, in the first place, he knew, and of course the answer is obvious, that Sir Antony MacDonnell was conferring with Lord Dunraven on this question? Secondly, I want to ask him, whether the first report of the Reform Association, published on August 30th, contained anything which in his mind led him to believe that Sir Antony MacDonnell had violated the conditions of his appointment? It is only thus that we are able to arrive at an understanding of what the conditions were. That report for August 30th contains this paragraph—
      "We consider this devolution would be beneficial to Ireland, and would relieve the Imperial Parliament"—
      972
      that cannot mean private business—
      "Of a mass of business with which it cannot now deal satisfactorily."
      That is point number one, devolution. Point two—
      "The decentralisation or localisation of finance without sacrificing the element of control of Parliament."
      That is point number two, financial control. My point is that the report was issued on August 30th. The Chief Secretary knew that Sir Antony MacDonnell was conferring with Lord Dunraven and other people on this question. He saw in this report of August 30th the result of this conference, and he remained silent for a month. He has told us that he rushed into print in The Times newspaper after September 26th because the second publication of the Reform Association contained these two points which, he said, were quite new to him. He said he had not heard of them at all, but they were in the first report a month before. No one connected with Irish political life will grudge him a holiday. Some of us wish that we had been able to take a similar holiday ourselves. But he said—
      "At the end of last session I defended Sir Antony MacDonnell, and I am prepared to defend him again. I went on a holiday and tried to make it as complete as possible. I paid no heed to newspapers and neglected correspondence. The Irish Reform Association came into being without startling me."
      That is, the first publication of the Reform Association, containing these two proposals specifically, did not startle the right hon. Gentleman—
      "But in the second manifesto, published on September 26th, everyone read into the Reform Association all kinds of designs that I had not discovered in it in the very cursory perusal of the report of the first meeting."
      I am not going to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is saying anything that is not absolutely true. But I do say that if he read the report of the first meeting which I read to the House, even in the most cursory way, he must have seen those two proposals—devolution and a financial council. He goes on to say—
      "The first report issued by the association made no impression on my mind."
      Well, I have read the words of the report—devolution and a financial council—He added—
      "It made very little impression on the minds of other people."

      973
      There"s the rub. It made no impression on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman because his mind was prepared for it. It made no impression on the mind of the public in Ireland. Therefore, he held his peace—
      "I did not read it at the time," he said, "but the Irish Times, a Unionist organ,"—
      apparently he has the Irish Times sent after him on his holiday wherever he goes—
      "seems to have read this report more care-fully than I did, and even it was not startled or alarmed."—
      At devolution or the financial council.
      "This newspaper pointed out that the proposals were very vague. If I had been in Dublin I should not have thought it my duty to dash into print and to say that these gentlemen were wrong."
      That is to say, if he had been in Dublin attending to his business he would not have felt it his duty to rush into print and declare that the proposal of devolution from this House and the creation of a partly-elected financial council was wrong. Let me dwell for a moment on the account Lord Lansdowne has given of the terms and conditions of Sir Antony MacDonnell"s appointment. He says—
      "I suggest to your Lordships that it follows almost us a matter of course that a man of that kind and those antecedents could scarcely lie bound by the same narrow rules of routine which are applicable to an ordinary member of the civil Service, and I answer the noble Marquess"s question by telling him that it was understood on both sides that he was to have greater freedom of action and Dealer opportunities of initiative than he would have expected if he had been promoted in the ordinary way. It was also understood between Sir Antony MacDonnell and the Chief Secretary that there were certain subjects to which their efforts were to be addressed, and which they hail reasonable hope and expectation of being able to deal with should they remain in office, and amongst those subjects was the co-ordination of the many detached and semi-detached boards into which the government of Ireland is at present sub-divided. Any one who has studied that question is aware that, there is room for considerable improvement in that old-fashioned and complicated organisation."
      That is to say, one of the subjects which the Government hoped to deal with, if they remained in office, and which Sir Antony MacDonnell was specifically authorised to discuss with various people, was practically the aboli-
      974
      tion of the present system of government of Dublin Castle and the substitution for it of some other entirely new system.
      "I think I ought to explain," he says, "that I say this to your Lordships with the knowledge and concurrence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland."
      In these circumstances Sir Antony MacDonnell was justified in assuming that he had a certain scope of action. He certainly acted upon that assumption, and with the full knowledge and approval of the Chief Secretary.
      "It was with the Chief Secretary"s approval that Sir Antony MacDonnell made himself accessible to persons of all kinds and descriptions; and I maintain that in endeavouring to arrive at that result, and in endeavouring to break down the barrier which has so long and too often divided Dublin Castle from the rest of the country, my right hon. colleague."
      —that is Sir Antony MacDonnell—
      "was taking a step in the right direction, and one for which he deserved the greatest possible praise. I have no doubt," continued Lord Lansdowne. "that he called to mind the understanding upon which he took office in 1902. I have no doubt he called to mind conversations and consultations with the noble Earl and the Chief Secretary, recollecting that the subject of local government was one that they had to discuss and examine together. I say, therefore, that it appears to me that Sir Antouy MacDonnell might well feel himself able to take part in the symposium with a perfectly clear conscience."
      Lord Lansdowne subsequently read a letter from the Viceroy of Ireland, which reflects the greatest honour upon his straightforwardness and his courage, in which he said he was aware that Sir Antony MacDonnell was helping Lord Dunraven, and that he discussed the reforms suggested in the noble Earl's scheme on several occasions with the Under-Secretary. He adds that he does not think that Sir Antony MacDonnell was exceeding his functions, because in the first place he knew that under the terms of his appointment—Where are those terms? This is a very serious matter. Here is the representative of the Sovereign in Ireland, the Viceroy, declaring that in his opinion, under the terms of that appointment, Sir Antony MacDonnell was justified. The Chief Secretary says that his conduct was indefensible; and because there is this difference between the Chief Secretary and the Viceroy, the House of

      975
      Commons, forsooth, is to be denied the production of the documents.
      "Because," he says, "in the first place he knew that under the terms of his appoint merit his position differed from that of an ordinary Under-Secretary, and, secondly, he knew that on two previous occasions, the Land Conference and the University question. Sir Antony MacDonnell had been in close communication with Lord Dunraven."
      Surely this places the House of Commons in an extraordinary position. We have a direct conflict of testimony as to the terms and conditions on which Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed, the Viceroy stating one thing and the Chief Secretary another, the Chief Secretary quoting by paraphrase the letters containing those terms and declining to produce them for the inspection of the House of Commons and the country. This cannot be tolerated. As I stated earlier in the day the whole truth will have to come out, and nothing but discredit will attach to the Minister who, declining to produce the whole truth at first, has it dragged from him piecemeal. The charge that I make against the Government is this: That the nature and terms of Sir Antony MacDonnell"s appointment covered, as the Viceroy has solemnly declared they covered, discussions upon questions such as this. I charge the Chief Secretary that he knew the subjects upon which Lord Dunraven and Sir Antony MacDonnell were conferring. I say that those subjects were specifically stated on August 30th in the terms that I read to the House, that they were stated to be devolution and a financial council, and I do not care in what part of the earth the right hon. Gentleman was hiding himself during his holiday [Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—I will withdraw that at once; I assure the House I meant nothing offensive by that phrase. I assure the House that I quite realise that the right hon. Gentleman was, in taking his holiday, anxious to get away as far as he could from politics; and it was only in that sense that I used the word "hiding"—and I do not blame him if he was. No matter on what part of the earth he was endeavouring to take his holiday free from bother and anxiety about Irish politics, it was impossible for him not to have seen some British newspapers or to have had some information as to the first pronouncement of the Reform Association. He has himself admitted,
      976
      though he did not see it in full, apparently, he was aware of its substance. He has admitted that he had seen, in the Irish Times, a statement on this subject. He must, therefore, have known either a whole month, even if he did not know, as I believe he did, beforehand, that Sir Antony MacDonnell and Lord Dunraven were discussing amongst themselves the question of evolution, and some sort of a partially-elected financial council for Ireland. I, therefore, come to this decision: the Viceroy knew about these conferences, and believed that they were within the scope of Sir Antony MacDoimcll"s powers. The Chief Secretary admits that he knew in substance what these proposals were, and also that for one month, from August 30th to September 26th, he never made any protest, never communicated with Sir Antony MacDonnell on the subject. What would have been more natural, if Sir Antony MacDonnell had really exceeded his powers, than for the Chief Secretary to have communicated with him; from the most distant quarter of the world he might have written him to say that he was startled with the result of his conference with Lord Dunraven, and hoped he would go no further, and that he did not approve of the length he had gone? But he did nothing until September 26th. He did it then, after the Orange section in Ireland had raised a loud cry against the proposals of the Reform Association, and after The Times newspaper had published a leading article demanding from the Chief Secretary a repudiation. I am not so sure that it conduces to the power or dignity of a great officer of State to be whipped to heel by The Times newspaper. I am riot sure that it consorts with the dignity of a great officer of State, having remained silent on this matter for a month, to come forward within twenty-four hours, with a repudiation in answer to a threatening and brow-beating article from the London Times calling upon him to do so. The great charge is that for one reason or another those who are in possession of the truth are withholding the truth. I think that the House of Commons and the country are entitled to have the full truth with reference to this matter. As Lord Lansdowne stated in the House

      977
      of Lords, Sir Antony MacDonnell was offered a great position in India, the position of Governor-General of Bombay. That is a position that any man living might envy. But Sir Antony MacDonnell gave up that great position, gave up his right to it in order to continue has work in Dublin Castle. Who asked him to do that work? Surely the refusal of Sir Antony MacDonnell to take up this great position, and his retention of office in Ireland, meant that at least he thought he, had the confidence and approval of the Government in Ireland. Now is it to be, supposed, if he had the slightest inkling that he had lost the confidence of the Government in Ireland, that he would have refused the Indian position? No, Sir, he possessed the confidence of the Government, and he was pressed by the Government of Ireland to give up his great career in India, and to remain in Ireland at the very time when he was engaged in conferring with Lord Dun-raven on these very schemes.
      Now, Sir, I commenced by asking for the production of the documents to show us what were the conditions of his appointment. I now ask for information as to how these conditions have been varied. Apparently, from the answer given this afternoon by the Chief Secretary, the conditions and power of the appointment have been varied. I asked whether Sir Antony MacDonnell had been asked to resign and I was told not. But a few minutes after we were told there had been some variation in his powers arid in the conditions under which he holds the appointment. So that what has happened is that the Government shrank from asking for his resignation, but they thought they could effect their purpose by degrading him from the position of colleague of the right hon. Gentleman, as the Chief Secretary himself described it, into being a mere head clerk sitting on a stool in Dublin Castle. I think the right hon. Gentleman said something this afternoon to the effect that in future Sir Antony MacDonnell would have no initiative power on any subject without consultation with the Chief Secretary; that is, on any subject which would be likely to cause discussion in Ireland or in this House. Well, if that be so, Sir Antony MacDonnell will be a very idle man. Between the gallant and
      978
      vigilant few who represent the Orange faction in this House and the numerous and vigilant gentlemen representing Nationalist interests in this House, I am afraid that not many actions in Dublin Castle will escape discussion in this House. If he is to be put on these new conditions, that is to say to do nothing, be the permanent representative of Executive Government in Ireland, it is degrading him from the position tubas held—which was not, I think, inconsistent with his great career—into the position of a mere clerk, which is inconsistent with all his past record. I ask the Government, therefore, to tell us the conditions on which Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed. I ask the Government to produce the documents. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain his own conduct, how it is that, having read on August 30th the first report of the Irish Reform Association dealing with devolution and the elective financial board, he remained silent for a month and only came out against it when a storm was raided by the Ulster Members? How can the right hon. Gentleman hold the conduct of Sir Antony MacDonnell as indefensible in view of the declaration of Lord Lansdowne, and especially in view of the, manly and honourable vindications of Sir Antony by the Viceroy of Ireland? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state specifically the whole of the variations in the conditions of Sir Antony"s appointment, and I say to him that, in my judgment, the whole of this transaction, down to the present moment, is discreditable and disreputable in the last degree and that the Government are bound in common decency to let the House of Commons and the public know the full truth in the matter.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILLformally seconded the Motion.
      THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The form of my reply is dictated by the four Questions with which the hon. Member concluded his speech. He asked me in the first place to state the conditions of the appointment of Sir Antony MacDonnell. I am perfectly prepared to read the letters which passed between

      979
      myself and Sir Antony MacDonnell at the time that he was appointed. The letters embody the gist of our conversations, in which we discussed for some time the prospect of Sir Antony MacDonnell being able and prepared to take up the post of Under-Secretary in Ireland; and those conversations, on my part, took the form of a very full exhibition to Sir Antony MacDonnell of all I thought would arise within the utmost conceivable bounds of possibility in the near future in Ireland. That is treating Sir Antony MacDonnell as a colleague but colleagues are bound by the collective opinion of all their colleagues, and it is perfectly clear—and nothing to the contrary was in my mind and in the mind of Sir Antony MacDonnell—that I could not promise to do things unless they received the sanction of my colleagues, the sanction of the Treasury, and the sanction of this House. I was not telling him what I would undertake to do; I was telling Sir Antony MacDonnell all that I thought conceivably might be done; and nothing I could say I to Sir Antony MacDonnell could enable him or confer upon him powers which I did not myself enjoy. I will now read the letters.
      "Dear Mr. Wyndhaiu—"
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What is the date?
      MR. WYNDHAM: The date is September 22nd, 1902. He writes to me, and then I write a letter expressing my views. My letter is not a solemn document, but it is the expression of opinion from one gentleman to another who are both working together. The letter is—
      "I told you that I had been offered and had accepted the nomination to a seat in the Council of India, and that it would be necessary for me to consult Lord George Hamilton, before anything was settled regarding the Irish appointment. I have now seen Lord George Hamilton, and I understand from him that there would probably be no difficulty in allowing me to retain a lien on the India Council and lending my services to the Irish Government. This procedure would be in accordance with my own wishes, and it would, I think, strengthen my position in Ireland if I go there. But if the matter, through Lord George Hamilton"s considerateness, is simplified in this direction, there still remains the difficulty to which I alluded when I saw you. I have been anxiously
      980
      thinking over the difficulty. I am an Irishman' a Roman Catholic, and a Liberal in polities. I have strong Irish sympathies. I do not see eye to eye with you in all matters of Irish administration, and I think that there is no likelihood of good coming from such a régime of coercion as The Times has recently outlined. On the other hand, from the exposition you were good enough to give me of your views, and. from the estimate I formed of your aims and objects, I find that there is a substantial measure of agreement between us. Moreover, I should be glad to do some service to Ireland. Therefore, it seems to me that the situation goes beyond the sphere of mere Party politics; and I should be willing to take office under you, provided there is some chance of my succeeding. I think there is a chance of success on this condition—that I should have adequate opportunities of influencing the policy and acts of the Irish Administration, and, subject, of course, to your control, freedom of action in executive matters. For many years in India I directed administration on the largest scale, and I know that if you send me to Ireland the opportunity of mere secretarial criticism would fall far short of the requirements of my position. If I were installed in office in Ireland my aims, broadly stated, would be—(1) the maintenance of order "[Mr. DILLON (Mayo, E.): Not by coercion.] "(2) the solution of the land question on the basis of voluntary sale; (3) where sale does not operate, the fixation of rent on some self-acting principle whereby local inquiries would be obviated; (4) the co-ordination, control, and direction of boards and other administrative agencies; (5) the settlement of the education question in the general spirit of Mr. Balfour"s views; and generally the promotion of material administrative improvement and conciliation. I am sure you will not misinterpret this letter. I am greatly attracted by the chance of doing some good for Ireland. My best friends tell me that I am deluding myself—that I shall be abused by the Orangemen as a Roman Catholic and Home Ruler and denounced by the Home Rulers as a renegade; that I shall do no good, and shall retire disgusted within the year. But I am willing to try the business under the colours and conditions I have mentioned. It is for you to decide whether the trial is worth making. In any event I shall be your debtor for having sought me in connection with a great work."
      Now I will read my reply:
      SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: Date?
      MR. WYNDHAM: Sir Antony's letter was dated September 22nd, and my reply September 25th, 1902—
      "My dear Sir Antony,
      Your letter was most welcome. I accept your offer to serve in the Irish Office with gratitude to you and confidence that your action will be for the good of your country. When Sir David Barrel resigns, I shall accordingly nominate you as his successor; and it is understood between us that I make and that you accept this appointment on the

      981
      lines and under the conditions laid down in your letter with a view to compassing the objects which you hold to be of primary importance—namely, the maintenance of order, the solution of the land question on the basis of voluntary sale, and where that proves impossible, on the basis of substituting some simple automatic system of revising rents in place of the existing costly processes of perpetual litigation; the co-ordination of the detached and semi-detached boards and departments; the settlement of education in such a way as to provide higher education in a form acceptable to the majority of the inhabitants, and administrative conciliation. To these I add—(1) Consolidation and increase of the existing grants for Irish local purposes with a view to reducing rates where they are prohibitive of enterprise; (2) if we are spared long enough, the development of transit for agricultural and other products, possibly by guarantees to railways, on the Canadian model. But this is far off. We have each of us terminated an option in the sense which I have all along desired. I ciphered the purpose of your letter to the Prime Minister and received his concurrence by telegram yesterday, and by letter this morning. It is understood that you accept a seat, on the India Council and are to be transferred when the vacancy occurs. I will ask Lord George Hamilton to see that the Press understands and insists on your great administrative achievements in India. That will prepare the public for the further move. I can only thank you once again with all my heart for coming to my assistance."
      I think that everyone will agree that that friendly letter, we having left one, another a fortnight to see whether we should suit, was not intended to be produced as a document. But the fact that letters were exchanged shows that the lines and measure of our agreement were laid down between us, and under these circumstances, as they are of a special character and of an important interest in this debate, some departure from the uniform precedent may possibly be permitted. The Prime Minister has, therefore, authorised me to read that correspondence, although it does involve a departure from uniform precedent. There is nothing in that letter of mine of which I am in the least ashamed.
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: You said that Sir Antony MacDonnell"s conduct was indefensible.
      MR. WYNDHAM: I must say two words on that letter. It may be said that I was being urged by The Times to proclaim Ireland under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, and that the
      982
      reference in my letter meant that Sir Antony MacDonnell was to come and that was not to be done. That was not so. I had in September proclaimed many counties under that Act and the maintenance of order was one of the points on which we were agreed. But was it unreasonable in 1902 to hope that administrative conciliation might become a practical policy? I do not think it was. These letters were written on September 22nd and 25th and the first public suggestion of a conference between the two Parties had been issued on September 3rd of that year, and though it excited much derision in many quarters, it also raised some sparks of hope in others. Therefore, when you are writing a document which deals not with the immediate future, but with all that is possible during a long term of years, the chance of the Government being occupied with something else besides police work is one that ought to be entertained as within the bounds of possibility. Then, Sir, loud cheers were given at the phrase "ample opportunities to influence the policy and acts of the Irish Government." Yes, but subject, of course, to the fact that I, as Minister responsible to this House, cannot divest myself of that responsibility, and that my policy must be the policy of the Cabinet, or that I must leave the Cabinet. Therefore, it must be perfectly clear that any terms which state what you hope in the process of some years to do cannot alter what is the foundation of the constitutional Government of this country. And then we have the words "co-ordination of detached and semi-detached boards and departments." Now, why do those words "co-ordination of departments" suggest to any man"s mind either of the two things to which I object and to which I very properly stated my objection? How does that phrase suggest either the creation of an elective financial board or the delegation to any board, however composed, of any legislative powers in excess of Private Bill legislation? It suggested nothing of the kind to my mind; it never has done so. And this is not the first time since I have been Chief Secretary that some phrase or word has been taken up and twisted to another purpose. I remember that when introducing the Land Bill there

      983
      were proposals made by me, or mentioned by me, with an idea of keeping a one-eighth instalment in perpetuity, and possibly bringing in local bodies. What are local bodies? They are county councils; but at that time the idea was promulgated that I was contemplating the creation of some central body indistinguishable from a national assembly. I never contemplated that. The hon. and learned Member traversed during a portion of his speech some parts of the ground which I endeavoured to cover, and, I think, covered fully the other day. I adhere to every word which I said the day before yesterday. I stated that there are two things to which I object, that I am eatitled to object to those things, and that I was right in stating my objection. You may entertain an objection and not state it, but I was right in stating my objection as I did on September 27th, because I did not wish it to be thought that I held an attitude of benevolent neutrality to these two proposals.
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: Why did you not say it a month before.
      MR. WYNDHAM: Well, if the hon. Member will take the pains to read my speech he will see why I did not state it before. I stated to the House that I saw no cause for taking the first publication of the Reform Association very much to heart. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford has misinterpreted one sentence of that speech. I did not say that I had read the Irish Times then; I said that having read the Irish Times afterwards, on looking back I found that one of the principal organs of Unionist opinion in Ireland, and an organ not too friendly to 1he Government, was not perturbed either, It is unnecessary for me to make all the points which I made the other night over again; but that unhesitating reaffirmation of my declaration that I do object to those two things, that I did object to them, and that I was entitled, and bound, in my opinion, to publish that object, I repeat to-night without any qualification of any sort or kind. Nor is there any reason why I should repeat the other part of my speech in which I explained, I know fully, and I think to the satisfaction of anyone who
      984
      accepted my account of what took place, how a misunderstanding grew up on the question of finance. But the critical and hostile comments upon the fact that I was not perturbed, as I was not, by the first publication of the Reform Association have really nothing to do with the case, because I have stated in the plainest words I can command my testimony to a belief in Sir Antony MacDonnell' s can I dour, loyalty, and integrity. Very well, there the situation stands. But, say hon. Members, then why do you announce that his conduct is indefensible? Sir, I cannot defend the publication of views which we object to, and I will not defend them, and I think that nothing I have read out in those two letters for one moment suggests that a mistake is not made if the Under-Secretary assists in the publication of those documents But the Under-Secretary wrote, as I said the other day, a letter to me in which he said that he was helping Lord Dun raven. That completely covers his good faith, and against his good faith, far from making a charge, I have specifically said that no charge could lie. But to say that in formulating that document, in drafting that document, he did not exceed the limits of what was expected, I think is going—that, I think, does constitute an action which the Government cannot defend.
      MR. JOHN MORLEY: What is the action which is indefensible?
      MR. WYNDHAM: The action which cannot be defended in my opinion is the action of formulating and publishing, ["He did not publish"]—well, formulating proposals to which the Government takes grave exception. Now I quite understand the charge which is made against me. The charge made against me is this—"If, as you told us the night before last"—and as I say now—"you had knowledge of the Act that Sir Antony MacDonnell had conferences with Lord Dunraven, if it is the fact that you were not opposed to a Moderate Party, if the misunderstanding which you trace and lay before us, made you feel that Sir Antony MacDonnell was not disloyal, uncandid, or insincere, then you had no right to be party to a document which

      985
      says his conduct is indefensible." I deny it altogether. This is a question of fact, not of argument. If I, without fully consulting my colleagues, had formulated views from which they sharply dissented they would take me to task, and if I were able to prove that my action was action taken in good faith, due to a misunderstanding of their views and which cast no reflection of any sort or kind upon my can dour or sincerity, I should accept their inability to defend my action, and should rest there. If I had seen those proposals from which I dissent and had assisted at their publication, I do not think my action in doing that could have been defended. At the same time, for the reasons which I gave the other night, and which I have given again to-night, there is no charge against Sir Antony MacDonnell of having in any way been disloyal to me or having in any word, written or said, done anything of which a man need be ashamed. There the position stands, and there I leave it. What I have to say is that I do object to these two proposals, and that no amount of arguing about the vague and obscure language of the Reform Association—
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: I read the words. The word devolution was there.
      MR. WYNDHAM: I say those words did not cause me perturbation. No amount of arguing about those words will shake my knowledge that I did object to these proposals, nor deprive me of the right to state my objection to those proposals in order that it should not be assumed that I view them with benevolent neutrality when I do not view them with benevolent neutrality.
      MR. JOHN MORLEY: It has been my fortune to speak during the last twenty years very often in Irish debates. The whirligig of time brings strange revenges. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary even now quite understands what is the gravamen of the charge, not against him particularly, but against the Government as a whole. The House have heard the correspondence. I submit with perfect confidence that every man in this House, except possibly a few gentlemen from Antrim and so forth, will
      986
      agree that this correspondence is one perfectly honourable to both parties. I cannot imagine a more straightforward, manly, clear, and definite letter than that of Sir Antony MacDonnell. I cannot, on the other hand, imagine a more frank, straightforward acceptance of such a letter than that of the Chief Secretary. We want to think about two think. First of all, what was it that made the Chief Secretary and, I presume, the Cabinet seek, not accept, but seek and accept, Sir Antony MacDonnell"s terms? Then we want to know what has happened since, which makes them, as I understand the answer given by the Chief Secretary this afternoon, now condemn Sir Antony MacDonnell, who was induced to take that post on the footing of being his colleague and not—to use, his own language, which I do not think very happy in respect of other Under-Secretaries I have had the pleasure and honour of knowing—on that of sitting on a stool in Dublin Castle. What has made the difference? I have never heard even in this House more extraordinary sophistry than that which the right hon. Gentleman has just fallen into. He says. "I dissent altogether. I will not defend the proposals of devolution made in the second Dun raven scheme." That is not the point. The point I, though he quite honourably and conscientiously cannot defend them, what is it that he finds indefensible in Sir Antony MacDonnell? He has not answered that; he has not touched it. Just let us see what it was. I advise hon. Members opposite to reflect on this. What were the terms upon which Sir Antony MacDonnell accepted office as we gather them from the letter which has been read? First Sir Antony MacDonnell said, if I heard the letter aright, that he was a Liberal in politics, that he was Irish in his sympathies—we know what that means—and then, that from their conversation he inferred that they, the Chief Secretary and Sir Antony MacDonnell, were in a substantial measure of agreement. The right hon. Gentleman accepted that. Sir Antony MacDonnell also said that he only took office on condition that he influenced policy and acts. I say frankly, as I said last night across the floor to the Prime Minister—it was he who introduced these supernatural

      987
      personages—that if the Archangel Gabriel came to me when I was about to appoint an Under-Secretary for Ireland, I should say "No. I should value your services, I am sure they would be useful to me, at least I am willing to assume that—but special terms cannot be made." But in this case you did accept Sir Antony MacDonnell's terms, whether for good reasons or bad, whether it was setting a good precedent in the Civil Service or a bad precedent. The Chief Secretary accepted the description of himself and Sir Antony MacDonnell as being in substantial agreement on policy. The right hon. Gentleman is in substantial agreement on Irish policy with the man who in that very letter says, "I am a Liberal!"
      THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): He also says he does not see eye to eye with my right hon. friend.
      MR. JOHN MORLEY: That is what is called acute dialetics, and I do not admire it. If you declare you are in substantial agreement with a man, you may still say there are some points on which you do not see eye to eye with him. ["Oh!"] Are you going to cavil on this point? When two men say, "We are in substantial agreement with one another;" when one says," I am a Liberal in politics, Irish in sympathy, I am a Roman Catholic," is it to be contended for an instant that it was not understood between them, as much by the Chief Secretary as by Sir Antony himself, that there was substantial agreement? And agreement upon what? The land question we need not say anything about, because that is settled. Sir Antony, I think, according to Lord Lansdowne's account, and also according to the Chief Secretary's, did a great and substantial service in settling that question. But then there was another question which Sir Antony MacDonnell bargained that he might have a share in settling. There was the question of what is commonly called a Catholic University for Ireland, but more scientifically called higher education in Ireland, in accordance with the spirit of the views of the Prime Minister. We have had a
      988
      good deal of trouble in other matters in getting at the Prime Minister's views, and if we are to have further mystifications of the spirit of them we may get into deep water. Is this understood by the House? I entirely agree, in spite of the views of some of my hon. friends behind me, in the enormity of your pretending to govern Ireland while no Party dare take in hand the redress of an admitted grievance. There is no man, I believe, who has ever been responsible, certainly no one in this House who has been responsible for the government of Ireland, who does not agree with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister asked us what we were going to do in some points of Irish policy. I would ask him what is he going to do about higher education in Ireland?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If you agree, why do you not do it? What are you going to do when you come into power?
      MR. JOHN MORLEY: When I am Prime Minister I will tell him. He knows very well what I would do.
      MR. SPEAKERsaid the discussion was now travelling beyond the terms of the Motion.
      MR. JOHN MORLEY: I can only point to one of the important topics which Sir Antony MacDonnell, by the terms of the agreement which are now being modified and the modification of which we are discussing—that one of those terms was the carrying out of the policy of the Prime Minister in respect to higher education in Ireland. Then we come to co-ordination; but if I were to introduce a discussion on the degree in which co-ordination is required or was involved I should be getting out of order. All we do know is from Lord Lansdowne himself, and the House ought really to give great attention to his words, because we are discussing a censure passed on an important public servant—a censure passed by the Cabinet without their having heard what Sir Antony had to say. The Chief Secretary has described his conduct as indefensible; but Lord Lansdowne, on the other hard, who knows as much of Ireland as any one,

      989
      says that the Lord-Lieutenant, who is curiously enough left out in all these discussions—I do not understand why I have always understood that though the Lord-Lieutenant was not so important a person as the Chief Secretary, who happens to he in the Cabinet, he is still a poison acting with him and the Undersecretary. Is that denied?
      MR. A. J BALFOUR; Yes, it is denied.
      MR. JOHN MORLEY: Now, there! The right hon. Gentleman denies that. An Under-secretary discussing day after day, and, for all I know, week after week with the Lord-Lieutenant is discussing with an officer whose authority in any such, matters the Prime Minister throws over and entirely denies. It is not a pleasant occupation to be a Lord-Lieutenant on the best of terms, but really, if he is to be thrown over in the House of Commons by his own Secretary—for technically, I believe, the Chief Secretary is Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant—what a picture does it present of the confusion of the Irish government? I have been amusing myself with thinking of the Phoenix Park. There is in it the Lord-Lieutenant's lodge, the Chief Secretary's lodge, and the Under-Secretary's lodge. What delightful terms they would be on! What sort of discussion can you have in Dublin Castle? How can you pretend to discuss any great administrative question when each one of these three gentlemen knows that one of them has been thrown over by the Prime Minister, and that the Under-Secretary has been thrown over and his conduct has been denounced as indefensible by the Chief Secretary? I have seen a good many Chief Secretaries in difficulties, but never a Chief Secretary in such difficulties. And it is not only the Prime Minister who throws over the Lord - Lieutenant. It is not only the Chief Secretary who is going to make the Under-secretary, whom he accepted on special terms, sit on a stool. There is the Solicitor-General for England. What language has he thought it right and consistent with his colleague-ship to use? We have all got to consider what sort of system of government will obtain in Ireland in the next month or
      990
      two? This is what the Solicitor-General said—
      "It would be unbecoming in a member of the Government to make any charge against any permanent Civil servant."
      I hope it is not disrespectful to an able Member of this House, but surely that is pure hypocrisy. He knew perfectly well what he was talking about. He said—
      "The charge was that a Civil servant had himself evolved a policy which had been disavowed by the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary."
      Not only the Under-secretary but the Viceroy, is thrown over by the Solicitor-General, the Chief Secretary, and some other members of the Government in equally unworthy and disparaging language, thus weakening the power of the Executive in a country where above all things it is desirable the power in the Executive by its own members should be upheld. I rejoice that the letters have been read. I think they make the case perfectly clear; and what remains for the Prime Minister to do, if he is going to speak in this debate, is to tell us why it is that the special terms under which Sir Antony MacDonnell was invited to accept this great office have been modified, why he has been punished, why he has been censured in the face of the House of Commons and in the face of the country for doing things which he warned them that he would do [Cries of "No"], and which they specially invited him to take office to do. ["Oh."] What is the meaning of Lord Lansdowné's language? Lord Lansdowne says what has been said in more emphatic language many years ago by the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for West Birmingham. He says the system of Dublin Castle is antiquated, complicated, and obsolete. When Lord Lansdowne says that, he admits that the system in Dublin Castle of Irish government must be changed. How can you change it? You cannot change it—and really this is at the bottom of the difference between you and us, or the people, at all events, like myself, who take a certain view of Irish affairs—you cannot break down that system which Lord Lansdowne rightly characterises, knowing Ireland and its difficulties extremely well, unless you do either what I suspect Sir Antony MacDonnell first meant to do, introduce the Indian system,

      991
      or introduce the elective principle. Probably Sir Antony MacDonnell, I should guess, thought that he could improve or amend that system by introducing the Indian system; but, of course, nobody who attempts to reform the government of Ireland can do it without appeal to the elective principle. Therefore, when we say that you have censured Sir Antony MacDonnell and regarded his conduct as indefensible because he introduced the elective principle, you have really condemned any possible scheme by which Lord Lansdowne's own object and the object of the Prime Minister and all of you can possibly be attained.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The last few sentences of the right hon. Gentleman's speech contain a singular piece of reasoning. He is a conscientious and convinced Home Ruler, and thinks, from his point of view quite rightly, that if you are to reform Dublin Castle you must reform it by introducing Home Rule and the elective element. [Cries of "No, no!"]
      MR. JOHN MORLEY: The elective principle.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought the elective principle introduced into discussions on Ireland was commonly called Home Rule by the other side. I have no wish to enter into any dispute about terminology with the right hon. Gentleman. What I want to point out is his contention that because he thinks no reform can be carried out in Dublin Castle without introducing the elective element, therefore Sir Antony MacDonnell when he expressed a desire, as he did in that letter, to make tome administrative changes must have meant to introduce the elective principle. That is entirely inaccurate. I believe that the ideas which my right hon. friend and Sir Antony MacDonnell exchanged upon the subject of the reform of the various boards in Dublin Castle were based upon the strengthening of the office of Chief Secretary—not upon introducing the elective element, but upon increasing the grasp which the Chief Secretary and his subordinate the Under-Secretary had upon the various departments which make up the complicated system of Irish
      992
      Government. And I think that is the proper way to reform Dublin Castle. But what I protest against is the inference that because Sir Antony MacDonnell desired, most rightly, that some administrative reforms should, be introduced he was committed to the principle of the elective element. They had nothing to do with the elective principle, but depended on an increased amount of centralisation and a strengthening of the grasp which the Chief Secretary's Office ought to have, over the whole administrative machinery of the country. The right hon. Gentleman says these letters have made everything clear. His own speech is conclusive proof that he, at all events, has not yet had an opportunity of fully understanding what the conclusions to be drawn from these letters are. He will be able to see them in print to-morrow, and I think on a more careful perusal he will not be indisposed to concur with the observations I now proceed to make upon them. These letters, on the very face of them, are not formal documents. As constantly happens with letters not to be seen by other eyes than those of the writer and the recipient there are phrases in them which may excite a smile when they are read out in a great assembly accustomed to deal with formal and official documents. These are not formal and not official documents; but they prove two things conclusively—in the first place, that Sir Antony MacDonnell and my right hon. friend were not in full agreement over the whole range of Irish politics, because that is stated explicitly; and they also prove that over another part of the field of Irish politics my right hon. friend and Sir Antony MacDonnell were in agreement. The character of that field in which they were in agreement is quite clearly and unequivocally stated in the letters themselves, and there is not one shadow of a suggestion in any of the subjects which they desired to discuss together and to settle if possible in their joint term of office that anything in the nature of devolution, delegation, or representation was contemplated by either one or the other. Nor was that in the nature of a formal declaration of policy on the part of the Government of which my right hon. friend was a member. That, again, is obvious on the face of these

      993
      documents, because, as the House knows, the question of higher education in Ireland is not, and, as far as I can see, never again can be a Government question. I still hope that at no distant time we may settle it; but if it is settled at all it will have to be settled as many great questions touching religion were settled in the early part of the l9th century, not as a Government question but as a question independent of the Government of the day. I am convinced that there are a large number of my hon. friends on this side who will resist firmly any attempt to carry out any plan yet suggested on this subject, and I do not believe there will be a less strenuous resistance from a body of opinion on the other side. It is possible that the House of Commons may deal with this question, not under the guidance of a Government, but as other great questions, such as Catholic Emancipation and the Divorce Bill, were settled. I only want to show that on the face of the documents these points do not constitute a Government programme. They are not subjects which either the Government or the Party to which I belong need feel themselves necessarily committed. The Chief Secretary and Sir Antony MacDonnell met and discussed what they regarded as the immediate problems of, Ireland. Having done so, they came to the conclusion that they could not agree in all things, but they did agree on some things of immediate practical importance, the greatest of all being the land purchase question, which is now part of the Constitution of Ireland.
      I come to the third point, and that is the terms on which Sir Antony MacDonnell was asked to take the office of Under-Secretary. And on that I will in the first place observe that again, on the face of the documents, it was evident that the appointment was considered both by Sir Antony MacDonnell and by my right hon, friend as a temporary and parsing appointment. The second thing evident is that my account yesterday evening of the terms on which Sir Antony MacDonnell took the appointment did not differ either morally or legally from those of the Civil Service. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, from a sentence in this letter, that Sir Antony MacDonnell is
      994
      altogether outside the category of the Civil Service, not bound by its rules, and enjoying privileges which such great public servants as Sir A. Godley and Sir G. Murray are debarred from. That is not the case. Sir Antony MacDonnell said—
      "I should be willing to take office under you provided there is some chance of my succeeding. I think there is a chance of success on this condition, that I should have adequate opportunity of influencing the policy and acts of Irish administration and, subject, of course, to your control, freedom of action in executive matters."
      It is perfectly clear from that letter what it was Sir Antony MacDonnell was afraid of and what he hoped to attain in the arrangement he came to with my right hon. friend. What he was afraid of was that he would be reduced to a position of having opportunity only of "mere secretarial criticism." That was not enough for him. He wanted something more than "mere secretarial criticism." And what was that additional privilege which he thought necessary to enable him to do that good for Ireland which was his chief ambition in taking an other wise thankless portion? Adequate opportunity of influencing the policy of the Irish Administration and, subject to the Chief Secretary's control, freedom of action in executive matters. Every great permanent head of a department has, and if the office is to work properly, ought to have, precisely those powers. I have had official experience in more than one department, and have seen the inside of some with which I have not been formally connected. In all these cases, and with regard to every one of the permanent officials at the head of them, all have had t he opportunity which Sir Antony MacDonnell rightly thought night to be given to him if he was to do any good for Ireland. Although I had not had an opportunity last right of carefully considering those letters, it is evident that the account I gave of Sir Antonv MacDonnell's position was strictly accurate. What Sir Antony MacDonnell desired to do was what all great permanent officials are—aiders, advisers, suggesters to their official chief, but always bound to follow the rulings of the Government which they serve, and always bound by those rules of the Civil Service which are the great strength of the administrative machine.

      995
      Then the right hon. Gentleman asks me why the Cabinet felt themselves constrained to inform Sir Antony MacDonnell that his conduct in a certain connection was indefensible. The, reason was that we conceived, and surely conceived rightly, that in his connection with the Dunraven scheme he had exceeded the bounds laid down by the technical rules, and what is even more important, the ordinary practice, of the Civil Service [ANATIOALIST MEMBER: What did he do?] I am not going into all the details again. They have been discussed for two nights. It may be that hon. Gentlemen opposite think that Sir Antony MacDonnell was acting within the rules of the Civil Service. We do not take that view; and we think that nothing which passed between him and the Chief Secretary when he took office, that nothing embodied in the two letters which have been read to the House, gave him the slightest authorisation to go beyond the bounds which circumscribe the action of his colleagues in other great offices of the State in this country. I quite admit that his action was due to a misapprehension. I quite admit what has been said over and over again by the Chief Secretary, that it does not carry with it the smallest or the faintest imputation upon Sir Antony MacDonnell's honour, trustworthiness, or the fidelity with which he genuinely desired to serve the Government of which, for the time being, he was servant. But the fact remains that he did act beyond his powers. I cannot help thinking that there has been a great deal of unnecessary feeling and exaggeration about the whole matter. Personal questions are always painful. It is disagreeable to me even to say the few words I have said in justification of the action of the Government. It is doubly painful to me to hear one or two speakers attack my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary in a way which I am glad to think is rare in this House. But, at all events, I hope it will be understood by every one in this House and out of it, in the first place, that when Sir Antony MacDonnell agreed to aid my right hon. friend as Under-Secretary, it was not in contemplation by either the one or the other that any scheme should be either considered or discussed which involved devolution or separate re-
      996
      presentation—[An HON. MEMBER: Coordination]—and, in the second place, that neither my right hon. friend nor the Government have for one instant hesitated to express their own profound disbelief in a scheme which, in good faith that it was in conformity with Unionist principles, has been put forward by Lord Dunraven and his friends. We do not agree with the scheme. We do not think that, in its results at all events, it is compatible with the Unionist policy. We lost no time in expressing our official condemnation of it; and, while I do not regret for one instant either the strength of that official condemnation or any of the merely political results that have flown from it, I do regret that it should be involved in a personal controversy which, I think, makes the already turbid stream of controversial politics more turbid and less wholesome still. I do not think I have anything to add in regard to the position we have taken up. The episode, which we all regret, was due to a misapprehension. Cannot we bury it in oblivion. This episode which, while it reflects discredit on nobody, gives pain to some? That tolerant and Christian-like suggestion does not meet with universal favour on the other side. But, so far as we are concerned, we have made our position clear both as to the terms on which Sir Antony MacDonnell agreed to serve us and as to the policy to which, in an unfortunate moment, he committed himself unknown to the Government of which he is the able servant.
      MR. WILLIAM MOOREhoped the House would allow him to say a few words on the matter. He and his colleagues who acted with him had to a certain extent been misrepresented—he was quite sure unintentionally. The Prime Minister had said and done nothing to which they, his followers, could take any reasonable exception. On the other hand,—he did not refer to what the Prime Minister had omitted to say. They had, however, a good deal to complain of in some of the speeches made, in which it had been suggested that the legitimate and justifiable criticism which they had directed against certain of these matters had been an unfair and violent attack. He could only say that their attack

      997
      would be repeated tonight or tomorrow if the same circumstances recurred. He was afraid they might. He accepted at once the statement of the Prime Minister that the correspondence between the Chief Secretary and Sir Antony MacDonnell, was an honourable one; it had certainly justified Sir Antony MacDonnell, in his opinion, in everything that he had done in Ireland. It had equally justified his colleagues and himself in attacking him for doing it, now that they knew that he was doing it as the co-equal of the Chief Secretary. [NATIONALIST cries of "Colleague."] It had equally justified them in the course of criticism they had taken up in Ireland and in the House. But when he stated that the correspondence was honourable as between the Chief Secretary and Sir Antony MacDonnell, he did not think that exhausted the whole field in relation to the Chief Secretary's obligation to the Unionist Members for Ireland, who were also his colleagues. How often in the past four years had they been found in different lobbies from him? Yet the Chief Secretary, without consulting them, in secrecy took to himself a gentleman to fill a subordinate position, but not as a subordinate. In the right hon. Gentleman's own word he was to be a "colleague." Sir Antony MacDonnell's powers were to be political because he frankly stated that he was a Liberal in politics. Frankly he claimed that he was to have influence in the direction of policy. The Prime Minister had said that it was obvious that the Under-Secretary could never be given initiative political powers, because the moment that was done the Under-Secretary might commit the Government to schemes of which they did not approve. After the date of Sir Antony MacDonnell's appointment as a colleague of the Chief Secretary under these terms, he was authorised by the Chief Secretary—not by the Cabinet or the Government—to go to the North of Ireland to secure political support for a scheme, to which Irish Unionists were opposed, for the endowment of a Roman Catholic University So far as Sir Antony MacDonnell could do it the Government was committed to that
      998
      policy. The Government, however, had been obliged to repudiate the transactions entered into by the Under-Secretary. However honourable this correspondence might have been it was not fair to the Unionist Members of the House and the Government itself. The whole idea in view was that in Ireland a Moderate Party was to be formed to be directed very largely against hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not complain of that. It was perfectly legitimate for a Unionist Chief Secretary to destroy by any fair means in his power the influence of hon. Members opposite; but it was not a fair thing for him to start an organisation to solicit, to procure the influence of newspapers—[A NATIONALIST MEMBR: Or to buy them up]—so as to undermine and destroy his Unionist colleagues in that House.
      MR. WYNDHAMmade a remark which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
      MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid he accepted the right hon. Gentleman's explanation that he did not intend to do that, but that only showed his ignorance of the results that were likely to follow his action in Ireland. He was glad the letters had been produced, because they justified down to the ground that wholesale distrust and suspicion which had been entertained during the last two years by the Unionist Party in Ireland. They showed that the Chief Secretary had been at the bottom of the whole thing in this desire to form a Moderate Party to carry out his own ends, and, under these circumstances, no man could deny that the suspicion which the Unionists entertained was not justified to the letter.
      MR. ASQUITH: I will not detain the House for more than two or three moments, but I think I may congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Waterford on initiating both an instructive and informing debate. The mystery surrounding the original appointment of Sir Antony MacDonnell, and

      999
      the still deeper mystery which shrouds the present status of the Under-Secretary, have not been wholly cleared up, though they have been substantially illuminated. But we have obtained one solid result from the discussion which has taken place. We have had read to us what has hitherto been denied, the correspondence which originally passed between Sir Antony MacDonnell and the Chief Secretary and which formed the basis on which the appointment was made. I want to say one or two words on the minimising comments which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has made on that correspondence. In the first place, he tells us that they were after all, informal letters, never intended to see the light of day, such as one gentleman might write to another. Yes, but the Chief Secretary informs us that they were shown to the Prime Minister. I cannot imagine, therefore, a State Paper which possesses greater authority or which is entitled to be construed with a more strict interpretation of its language. The Prime Minister goes on to say that, after all, it was to be a temporary appointment. What was it Sir Antony MacDonnell was summoned to help the Irish Government to do? To settle the land question, to settle the education question, to settle the great question of co-ordination in all it ramifications and developments. I do not think the use of the word "temporary," in the sense in which it is ordinarily employed, is at all justified in these circumstances. And here I come to the much more serious question of what was the character of the powers, functions, and duties which the Under-Secretary was to perform. The Prime Minister told us last night, and he has repeated it again to-night, that to all intents and purposes Sir Antony
      1000
      MacDonnell was to be like an ordinary member of the Civil Service, subject to the same rules, obligations, responsibilities, and limitations as members of that great service are in the habit of conforming to. Is that the fact or is it not? I have never in my Parliamentary experience known a greater discrepancy between the language of responsible Ministers on the question at issue than we have heard in this House and in another place on this particular matter. We heard the Chief Secretary, only two nights ago, tell us that he would never have thought of inviting a man of Sir Antony MacDonnell's eminence and experience to occupy a merely secretarial position. That is the way in which he described the functions of previous Under-Secretaries at Dublin Castle. He was not to be a subordinate, not to be a servant, but a colleague. Is that the position of any of the great permanent heads of departments in any part of the Civil Service of the State? Lord Lansdowne—who, after all, is the Leader of the other House, who is, as my right hon. friend said, very conversant with Irish affairs, and who, moreover, according to his own statement, was the person who brought about the introduction of Sir Antony MacDonnell to the Chief Secretary—used language which, in view of what the Prime Minister has said to-night, I must quote. He stated—
      "I suggest to your Lordships that it follows as a matter of course that a man of that kind, a man of those antecedents, could scarcely be expected to be bound by the same narrow rules of routine which are applicable to an ordinary member of the Civil Service, and answer the noble Marquess's question by telling him that when he took up this appointment it was understood on both sides"—not only on his own side, but on the side of those who appointed him—"that he was to have greater freedom of action, greater opportunities of initiative, than he would have expected if he had been a candidate promoted in the ordinary course."

      1001
      I say there is an absolute divergence between the language of the Leader of the other House and the language of the Leader of this House as to what were the terms of Sir Antony MacDonnell's appointment. We must all form our own judgment in this conflict of testimony; and, as we have the letters which passed between Sir Antony Macdonnell and the Chief Secretary, which, we now know, were sanctioned by the Prime Minister, I do not hesitate to give my vote in favour of the version of Lord Lansdowne. And if Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed upon special terms, what was the nature of the "indefensible" error which he committed in associating himself with the conference which led to the formation and promulgation of Lord Dunraven's scheme? It may be an error, of course, not to agree with the Chief Secretary as to the precise difference between co-ordination and devolution, as to the mysterious and dim boundary between those two spheres of possible legislation. Not to agree with the Chief Secretary about that may be a symptom of uninstructed or, at all events, undeveloped intelligence. But I am bound to say in that respect the state of Sir Antony MacDonnell's mind appears to me to be shared, as far as I can judge, by the vast majority of Irish people, without distinction of class, Party, creed, or school—they do not, and the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken does not, know where co-ordination ends and where devolution begins. Maybe it was an error; very likely it was. But it was described in this House by the mouthpiece of the Cabinet, in the censure of a distinguished public servant, not merely as an error, but as an indefensible error. What does that mean? The term
      1002
      "indefensible" used in such circumstances as these is not appropriate language in which to describe a mere intellectual delinquency; if language has any meaning at all it conveys a moral blame, or, at any rate, to put it at the lowest, it must mean that the great official against whom such a charge is levelled in the name of the Cabinet of this country has seriously transgressed the rules, written or unwritten, of official propriety. What has Sir Antony MacDonnell done to merit that censure? If he entered upon his office upon the terms of the letters read to-night, if he was free, as Lord Lansdowne and the Chief Secretary have said, from the fetters which bind the action of Civil servants, what was there, even if he went beyond what the Chief Secretary and the Government think to be desirable or expedient in regard to Irish government—what was there indefensible in his entering, as he had done on the land question and the education question, into free conference and even friendly co-operation with persons who were endeavouring to solve the question of Irish government?
      The Prime Minister passes by the Viceroy as if he were a mere fly upon the wheel of the administrative coach. We know perfectly well, and no one can dispute it, that the Viceroy, who is the representative of His Majesty, was privy to these proceedings, was cognisant of them, and, as we know, was sympathetic towards them. At any rate, Sir Antony MacDonnell had the right to assume that whatever he was doing was being done with the assent of the representative of His Majesty I ask this question, not because it affects the character and reputation of Sir Antony MacDonnell, whose reputation needs no

      1003
      defence here or elsewhere, but because it does affect the course of public business and the responsibility of Governments in this country when, under conditions such as these, an official, for whom still the greatest respect and confidence is expressed, and who is even now retained in the public service, is publicly censured in the eyes of the whole world for doing something which it now appears was within the terms of his original appointment. [Cheers, and MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] I say it was in the terms of his appointment, and was certainly done—this is not denied—with the cognisance and approval of the Viceroy.
      There is one other point, and one which the Prime Minister absolutely ignored in his speech. What is the change that has been made in the status, and the functions, and the authority of Sir Antony MacDonnell in consequence of this "indefensible" error? Is there any change? Are the letters which have been read to the House to-night still to be regarded as containing the basis and expressing the terms upon which he continues to be employed by His Majesty's Government? If they are not, if they have been modified in any particular, if he has been reduced from the position which Lord Lansdowne and the Chief Secretary described to the status of an ordinary Civil servant, then not only he, but this House, is entitled to know what are the terms in which that communication has been made and what are their scope and effect. We are still in the same state of ignorance as we were when the debate began as to the present position of Sir Antony MacDonnell, and upon this we require information, for it is an important question upon both personal and general grounds. I hope the Motion will be pressed to a division.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he rather hesitated to get up because he had hoped that some member of the Government would have risen to answer the last Question put by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He would press that Question home. What was the exact position of Sir Antony MacDonnell? Was he still in the position of an Under-Secretary in the terms of the contract between him and the Government, or was he not? Had he been degraded in position and status? Of course, he could not be degraded in personal character; that was beyond the power of the Government or of anybody else. But so far as they could degrade him the Government had done so. They had allowed the Solicitor-General for England, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General for Ireland and their supporters to condemn Sir Antony MacDonnell, and had instigated their Press to conduct a campaign of calumny against him.
      THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL,): Will the hon. Gentleman pardon me? He said that I conducted the campaign of calumny against Sir Antony MacDonnell. I spoke on several occasions in public and denounced the Dunraven scheme of devolution on its merits, but never once referred, directly or indirectly, to Sir Antony MacDonnell.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he received with the same cordial welcome as hon. Gentlemen opposite the denial of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and for this reason, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had placed himself in

      1005
      such marked and honourable contrast to the Attorney-General for Ireland. Knowing what he did of the character of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he must say that he was not surprised that his conduct was in such marked and honourable contract to that of his colleague. However, for months a dead set had been made against Sir Antony MacDonnell until it reached a climax in the speech of the Solicitor-General for England, and during that time not a member of the Government had revealed the fact, which that night was known for the first time, that Sir Antony MacDonnell had taken his position under a contract to do the very thing for which he was denounced. Well, those letters read that night were described with epithets by hon. Gentlemen opposite which he would not repeat. Of course they were all hon. Members in these transactions, including the colleagues of Sir Antony MacDonnell, who denounced him, but had not the courage to mention his name! The letters were astounding. He would take one part from the letter of the Chief Secretary to Sir Antony MacDonnell—
      "I ciphered the purport of your letter to the Prime Minister, and received his concurrence by telegram yesterday."
      The letter was sent by telegram in cipher! He would like to know whether Sir Antony MacDonnell's letter was also ciphered to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether the Question is addressed to me; but it was not.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he wanted to know for this reason, that they had a member of the Cabinet, the Chief Secretary, and the Prime Minister entering
      1006
      into a campaign in Ireland for a Catholic University, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was kept in the dark about it! Nay, more, Sir Antony MacDonnell was sent on this mission to Belfast, was actually trying to create a campaign there in concert with, and with the knowledge of the Chief Secretary and the Prime Minister, yet without the knowledge and sympathy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. Sir Antony MacDonnell went to West Belfast to conduct a campaign in favour of a Catholic University, while at the same time the hon. Member for West Belfast was calling on his constituency to have no transactions with the "Scarlet Lady!" That was a new theory and practice of Cabinet responsibility, a new theory of Cabinet loyalty. Might he ask if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast was informed of Sir Antony MacDonnell's letter, because at the very moment when this campaign was being conducted with the knowledge and approval of the Chief Secretary and the First Lord, the right hon. Member for West Belfast, with the delicacy and elegance and toleration of language characteristic of him, and of him alone in that House, declared that rather than allow his children to be educated by a Catholic priest he would sooner allow them to run wild in the woods. Now the First Lord affected to believe that Sir Antony MacDonnell was simply in the position of any other great Civil servant. Why, then, did Lord Lansdowne say that a man of Sir Antony MacDonnell's antecedents could scarcely be expected to be bound by the same narrow rules of routine applicable to an ordinary member of the Civil Service?

      1007
      Why did Sir Antony MacDonnell write that candid, frank, and full letter of the conditions under which he would accept the position of Under-Secretary? Why did the Chief Secretary write to Sir Antony MacDonnell that he accepted his offer to take the position of Under-Secretary on the conditions set forth? There was a contract as solemn and as honourable as any that could be made between two men. The right hon. Gentleman, it must be kept in mind, knew very well that Sir Antony MacDonnell was a Liberal and was Irish in sympathy. That necessarily meant that he was in favour of Home Rule. Did the right hon. Gentleman, who shook his head, really mean to suggest that Sir Antony MacDonnell was not in sympathy with the views of the Nationalist Party? And if he knew that how was he able to place these two things in juxtaposition—that while he was in substantial agreement with Sir Antony MacDonnell, the Home Ruler, who proceeded to the verge of devolution, he applied to that gentleman as gross and cowardly an insult as ever had been applied to a man in a public position. He used the word "cowardly," because the Government had not said a word about any change made in Sir Antony MacDonnell's position. The Prime Minister had been asked that afternoon if there had been any change in Sir Antony MacDonnell's position, and he said that there had not. The Chief Secretary said that when Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed he had been a Cabinet Minister only a fortnight, but the Prime Minister, who was a party to the appointment, had been in the Cabinet for a great deal more than a fortnight. The Chief Secretary went on
      1008
      to say that he had pointed out to Sir Antony MacDonnell that—
      "In view of the criticisms to which my Department has been subjected during the last two or three weeks—"
      Mark the reason—
      "it is necessary for me to see any matter that is likely to be the subject of debate in this House."
      The House was acquainted with the large range of subjects covered by the Questions put to the right hon. Gentleman by his hon. friends around him—the mail delivery in a village, a small affray with the police, re-appointment of an inspector under one of the boards in Ireland. There was not a question in Ireland, large or small, to which this description of the Chief Secretary did not apply, and it was monstrous to contend in the face of that that the position of Sir Antony MacDonnell had not been degraded and narrowed from that which he occupied when he took up his appointment What was the meaning of all this? It was that the Government wanted to get rid of Sir Antony MacDonnell. And for what reason? In consequence of the criticism to which the Chief Secretary"s department had been subjected. Was there ever a more miserable reason given why a Cabinet Minister should abandon either his policy or his subordinate? He had never read a more mean confession of faith. The Government were going to abandon a great public servant, simply because someone on their own side of the House and in the public newspapers, had criticised the Chief Secretary's department. He confessed he had gathered new light on his profession from the letters read that afternoon. The newspapers were to be told to write articles insisting on the great administrative

      1009
      achievements of Sir Antony MacDonnell in India, and in that way public opinion was to be ripened and matured for a new departure in Irish politics, a new departure to be inaugurated by a gentleman who, according to the Prime Minister, had only accepted pub in office in Ireland on the usual conditions! He maintained that these were new methods to him and a new departure in journalism. He thought the right hon. Gentleman must have been reading the memoirs of Bismarck, who, when he wanted to make a change in his policy, always sent an article to the newspapers. Now, however, when they wanted to get rid of Sir Antony MacDonnell, the Press was prepared to denounce and abuse the same man which they had formerly lauded, and who was worth all the men on the Treasury Benches for the services he had rendered to the Empire. He did not mean to enlarge on the services of Sir Antony MacDonnell in India, although the Chief Secretary had confessed to colossal ignorance of Indian affairs. He hail no doubt that that confession by a member of the Cabinet which was responsible for the government of India would appear in the vernacular journals in India before many weeks were over. Sir Antony MacDonnell knew that the provincial councils in India were semi-elective in their constitution. Sir Antony MacDonnell was an Irishman, and had ruled 47,000,000 of people in the East; but he was under the tragic misunderstanding that if Asiatics were capable of being governed by an elective body, one of the most brilliant nations in Western Europe was not to be denied that privilege. The misunderstanding of Sir Antony MacDonnell was far greater and more tragic than that of the right hon. Gentleman.
      1010
      Here was a man who had been brought from India who had been able to govern autocratically a province with a population of 47,00,000. He did not attain that high position by social influence. He himself knew Sir Antony MacDonnell's father. He was at school and college with Sir Antony MacDonnell, like his hon. friend the Member for North Dublin. Sir Antony MacDonnell was a Catholic and a Liberal, and had no great social influence behind him. With all due respect, that gentleman was more remarkable for for titer in re than for suaviter in modo. He was told that nobody disliked Sir Antony MacDonnell except the man who wanted him to do him a dirty trick. Here was an Irishman, the son of a small farmer in the west of Ireland, able to attain the foremost position in the government of one of the greatest dependencies of the Empire, and the autocrat of 47,000,000 of people. And what was his tragic misunderstanding? It was that he himself was not to be allowed to have a single word in the government of his own people, of his own race and creed. The moral of all this was that Sir Antony MacDonnell was one of the many Irishmen who had helped to do great works of statesmanship in this Empire, and who had entered on office in Ireland in the great and glorious hope of doing something for his native land. Many epithets had been applied to the correspondence read that evening; but it I was one of the most pathetic instances on record that this great man of genius, who had been ready to risk his splendid position in India and come to the land in which he had his birth, had, for his reward, been flouted, degraded, insulted, and baffled in trying to do a little good to his suffering native land.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 265. (Division List No. 7.)

      AYES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

      Ffrench, Peter

      M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

      Abraham, William (Rhondda)

      Field, William

      Markham, Arthur Basil

      Allen, Charles P.

      Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, N. E.

      Mitchell, Ed. (Fermanagh, N.)

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

      Mooney, John J.

      Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

      Atherley-Jones, L.

      Flynn, James Christopher

      Moulton, John Fletcher

      Barlow, John Emmott

      Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

      Murnaghan, George

      Barran, Rowland Hirst

      Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

      Murphy, John

      Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

      Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

      Fuller, J. M. F.

      Newnes, Sir George

      Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

      Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

      Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

      Bell, Richard

      Goddard, Daniel Ford

      Norman, Henry

      Benn, John Williams

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

      Black, Alexander William

      Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

      Nussey, Thomas Willans

      Blake, Edward

      Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

      Bolton, Thomas Dolling

      Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

      O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

      Broadhursl, Henry

      Hammond, John

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

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

      Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

      Harmsworth, R. Leicester

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

      Harwood, George

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

      Hayden, John Patrick

      O' Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

      Burke, E. Haviland

      Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

      O'Dowd, John

      Burns, John

      Helme, Norval Watson

      O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

      Buxton, Sydney Charles

      Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

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

      Caldwell, James

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      O'Malley, William

      Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

      Higham, John Sharpe

      O'Mara, James

      Campbell, Bannerman, Sir H.

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

      O"Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      O"Shee, James John

      Causton, Richard Knight

      Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

      Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham)

      Cawley, Frederick

      Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

      Partington, Oswald

      Channitig, Francis Allston

      Jacoby, James Alfred

      Paulton, James Mellor

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Johnson, John

      Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

      Churchill, Winston Spencer

      Joicey, Sir James

      Pirie, Dunean V.

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Cogan, Denis J.

      Jordan, Jeremiah

      Rea, Russell

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Joyce, Michael

      Reckitt, Harold James

      Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

      Kearley, Hudson E.

      Reddy, M.

      Crean, Eugene

      Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath N.)

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford

      Cremer, William Randal

      Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

      Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

      Crombie, John William

      Kilbride, Denis

      Richards, Thomas (W. Monm"h

      Cullinan, J.

      Kitson, Sir James

      Rickett, J. Compton

      Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

      Labouchere, Henry

      Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

      Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

      Lambert, George

      Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

      Delany, William

      Langley, Batty

      Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

      Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

      Law, Hugh Alex, (Donegal, W.)

      Robson, William Snowdon

      Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

      Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

      Roche, John

      Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

      Layland-Barratt, Francis

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Dillon, John

      Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

      Rose, Charles Day

      Dobbie, Joseph

      Leigh, Sir Joseph

      Runciman, Walter

      Doogan, P. C.

      Levy, Maurice

      Russell, T. W.

      Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland

      Duffy, William J.

      Lloyd-George, David

      Schwann, Charles E.

      Duncan, J. Hastings

      Lough, Thomas

      Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

      Dunn, Sir William

      Lundon. W.

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

      Edwards, Frank

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Shackleton, David James

      Elibank, Master of

      Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

      Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

      Ellice, CaptEC (StAndrews Bghs

      MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

      Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

      Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Sheehy, David

      Emmott, Alfred

      M"Arthur, William (Cornwall)

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

      M"Crae, George

      Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

      Eve, Harry Trelawney

      M"Fadden, Edward

      Slack, John Bamford

      Farrell, James Patrick

      M"Hugh, Patrick A.

      Smith, Samuel (Flint)

      Fenwick, Charles

      M'Kean, John

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

      M'Kenna, Reginald

      Soares, Ernest J.

      Spencer Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

      Ure, Alexander

      Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

      Stevenson, Francis S.

      Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

      Wills, Arthur Walters(N Dorset

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Wallace, Robert

      Wilson, Fred W (Norfork, Mid.)

      Sullivan, Donal

      Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

      Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N

      Tennant, Harold John

      Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

      Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersfd

      Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

      White, George (Norfolk)

      Young Samuel

      Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

      Tomkinson, James

      Whiteley George (York, W. R.)

      Thomas Esmonde and

      Toulmin, George

      Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

      Captain Donelan.

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

      Hay, Hon. Claude George

      Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

      Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

      Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

      Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

      Cubitt, Hon. Henry

      Heath, Sir James (Staffords. NW.

      Allsopp, Hon. George

      Cust, Henry Joint C.

      Heaton, John Henniker

      Anson, Sir William Reynell

      Dalrymple, Sir Charles

      Helder, Augustus

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Davenport, William Bromley

      Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

      Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

      Denny, Colonel

      Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

      Arrol, Sir William

      Dickinson, Robert Edmond

      Hoare, Sir Samuel

      Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

      Dickson, Charles Scott

      Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

      Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

      Dimsdale Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

      Horner, Frederick William

      Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

      Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

      Hoult, Joseph.

      Bailey, James (Walworth)

      Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Bain, Colonel James Robert

      Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

      Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

      Baird, John George Alexander

      Doughty, Sir George

      Hunt, Rowland

      Balcarres, Lord

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

      Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

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

      Doxford, Sir William Theodore

      Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

      Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

      Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

      Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

      Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

      Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

      Bartley, Sir George C. T.

      Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

      Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

      Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

      Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

      Kerr, John

      Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michacl Hicks

      Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'hs

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Beckett, Ernest William

      Fisher, William Hayes

      King, Sir Henry Seymour

      Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

      FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

      Knowles, Sir Lees

      Bigwood, James

      Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

      Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

      Bluudell, Colonel Henry

      Flannery, Sir Fortescue

      Laurie, Lieut.-General

      Bond, Edward

      Flower, Sir Ernest

      Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

      Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

      Forster, Henry William

      Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm"th

      Boulnois, Edmund

      Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

      Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End

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

      Galloway, William Johnson

      Lawson, John Grant (YorksNR

      Bowles,T Gibson(King's Lynn

      Gardner, Ernest

      Lee,Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

      Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

      Garfit, William

      Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

      Brymer, William Ernest

      Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

      Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

      Bull, William James

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

      Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

      Burdett-coutts, W.

      Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

      Llewellyn, Evan Henry

      Butcher, John George

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

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

      Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

      Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

      Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

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

      Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds

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

      Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.

      Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

      Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

      Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

      Gretton, John

      Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

      Greville, Hon. Ronald

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

      Guthrie, Walter Murray

      Macdona, John cumming

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Hain, Edward

      MacIver, David (Liverpool)

      Chapman, Edward

      Hall, Edward Marshall

      Maconochie, A. W.

      Coates, Edward Feetham

      Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

      M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

      Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

      Hambro, Charles Eric

      M'lver, Sir Lewis Edinburgh W

      Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

      Majendie, James A. H.

      Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

      Hamilton, Mar. of (L'nd'naerry

      Malcolm, Ian

      Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

      Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

      Manners, Lord Cecil

      Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

      Hare, Thomas Leigh

      Marks, Harry Hananel

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

      Martin, Richard Biddulph

      Cripps, Charles Alfred

      Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

      Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir HE (Wigt'n

      Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

      Ratcliff. R. F.

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

      Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

      Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

      Thorburn, Sir Walter

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Reid, James (Greenock)

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredk. G.

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

      Milvain, Thomas

      Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

      Tritton, Charles Ernest

      Molesworth, Sir Lewis

      Renwiek, George

      Tuff, Charles

      Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

      Ridley, S. Forde

      Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

      Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

      Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

      Tuke, Sir John Batty

      Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

      Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

      Turnour, Viscount

      Morpeth, Viscount

      Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

      Valentia, Viscount

      Morrell, George Herbert

      Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

      Morrison, James Archibald

      Round, Rt. Hon. James

      Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

      Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

      Royds, Clement Molyneux

      Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

      Mount, William Arthur

      Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

      Wanklyn, James Leslie

      Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

      Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

      Warde, Colonel C. E.

      Muntz, Sir Philip A.

      Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

      Webb, Colonel William George

      Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

      Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

      Myers, William Henry

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.

      Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

      Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

      Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

      Whiteley H (Ashton und. Lyne

      Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

      Sharpe, William Edward T.

      Whitmore, Charles Algernon

      Pemberton, John S. G.

      Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

      Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

      Percy, Earl

      Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

      Pierpoint, Robert

      Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

      Wilson, John (Glasgow)

      Pilkington, Colonel Richard

      Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

      Platt-Higgins, Frederick

      Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

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

      Plumraer, Sir Walter R

      Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

      Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      Smith, Rt. Hn. J Parker(Lanarks

      Wrightson, Sir Thomas

      Pretyman, Ernest George

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

      Wylie, Alexander

      Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

      Spear, John Ward

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Purvis, Robert

      Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

      Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

      Pym, C. Guy

      Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes

      Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

      Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

      Randles, John S.

      Stock, James Henry

      Alexander Acland-Hood

      Rankin, Sir James

      Stone, Sir Benjamin

      and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

      Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

      Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

    KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
    Adjourned debate on Amendment [22nd February] to Main Question [14th February] further adjourned till tomorrow.
  NEW BILL.

    HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACTS AMENDMENT.
    Bill to amend the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, and otherwise to facilitate the building of Houses for the Working Classes in rural districts, ordered
    to be brought in by Sir Walter Foster Mr. Channing, Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Price, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Frederick Wilson. Mr. Herbert Samuel, and Mr. Soames.

    HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To amend the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, and otherwise to facilitate the building of Houses for the Working Classes in rural districts," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, April 14th, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]
    Adjourned at four minutes after Twelve o'clock.