Sitting of 4 February 1908

Preamble
The House met at quarter before Three of the Clock.
NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the Borough of Leeds (South Division), in the room of Sir John Lawson Walton, K.C., deceased.— Mr. Whiteley.)

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS).
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. EMMOTT,),in moving an Amendment to Standing Order 98, explained that its object was to provide that the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee should no longer be an ex officio member of the Committee of Selection. The work of the latter body had increased so enormously of late that the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee had found it impossible to attend the meetings. The proposal had the approval of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for

689
the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire (Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk, who was Chairman of the Committee of Selection last year, and in these circumstances he asked the House to adopt it.
Standing Order 98 was read and amended, in line 2, by leaving out from the first word "of," to the word "Members," in line 3, and by inserting the word "Eleven," instead thereof.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Police and Sanitary Committee. Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do nominate a Committee, not exceeding Twelve Members, to be called the Police and Sanitary Committee, to whom shall be committed all Private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police or Sanitary Regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general Law.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 150 and 173a apply to all such Bills.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, Papers, and records.
Ordered, That Four be the quorum of the Committee.
Ordered, That if the Committee shall report to the Committee of Selection that any Clauses of any Bill referred to them (other than Clauses containing police and sanitary regulations) are such as having regard to the terms of reference it is not in their opinion necessary or advisable for them to deal with, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who shall consider those Clauses and so much of the Preamble of the Bill as relates thereto, and shall determine the expenditure (if any) to be authorised in respect of the parts of the Bill referred
690
to them. That the Committee shall deal with the remaining Clauses of such Bill, and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, and shall determine the period and mode of repayment of any money authorised by the Select Committee to be borrowed and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their Report what parts of the Bill have been considered by each Committee.
Ordered, That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the Bills referred to the Committee between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of, and be subject to the instructions which apply to, the undivided Committee, and that Four be the quorum of each of the two Committees.—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)

PETITIONS.
  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING).
  Petition from Dumbarton, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petitions for legislation: From Ashton-under-Lyne; Audley; Birmingham (two); Bishop Auckland; Boxford; Chaldron; Chatteris; Chesham; Chester; Ealing; Hailsham; Holmes Chapel; Hornchurch; Hoxton; Irthlingborough; Islington; Kirkby Stephen; Langdale; Launceston; Leeds; Leicester (two); Letchworth; Liverpool; Loughborough; Maidstone; Manchester (three); March (two); Marple; Moss Side; Newhaven; Olton; Penrith; Prittlewell; Putney; Richmond; Rushden; Rye; Seaford; Shipley; Soham; Southend-on-Sea; Southfields; Stockton Heath; Stourbridge; Streatham; Sutton Coldfield; Tottenham (three); Wadebridge; Whittlesea; Wisbech; and Woodstock; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ARTS.
  Petition from Colyton, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petitions for legislation: From Birmingham; Cambridge (three); Chatteris; Chesham; Gloucester; Huntingdon; Leicester; London (three); Northampton; Royal Leamington Spa; Tipton; Wednesbury (two); and Yelling (two); to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1907–8).
  Estimate presented, of the Further Sums required to be voted for the Service of the year ending 31st March, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 27.]
  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1907–8).
  Copy presented, of Estimate of the Further Amount that will be required during the year ending 31st March, 1908, to meet Expenditure not provided for in the original Army Estimates of the year under Vote 5; Grants, Allowances, and Miscellaneous Charges of Volunteer Corps, including the Permanent Staff, also Expenses of County Associations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 28.]

  LIGHTHOUSE ADMINISTRATION (ROYAL COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into
  692
  and report on Lighthouse Administration. Volume I. Report [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 4th February, 1908, providing for special grants-in-aid of certain School Boards in Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Church Temporalities (Ireland).—Copy of Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General upon the Account of the Irish Land Commission in respect of Church Temporalities in Ireland for the year ended 31st March, 1907 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 29.]

  BREWERS' LICENCES.
  Return ordered, "of Accounts of the number of persons in each of the several Collections of the United Kingdom licensed as Brewers for sale, i.e., Common Brewers, Victuallers, Retailers of beer to be drunk on the premises, Retailers of beer not to be drunk on the premises, and Brewers of beer not for sale, particularising each class in each Collection; and of the number of Licences issued to Victuallers and Retailers of beer to be drunk on the premises; and stating also the quantities of malt, unmalted corn, rice, etc., sugar, including its equivalent of syrups, etc., hops and hop substitutes, used by Brewers of beer for sale, and of malt and sugar used by Brewers not for sale, from the 1st day of October, 1906, to the 30th day of September, 1907."
  "Of the amount of Licence Duty paid and Beer Duty charged from the 1st day of October, 1906, to the 30th day of

  693
  September, 1907, distinguishing Brewers for sale from other Brewers."
  "Of the number of Brewers for sale: (i.) Who use malt and hops, or hop substitutes only; and (ii.) Who use malt with substitutes for same and hops or hop substitutes paying for Licences, from the 1st day of October, 1906, to the 30th day of September, 1907, separating them into classes, according to the number of barrels of beer charged with duty calculated at 1·055 degrees gravity, viz.: under 1,000 barrels; 1,000 and under 10,000; 10,000 and under 20,000; 20,000 and under 30,000; 30,000 and under 50,000; 50,000 and under 100,000; 100,000 and under 150,000; 150,000 and under 200,000; 200,000 and under 250,000; 250,000 and under 300,000; 300,000 and under 350,000; 350,000 and under 400,000; 400,000 and under 450,000; 450,000 and under 500,000; 500,000 and under 600,000; 600,000 and under 700,000; 700,000 and under 800,000; 800,000 and under 900,000; 900,000 and under 1,000,000; 1,000,000 and under 1,500,000; 1,500,000 and under 2,000,000; 2,000,000 barrels and over; showing separately, in each class, the quantities of malt, unmalted corn, rice, etc., sugar, including its equivalent of syrups, etc., hops and hop substitutes used; and stating also the number of bulk barrels of beer produced, and the amount of Licence Duty paid and Beer Duty charged in each class."
  "And, of the number of barrels of beer exported from the United Kingdom, and the declared value thereof, and where exported to, from the first day of October 1906, to the 30th day of September, 1907, distinguishing England, Scotland, and Ireland (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 14, of Session 1907)."—(Mr. Runciman).

  TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum in
  694
  reference to the Telegraph (Construction Bill."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Income Tax Returns—Employers Forms.
  LORD R. CECIL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the form of Return of Employment under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1907; and what is the statutory authority for the last two columns of that form.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) Yes. The form is issued under the authority of Section 21 (1) of the Finance Act, 1907, which requires an employer to make a return of the payments made to any persons employed by him in respect of that employment. Considerable misapprehension being known to exist as to the necessity for including fees, bonuses, and other similar emoluments, a special column for such payments was inserted in the return. The last column was inserted to save trouble to employees claiming exemption or abatement. It has not, however, been found to be of much use, and will be omitted in future editions of the form.

  Punishment for Outrage at Monastir.
  MR. G. GREENWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information showing that on 8th January last a Greek band committed a murderous outrage at the village of Dragosh, near Monastir, by burning to death all the inmates of four houses, including women and children; and, if so, whether any steps have been or are being taken by the Turkish Government to punish the offenders.

  695
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) A Report has been received from His Majesty's Consul at Monastir from which it appears that a large band surrounded and set fire to four houses in the village of Dragosh. All the persons living in these four houses perished, the number of vitcims being twenty-six; five men, ten women, and eleven children. The nationality of the band which perpetrated this outrage has not yet been definitely ascertained, but the matter is being investigated by a Commission which has been sent from Monastir.

  Applications under the Irish Labourers Act.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he could state the number of applications received under the Labourers Act, and the number sanctioned by the Local Government Board, in the various counties

  Particulars showing how Schemes under The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, received by the Local Government Board up to the 31st December, 1907, have so far been dealt with.

  Proposed by Schemes.

  Authorised by Inspectors. 64 Orders made.

  About to be authorised by Inspectors. 25 Orders being made.

  Being dealt with.*

  Cottages.

  Allotments.

  Cottages.

  Allotments.

  Cottages.

  Allotments.

  Cottages.

  Allotments.

  Ulster

  3,644

  279

  1,288

  47

  313

  37

  1,636

  86

  Munster

  6,617

  1,464

  1,405

  313

  1,018

  177

  2,771

  589

  Leinster

  7,565

  1,344

  2,626

  579

  417

  45

  3,027

  385

  Connaught

  4,377

  285

  583

  20

  305

  3

  1906

  120

  Totals

  22,203

  3,372

  5,902

  959

  2,053

  262

  9,340

  1,180

  * Inquiries ordered into all these except two.

  in Ulster up to the end of December last; and the number of applications received, and the numbers approved of, for the provinces of Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, for the same term.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It is presumed that the Question relates only to applications received under the Act of 1906. The first scheme under that Act was received in May last, and from then to the 31st December there were received 136 schemes, affecting 134 out of the 213 rural districts in Ireland. The first of the following tables shows how these schemes have so far been dealt with. The particulars for each of the counties in Ulster are given in the second table. If the hon. Member desires information as to the work done under former Acts, I would refer him to the Annual Report of the Local Government Board, which gives the necessary information up to the 31st March, 1907.

  Particulars in respect of Counties of Ulster.

  County.

  Number of Rural Districts in County.

  Number of Schemes received.

  Particulars of Schemes received.

  Particulars of Provisional Orders made by Inspectors.

  Particulars of Orders about to be made by Inspectors.

  particulars of Schemes being dealt with.

  Cottages.

  Plots.

  Cottages.

  Plots.

  Cottages.

  Plots.

  Cottages.

  Plots.

  Antrim

  8

  4

  346

  3

  22

  —

  —

  —

  319

  3

  Armagh

  5

  4

  162

  18

  19

  —

  35

  —

  101

  18

  Cavan

  7

  4

  339

  127

  126

  39

  75

  23

  49

  7

  Donegal

  10

  8

  1,080

  43

  594

  7

  173

  2

  129

  1

  Down

  8

  4

  631

  4

  288

  —

  —

  —

  289

  1

  Fermanagh

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Londonderry

  4

  1

  99

  —

  91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Monaghan

  5

  3

  262

  81

  37

  1

  30

  12

  148

  56

  Tyrone

  7

  4

  725

  3

  111

  —

  —

  —

  601

  —

  Totals

  59

  32

  3,644

  279

  1,288

  47

  313

  37

  1,636

  86

  The Strength of the Militia.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Militia, by arms, serving with the Colours and with the Militia Reserve on the 1st October, 1905, and 1st February, 1908 respectively.

  Officers

  N.C.O.s and Men.

  Total.

  Reserve Division.

  1st Oct., 1905.

  1st Jan., 1908.

  1st Oct, 1905.

  1st Jan., 1908.

  1st Oct., 1905.

  1st Jan., 1908.

  1st Oct., 1905.

  1st Jan., 1908.

  R.F.A.

  11

  12

  251

  206

  262

  218

  45

  10

  R.G.A.

  381

  334

  13,003

  11,727

  13,384

  12,061

  525

  58

  R.E.

  95

  49

  2,154

  1,706

  2,249

  1,755

  51

  4

  Inf.

  1,889

  1,725

  69,629

  68,978

  71,518

  70,703

  7,019

  2,248

  R.A.M.C.

  19

  23

  777

  1,055

  796

  1,078

  17

  1

  Totals

  2,395

  2,143

  85,814

  83,672

  88,209

  85,815

  7,657

  2,321

  The Denshawai Affair—Release of Prisoners.
  MR. MACKARNESS: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the prisoners who were committed to prison in June, 1906, for assaulting British officers at Denshawai have been released, and, if 80, by whose authority; and whether the village of Denshawai is still subject to any, civil disability or other penalty by reason of the occurrence which took place there in June, 1906.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The prisoners in question were released on January 7th, by order of the Khedive, who was acting with the assent of His Majesty's Government. Denshawai is not now subject to civil disability or any other penalty. The Omda was restored in June last, and the Ghafirs are the same in number as before the occurrences referred to.

  Postage Bates to Constantinople.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster-General
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Figures can be given for 1st October, 1905, and 1st January, 1908, (the figures for 1st February, 1908 are not yet available). The permanent staff is excluded in both cases.
  whether he is aware that letters for Constantinople from Great Britain are despatched at a cost of one penny for postage; whether he will make this fact public; or are letters sent there at the profitable and popular rate only to certain individuals in Turkey on public and private affairs.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The postage on letters for Constantinople from this country is 2½d. for the first ounce, and 1½d. for each succeeding ounce. Letters posted in this country prepaid 1d. only are liable to surcharge.

  Postage Rates to Morocco.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster-Greneral, whether he is aware that the postage of a letter from France to Morocco is 10 centimes, or ld.; whether he is aware that the postage of a letter from the United Kingdom to Morocco is 2½d.; and whether he will take the necessary steps, in the interests of British commerce and trade, to reduce the postage to Morocco to ld. per letter.

  701
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am aware that the postage of a letter from France for Morocco was recently reduced and is now 10 centimes up to 20 grammes. The question of reducing the postage rate from this country is engaging my attention.

  "Dutch Cheshire" Cheese.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to a case in which Dutch cheese has been invoiced as Dutch Cheshire, has been so retailed, and on analysis was found to contain 8 per cent. only of fat, such fat having been added, and not being butter fat; whether, in view of the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act, he will institute proceedings; and whether the proper description of such an article should not be margarine cheese.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board are unable to identify the case to which reference is made, but if the right hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to supply them with further particulars they will have inquiry made with a view of the institution of proceedings. Cheese of the nature described must be sold as margarine cheese.

  Land for Small Holdings at Abingdon.
  MR. GEORGE D. FABER: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury why the Duchy of Cornwall, as owners of a farm at Shippon, near Abingdon, containing about 430 acres, recently gave the lessee of the farm, whose family had been tenants from year to year under the Duchy since 1891, and who had no desire to leave it, notice to quit the whole of the farm, for the purpose of establishing thereon a society called the North Berks Small Holdings and Allotments Society, instead of allowing the procedure to be followed in relation to the matter which is prescribed by the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, under which the tenant might have been heard.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I learn that the Duchy of Cornwall had not given, and never had any intention of giving, notice to quit to the tenants of a farm
  702
  at Shippon, near Abingdon. When last year the Duchy was approached to let some land at Shippon for allotments, it was arranged with the tenants, who occupy two farms of together about 1,000 acres, that they would give up not less than 16 acres, and up to 50 acres, for the purpose, but no applications were received, presumably because there was more land for allotments at disposal than could be let. At least this was the statement of the local authority at Abingdon when the land was offered to it by the Duchy. On receipt last month of an application for one of the two farms, the Duchy land steward, assuming that there was now a real demand for some land, wrote to inform the manager of the farm of the application, but not to the tenants, on whom alone a valid notice to quit could be served, so as to prevent his purchasing more seeds, etc., than might be required. He stated, however, that he would personally arrange as regards the lands to be given up for small holdings. No communication with the North Berks Small Holdings and Allotments Society has taken place, as the Duchy land steward has instructions to arrange with the local authorities for the letting of Duchy land for small holdings. The whole matter is in a preliminary stage, as the land steward has no authority to enter into any binding contract, but has to submit for the sanction of the council any arrangement which he may recommend.

  Stamp Duty on Marine Insurance Policies.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is proposed to continue the ad valorem stamp duties on marine insurance.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I cannot add anything to the statements which I made on this subject during the debates on the Finance Bill of last session, until the time comes for introducing the Budget.

  Evicted Tenants on the Bloomfield Estate, county Fermanagh.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Estates Commissioners have

  703
  yet purchased the Bloomfield Estate, County Fermanagh, or are about doing So; and will the demesne lands or part of them be used to provide new holdings for Messrs. Graham, M'Farland, and other local evicted tenants listed by the Estates Commissioners as persons who may properly be provided with new holdings or be restored to their old holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have not purchased the estate referred to in the Question, but have been informed that the owners are about to institute proceedings for the sale of the estate to them under Section 6 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. Until such proceedings have been instituted it is not possible to say what lands may be comprised in the estate for sale. The claims of all local evicted tenants will be carefully considered in connection with the distribution of any untenanted land which may be acquired in the neighbourhood.

  Wages Reductions at Waltham Abbey Gunpowder Factory.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, what number of men have had their wages reduced at the Royal Gunpowder Factory at Waltham Abbey during the last two years, and of this number how many were married men; and whether he will grant a Return showing the amount of such reduction, the number of men affected by it, and the length of their service.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) Of the 708 employees (men, women, and boys) employed at the Royal Gunpowder Factory, Waltham Abbey, at the end of January, 1908, 114 have had their wages

  Strength on.

  Volunteer Officers.

  Volunteers (Noncommissioned Officers and Men.)

  Total.

  1st October, 1905

  8,772

  241,347

  250,119

  1st January, 1906

  8,722

  230,434

  239,156

  1st October, 1907

  8,735

  244,589

  253,324

  1st January, 1908

  8,701

  228,613

  237,314

  reduced during the last two years. This number includes forty-four men whose total earnings have been reduced, but whose hourly rating has been increased and whose hours of work have been reduced from about sixty-six hours to forty-eight hours a week. The reduction in other cases is chiefly owing to the men being employed on less highly paid work to avoid the necessity of discharging them. The total average weekly reduction in wages has been £24 17s. 5d., of which £13 19s. 5d. is in respect of the forty-four men above-mentioned. As against these reductions, 155 employees have had their wages increased during the same period, the total weekly increase amounting to £19 2s. 2d., of which only £1 13s. 8d. is fur automatic increases, the remainder, £17 8s. 6d., being pure increase of wages. No statistics as regards marriage are available; and a statement as to the length of service of each individual concerned would take a little time to prepare, but could be furnished if the hon. and gallant Member presses for it.

  Strength of the Volunteer Force.
  CAPTAIN MORRISON-BELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the number of the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Volunteers on 1st October, 1905, and 1st February, 1908, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As the Return is rendered quarterly, no figures for 1st February, 1908, are available. The following are the figures for 1st October, 1905, 1st January, 1906, 1st October, 1907, and 1st January, 1908 (exclusive in all cases of the Honourable Artillery Company and the Permanent Staff).

  strength of the Special Reserve.
  CAPTAIN MORRISON-BELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state (by arms) the age and service of the non-commissioned officers and men of the special reserve (formerly the Militia) on 1st February, 1908.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Presumably figures for the Militia are required, as recruiting for the Special Reserve only commenced on 16th January, and the voluntary transfer of the present members of the Militia to the Special Reserve will not take place until after the conclusion of the next annual training of their units. There are no Militia figures available for 1st February. The Returns are only sent in annually, for 1st October, and if the hon. and

  —

  Officers

  Non-Commissioned Officers and Men.

  Total.

  1st October, 1905:—

  Homo

  5,383

  124,547

  129,930

  Colonies and Egypt

  2,512

  61,630

  64,142

  India

  2,893

  75,168

  78,061

  Total

  10,788

  261,345

  272,133

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Army Statistics.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the number of the officers, noncommissioned officers, and men of the
  gallant Member will be kind enough to wait for the publication of the General Annual Return, which will shortly take place, he will find in it the required figures for 1st October, 1907.

  Strength of the Regular Army.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the total number of the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Regular Army serving with the colours on 1st October 1905, and 1st February, 1908, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The figures for 1st October, 1905, and 1st January, 1908, are as follow, the figures for 1st February, 1908, not yet being available—
  infantry of the line serving with the colours at Home, in the Colonies and Egypt, and in India, respectively, on the 1st October, 1905, and the 1st February, 1908, respectively.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,):

  707
  The figures for the 1st October, 1905, and 1st January, 1908, are as follows,

  Officers

  Non-commissioned Officers and Men.

  Total.

  1st October, 1905.

  Home

  2,038

  61,533

  63,571

  Colonies and Egypt

  943

  31,322

  32,265

  India

  1,442

  53,677

  55,119

  Total

  4,423

  146,532

  150,955

  1st January, 1908.

  Home

  2,125

  57,288

  59,413

  Colonies and Egypt

  733

  22,403

  23,136

  India

  1,463

  51,821

  53,284

  Total

  4,321

  131,512

  135,833

  The Militia.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Militia, by arms, serving with the Colours and with the Militia Reserve on the 1st

  Officers

  N.C.O.'s and Men.

  Total.

  Reserve Division.

  1st Oct., 1905.

  1st Jan., 1908.

  1st Oct., 1905.

  1st Jan., 1908.

  1st Oct., 1905.

  1st Jan., 1908.

  1st Oct., 1905.

  1st Jan., 1908.

  R.F.A.

  11

  12

  251

  206

  262

  218

  45

  10

  R.G.A.

  381

  334

  13,003

  11,727

  13,384

  12,061

  525

  58

  R.E.

  95

  49

  2,154

  1,706

  2,249

  1,755

  51

  4

  Infantry

  1,889

  1,725

  69,629

  68,978

  71,518

  70,703

  7,019

  2,248

  R.A.M.C.

  19

  23

  777

  1,055

  796

  1,078

  17

  1

  2,395

  2,143

  85,814

  83,672

  88,209

  85,815

  7,657

  2,321

  the figures for 1st February, 1908, not yet being available:—
  October, 1905, and 1st February, 1908, respectively.
  MR. HALDANE: Figures can be given for 1st October, 1905, and 1st January, 1908 (the figures for 1st February, 1908, are not yet available). The permanent staff is excluded in both cases:—

  Case of Private Smith, Middlesex Imperial Yeomanry.
  MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the dismissal by the magistrate of the charge of being an absentee, brought against Arnold Hardy Smith, a member of the Middlesex Imperial Yeomanry, on 14th August last; whether any claim has been made by or on behalf of Arnold Hardy Smith for the costs incurred in rebutting the unfounded accusation of the commanding officer; and if so, what action has been taken in the matter.
  MR. HALDANE: My attention has been called to this case. A claim for repayment of legal expenses incurred by Arnold Hardy Smith was made by a firm of solicitors. As the magistrate with all the facts before him, advisedly refrained from awarding costs, the Army Council were unable to make any grant in the case.
  MR. WARD: In view of the Answer given to-day as to the payment of the expenses of the accused officers in the Woods Court of Inquiry, are we to take it that officers and privates in this matter are to be treated on an entirely different footing?
  MR. HALDANE: No, Sir, the two cases are not analogous. In the case of the officers the charges were dismissed after full inquiry, but in the case of Private Smith the magistrate seemed to think the medical evidence was somewhat dubious, and although he was not prepared to set aside the medical certificate, he marked his sense of the case by refusing costs.

  Irish Trade Statistics.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is aware that the Governments of Prance and Belgium have agreed to publish statistics of their direct trade with Ireland; and can he say whether any, and, if so, what other Foreign States with whom Ireland has trade relations have agreed to the representations made to them on this subject.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the Question, the Governments of the following countries have consented to classify Irish goods separately from those of Great Britain—

  Argentina.

  Mexico.

  Belgium.

  Netherlands

  Boliva.

  Norway.

  Bulgaria.

  Persia.

  Chile.

  Peru.

  Colombia.

  Russia.

  Ecuador.

  Spain.

  Egypt.

  Sweden.

  France.

  Siam.

  Guatemala.

  Venezuela.

  MR. DUNCANasked if the request that this differentiation should be made emanated from the Government of the United Kingdom.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Yes, we asked for it to be done.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that France and Belgium now publish in their official reports statistics of their direct trade with Ireland, he will now make representations to Canada and Australia on this subject with a view to enable Ireland to learn the exact amount of her trade with these Colonies.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): This suggestion was made to the Canadian Government last year but that Government reported that it was not practicable to separate the exports of Irish produce from those of Great Britain in their trade returns. The Australian Government will now be asked whether they can adopt the suggestion.

  Congo State—Consular Reports.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether further Consular Reports as to the present condition of the Congo

  711
  State will be laid before Parliament; and, if so, when.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Further Reports from His Majesty's Consular Officers in the Congo will be laid shortly.

  Denshawi Trials.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the special tribunal under the decree of 1895, by which the Denshawi prisoners were sentenced, is still in operation; and if so, whether any change in procedure has been effected, whereby sentences passed by such tribunal shall in future be subject to appeal.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for South Donegal of 31st July last. There has been no change in the situation since that date, which is to the effect that the tribunal will not be brought into operation under the old conditions.

  Macedonian Reform.
  MR. GOOCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can describe the nature of the proposals to the Sultan and the Great Powers which His Majesty's Government have made for dealing effectually with the principal causes of disturbance in the Macedonian vilayets.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government have proposed to the Great Powers that the task of restoring public security in Macedonia should be undertaken by mobile columns of a largely increased Gendarmerie force under the command of foreign officers with definite executive powers, and that in order to provide funds for the maintenance and adequate equipment of this force the numbers of the Turkish troops in Macedonia should be reduced. Proposals for an increase and extended use of the Gendarmerie were also made to the Sultan.

  Sleeping Sickness.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what measures have been
  712
  taken to prevent the spread of sleeping sickness from Uganda towards Nyassaland.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The question of the spread of sleeping sickness towards Nyassaland is being investigated by a party of scientific experts sent out by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine with the assistance of a grant from Government funds. When their Report has been received the Secretary of State will consider, in consultation with the Governor of the Protectorate, what measures, if any, are required. The whole matter is being closely watched.
  MR. REES: May I ask whether the disease is abating in Uganda itself?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The disease is being controlled by administrative measures in Uganda. Although it is undoubtedly virulent, its spread can be prevented.

  Land Surveys in the Malay States.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the re-surveying of alienated lands in Negri Sembilan, in the Federated Malay States, is being done at public expense.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I understand that former surveys have been found to be defective, and that in consequence what is contemplated is practically a complete re-survey of the State, the cost of which will be undertaken by the Government.
  MR. WEDGWOODwas understood to ask if the re-survey would not add to the value of the lands and whether the charge might not be legitimately charged on the land.
  MR. CHURCHILLpromised to bear the point in mind.

  Repatriation of Chinese from the Transvaal.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the number of Chinese who were repatriated from South Africa during the year 1907.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The numbers repatriated were:—

  During the first quarter

  1,188

  During the second quarter

  1,947

  During the third quarter

  5,051

  During the fourth quarter

  10,876

  Total for the twelve months

  19,062

  MR. MYER: May I ask whether these Chinese have been replaced by native labour?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. Up to the present their places have been much more than filled by native labour.

  Colonial Crown Agents.
  MR. GLAUDK HAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State is satisfied with the existing constitution and administration of the Office of the Crown Agents for the Colonies; what are the arrangements and conditions under which clerks enter this office; whether they undergo a competitive examination conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners, as in the case of other Government departments; and, if not, will he say why this is not done.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member is no doubt aware of the exhaustive inquiry instituted in 1901 by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and of the views expressed in a published despatch of 26th February, 1904, which emanated from the late Colonial Secretary. The Secretary of State informs me that he accepts generally the position assumed by his predecessors with regard to the office of the Crown Agents. The clerks in the office are not Civil Servants and are therefore not subject to the conditions under which Civil Servants enter the Service. They are nominated by the Crown Agents who are responsible for their selection and for the adequate performance of their duties.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYwas understood to ask if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the propriety of making a change in this matter.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the question had received a great deal of consideration, and it was one on which great differences of opinion existed. He could not say at the present moment whether any change would be made. He did not think any new matters would be brought to notice other than those set out in the despatches of the late Colonial Secretary.

  Crown Agents' Reserve Funds.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a sum of a quarter of a million sterling or thereabouts is now held by the Crown Agents; and, if so, how that money is invested, by whom administered, and under what check.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Office Reserve Fund of the Crown Agents, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, amounted on 31st December last to £431,310. It is intended to provide for the pensions of the Crown Agents and their staff, and to cover deficiencies in the income of the office which may be caused by fluctuations of business. It is invested in securities approved by the Secretary of State, in the names of the permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Crown Agents. The Crown Agents are charged with its management and application under the direction of the Secretary of State. It forms a part of the accounts of the Crown Agents, which are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

  Australian Wages Board.
  MR. GOOCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department when Mr. Aves' Report on Wages Boards in Australia will be printed.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLAD-STONTE,): Mr. Aves informs me that he hopes to complete his Report early next month.

  Prosecution for Blasphemy.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the pending prosecution of Mr. Harry Boulter upon a charge of blasphemy is being conducted at the expense of the Treasury;

  715
  and, if so, upon whose authority the proceedings were initiated.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The proceedings were initiated by the Commissioner of Police with my approval, and the cost will be borne by the Police Fund. The case is sub judice, but I may, I think, go so far as to say that the prosecution is not undertaken in respect to matters of religious belief and opinion, but solely in respect to the decencies of public speech in a public place, and the preservation of the public peace.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will also direct his attention to certain writings of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for India and other fashionable agnostics—[Cries of "Order."]
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware that those writings are likely to lead to any breach of the peace.

  Imported Meat.
  MR. BOAVLES: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Rye Division of Sussex, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps, if any, are being taken to remove the danger to the public health arising from imported meat, and to carry out the recommendations contained in Dr. Buchanan's recent Report on the subject.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I have caused regulations to be prepared under the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act of last session dealing with the subjects referred to in Dr. Buchanan's Report, and I am now in communication with the other Departments concerned with regard to them.

  Milk Supply.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if, in view of the widespread anxiety existing in many parts of the country, he will cause a full inquiry to be made into the question of the supply of milk in relation to public
  716
  health before any legislation is introduced.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. The Government are desirous that there should be legislation with regard to milk supply during the present session, and I could not promise further inquiry before introducing a Bill on the subject.
  MR. LLTTON: Is it a fact that the chief defect in the milk supply of this country is a want of supply at all?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Parcel Postmen's Pay.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General at what rate the work of men specially employed to carry parcels at times of great pressure, such as Christmas, is paid for in town and country.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): In the case of London the rate of pay to casual assistants acting as postmen and porters in connection with letter and parcel mails was raised by me last Christmas from 20s. to 24s. a week, or to 6d. an hour. Sixpence may be now taken likewise as a fairly general rate for the provinces, but the payments vary according to local conditions.

  Postmen's Compassionate Allowances.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the case of a Hackney postman who, after thirty years service, died whilst stamping letters; whether, under the Superannuation Acts, there is no power to grant a compassionate allowance to the man's widow, who is in distressful circumstances; and whether he will consider the desirableness of so amending the Acts as to cover such a case in future.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Superannuation Acts make no provision for the widows of deceased civil servants, and I have not any public funds at my disposal enabling me to make any grant to the widow of the postman to whom the hon.

  717
  Member refers. The Rowland Hill Fund, to whom the case was represented, have, I am glad to learn, made a grant to the widow. The question of amending the Acts is not one which falls within the province of my Department.
  MR. J. WARD: Arising out of that Answer may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Committee on Postal Servants did not make some recommendation dealing with cases of this kind.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: This comes within what is known as the Courtney scheme, and, if it is accepted, the widows in cases like this would be provided for.
  MR. J. WARDasked if all the Hobhouse Committee's recommendations had been adopted except this particular one.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As I did not know this question was going to be raised I have not refreshed my memory by looking up the Report, but I rather think the Committee pointed out that this was a matter which did not concern the Post Office alone but all the Civil Service, and that they were not in a position to deal with it. I believe the views of the Civil Service have been taken as to the desirability of adopting the Courtney scheme; that a majority decided in favour of it and that the matter is now under consideration by the Treasury.
  MR. CHTOZZA MONEY: Is it not the case that in Germany the widows of civil servants are provided for?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Yes.
  MR. J. WARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the result of the vote taken on this question?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I understand that so far as the Post Office is concerned there was a very large majority in favour of the proposal to adopt the Courtney scheme, but I do not remember the result so far as other branches of the Civil Service were concerned; I believe, however, that the Treasury has under consideration the steps necessary to give effect to the scheme.

  Assistant Masters in Secondary Schools.
  SIR FRANCIS CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has now considered the position of assistant masters in secondary schools, as declared in the judgment on the Richmond school case; and whether he will secure by legislation that such teachers should have reasonable notice in case of dismissal and an appeal to some public authority, before whom the dismissed teacher should have the right of urging his case in person, or by his representative.
  THE PRESIDENT OP THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): This matter is engaging the earnest consideration of the Board, and the question of legislation is before them, but I am not in a position at present to make any statement on the subject.

  The Queen Victoria Memorial.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can now state the date by which it is expected that the Queen Victoria Memorial will be completed.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OP WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): The lower part of the Memorial, including fountain basins and bas-reliefs will, I hope, be finished and open before Whitsuntide. I cannot yet say when the whole Memorial will be completed as this depends partly on the supply and delivery of the marble

  Agricultural Holdings.
  MR. BOWLES: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Rye Division of Sussex. I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether Bills to consolidate the Agriculture Holdings Act and the Small Holdings Act will be introduced this session.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWRD STRACHEY,): Bills for the purpose are in a forward state of preparation and we hope that they may be introduced and

  719
  passed into law, with the general consent of the House, at a very early date.

  Potato Disease.
  MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board is aware that a new and destructive disease of potatoes, known as black scab (chrysophalyctis endobiotica), has lately been introduced into Great Britain, and that outbreaks have now occurred in nine counties; whether the Board is aware that the disease is now being disseminated by seed potatoes from the affected area; and whether the Board, in order to prevent the disease spreading throughout the country and being introduced into Ireland, will deal at once with the matter under the powers conferred on them by the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1907.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The disease to which my hon. friend refers was first observed in England in 1901, and it has since spread to many districts, chiefly in the North-west of England and in North Wales. A leaflet on the subject both in English and Welsh has been widely distributed. I shall be glad to send some copies to my hon. friend. The possibility of taking action against the disease under the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1907, is under consideration.

  Inspectors of Scottish Schools.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland how many of the twenty-five senior and ten junior inspectors of schools hold diplomas in the Theory and Practice of Education from any British university; and whether it is the intention of the Department to ask those not so qualified to undergo a period of training.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): So far as is known no inspector in the service of the Department holds a diploma of the kind mentioned. Such diplomas, so far as the Scottish universities are concerned, are of recent institution, and the universities granting them have now discontinued
  720
  their issue, following upon the institution of the provincial committees for the training of teachers. It is not the intention of the Department to ask any inspector in actual service—all of whom have had experience in teaching before appointment—to undergo a period of training. Adequate training as well as sufficient experience in teaching will be a condition of future appointments.

  Case of James Larkin.
  MR. GEORGE CLARK: I beg to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland if it is intended to proceed further with the trial of the indictment against James Larkin, in which a Dublin jury recently disagreed.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): The reply is in the negative.

  Irish Government Appointments—Case of Mr. Ennis.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what were the several employments and occupations of Mr. Ennis prior to and at the time of his recent appointment as Registrar of the Court of Appeal, the qualifications required in cases of such appointments, and the salary attached to the office.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,)Mr. Ennis has not been appointed recently to any office, and is not the Registrar of the Court of Appeal. Thirteen years ago he was appointed to be one of the Registrars of the Chancery Division and he still fills that office. The Judge under whom he acts writes that it would be impossible to have a more capable, loyal, or zealous officer. No qualifications for the appointment of registrar are prescribed by statute. Mr. Ennis was a practising barrister at the date of his appointment and had for the preceding two and a half years hold the post of private secretary to the Lord Chancellor. The salary attached to the office of Registrar in Chancery is £1,000 per annum.

  Irish Local Government Inspectors.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what were the several employments and occupations of Mr. MacSweeney prior to and at the time of his recent appointment as Local Government Board Inspector, the qualifications required in cases of such appointments, and the salary attached to the office.
  I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what were the several employments and occupations of Mr. Cosgrove prior to and at the time of his recent appointment as temporary Local Government Board Inspector, the qualifications required in cases of such appointments, and the salary attached to the office.
  MR. BIRRELL: Prior to and at the time of his appointment as temporary inspector under the Local Government Board, Mr. MacSweeney was a journalist. Mr. Cosgrove, who is a member of the Irish Bar, was also a journalist. As regards the qualifications for the post of temporary inspector I would refer to my Answer to the hon. Member for North Leitrim on 17th April last. The maximum salary of the office is £500 a year.
  MR. W. MOORE: In regard to the qualification of these gentlemen I should like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman has seen the complaint of the Freeman's Journal, which suggests that he has used the power of the Government to bribe for their service these excellent officials?
  MR. BIRRELL: No, sir.

  Kilmore Outrage.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 26th November three men were fired at from behind a hedge in the townland of Kilmore, County Clare, as they were driving along a road; and whether any arrests have been made.
  MR. BIRRELL: On 24th November last two shots were fired in a field at Kilmore at a time when three men were passing along the road. A man was arrested and taken before the resident magistrate, who refused informations. There was no evidence to show that the shots were fired at the men.

  Mount Butler Outrage.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received the police report that four head of cattle grazing on the Mount Butler lands, and belonging to Mr. D. Keesham, were mutilated by having their tails cut off; and whether any arrests have been made.
  MR. BIRRELL: A police report as to the offence referred to in the Question was received in the month of October last, when the matter occurred. The offence was committed at night. No arrests were made.
  MR. BYLES: Is it not a common practice for ladies and gentlemen in this country to cut off the tails of their dogs and horses?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Missing Grown Jewels.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Crown jewels and other property lost from Dublin Castle have been recovered; and can he state in whose keeping they were during the time they were mislaid.
  MR. BIRRELL: The stolen jewels have not been recovered.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Having regard to the stupendous crime, will the Chief Secretary proclaim Dublin Castle? It is the only disturbed area in Ireland.

  Clare County Court Judge.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what were the several employments and occupations of Mr. Bodkin prior to and at the

  723
  time of his recent appointment as County Court Judge of Clare, the qualifications required in cases of such appointments, and the salary attached to the office.
  MR. BIRRELL: The qualification prescribed by Statute for the position of County Court Judge and Chairman of Quarter Sessions in Ireland is that the person to be appointed shall be a practising barrister-at law of ten years standing at the least, who shall have actually practised ten years in His Majesty's Superior Courts in Dublin, and shall not at the time of his appointment to such office have retired from such practice. Mr. Bodkin possessed this qualification, and I do not propose to make enquiry as to any employment in which he may have engaged outside his professional practice. The salary attached to the office is £1,400 a year.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it a fact that Mr. Bodkin has also been employed by the Freeman's Journal as leader writer during the last three or four years?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no information as to who writes articles in Irish newspapers. It is a subject to which I am totally indifferent, but I see no reason why a Member of the Bar should not be employed to write leading articles in any respectable newspaper.
  MR CHARLES CRAIG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has ascertained if it is a fact that Mr. Bodkin has been chief leader writer—nothing else—for a number of years, and has not held a brief during that period?
  MR. BIRRELL: I believe that is not so, and must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the illiterate gentleman of the county of Clare, who seems to know more about it than I do.
  MR. MOORE: What made the illiterate gentleman make an affidavit for the Government at the end of the case?
  MR. BIRRELL: A pint of porter.

  Leitrim Extra Police Charges.
  MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Leitrim County Council refused to pay the demand of the receiver of the Royal Irish Constabulary for £322 for extra police in that county up to 30th September, 1907; and if the Government intend to enforce payment of this claim by deduction from grants or otherwise.
  MR. BIRRELL: On 18th December last the Leitrim County Council passed a resolution protesting against the levy of the amount referred to in the Question. Since that date the statutory certificate which is a condition precedent to the recovery of the amount, has been issued, and this will come before the council at their next meeting. If the council should refuse to pay, the necessary steps for the recovery of the amount will be taken in due course.

  Irish Poor Law Administration.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to introduce any legislation during the present session to give effect to the Report of the Commission on the Irish Poor Law Administration, and in particular to deal with the grievances of the Irish Poor Law medical officers.
  MR. BIRRELL: It is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to amend the Irish Poor Laws, but I cannot hold out any hope that an opportunity will arise during the current session.

  Irish Criminal Statistics.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the fact that in the Judicial Statistics (Ireland), 1906 (Part I., Criminal Statistics), a new classification has been adopted and a new table inserted, under the heading Quasi-Criminal Offences, such offences being described as frequently leading up to more serious crimes; is he aware that the offences described under this head are of a non-indictable

  725
  character, comprising such cases as offences against sanitary laws, maintenance orders, orders under The Employers' and Workmen Act, 1875, unsound meat, Infectious Disease Act, dog licences, dangerous and neglected structures, amounting in all to 21,979 applications, and that in the English and Scottish statistics such cases as these are not described as quasi-criminal, but are collected in the civil statistics; and, whether, in view of the fact that the insertion of these offences in the Criminal Statistics (Ireland) may give rise to a false estimate of the amount of crime in Ireland, he will take steps to ensure that in the next volume of statistics issued the ordinary practice will be adhered to, and offences such as described above be placed in the volume of civil statistics, as is the practice in England and Scotland.
  MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Member's Question is founded upon a misapprehension of the facts. About the year 1892, the then Home Secretary appointed a Committee to revise the criminal portion of the Judicial Statistics of England and Wales, and, in accordance with the recommendations of this Committee, a new table was inserted in the statistics showing proceedings in quasi-criminal matters in courts of summary jurisdiction. In the year 1895 a precisely similar table was embodied in the Irish statistics. The same plan has since been followed in both countries. If the hon. Member will refer to the Judicial statistics, England and Wales, 1905 (Part I. Criminal Statistics), he will find in Table XIV. the precise counterpart of the Irish table referred to in the Question.
  In reply to Mr. ARNOLD-FOSTER (Croydon)—
  MR. BIRRELLsaid the table referred to quasi-criminal matters dealt with in courts of summary jurisdiction.
  MR. MOONEYwas understood to ask if the non-taking out of a dog licence was treated in the table as a criminal offence.
  MR. BIRRELL: I will look into that.

  Colthurst Estate Evicted Tenant.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
  726
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received a claim for reinstatement from Matthew Twomey, evicted tenant on the Colthurst estate, Ballyvourney; and will this claim be inquired into before the final inspection of the estate takes place.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners received upwards of a year ago an application for reinstatement from the evicted tenant named, and after due inquiry decided that they could take no action in the case.

  Naas Cattle-Drive.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether several policemen were injured in resisting a cattle-drive at Naas on 20th January; and whether any persons were arrested.
  MR. BIRRELL: About one o'clock in the morning of 20th January a police patrol of two men found a party of thirty-five men in the act of driving cattle off a farm near Naas. The police endeavoured to identify the offenders and, while doing so, were assaulted and knocked down, but not seriously injured. No person has been arrested.

  Gort Outrages.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has been furnished with particulars of two shooting outrages in the Gort district on 9th January; and whether the perpetrators have been discovered.
  I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received particulars of a shooting outrage at Garryland, near Gort, on 8th January; and whether the police have made any arrests in connection with this occurrence.
  MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Member appears to have inverted the dates of the offences referred to in these two questions. The offence of the 8th January was the subject of a question which the hon. Member put to me yesterday, namely, the firing at men who were felling trees

  727
  on Lord Gough's property near Gort. On the night of 9th January shots were fired through the window of a room in Garryland Lodge, near Gort, and at the same time shots were fired at an engine-driver's hut at that place. In the absence of evidence, it has not been possible to make any arrests.

  Loughrea Outrage.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at Loughrea, on 8th January, the house of a labourer was attacked and two shots fired through the window; and whether any arrests took place in connection with the outrage.
  MR. BIRRELL: On 7th January two shots were fired through the window of the house of Michael Callanan, labourer, Loughrea. The police have so far been unable to procure evidence which would justify an arrest.

  Labourers Act in Ulster.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he could state the number of applications received under the Labourers Act, and the number sanctioned by the Local Government Board, in the various counties in Ulster up to the end of December last; and the number of applications received, and the numbers approved of, for the provinces of Munster. Leinster, and Connaught, for the same term.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Answer to this Question, comprises long tabular statements of figures, and with the hon. Member's permission I will circulate a painted Answer with the Votes.

  Irish Post Offices.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General how many instances there are in Ireland of post offices on licensed premises; and has the number been increased or diminished since 1st January, 1906.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am obtaining the information desired by the hon. Member and will forward it to him in the course of a few days.

  The Hague Conference.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether before signifying the adherence of this country to the decision of The Hague Peace Conference to establish an international Court of Naval Prize, His Majesty's Government intend to submit to this House, for its debate and decision thereon, the alterations thus proposed to be made in the Law of Nations as hitherto administered in this country. May I say we are all glad to see the right hon. Gentleman back in his place again.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): Thank you. I am advised that material changes will be necessary in our Home and Colonial Municipal Prize Laws before effect can be given to this Convention. His Majesty's Government hold themselves free to sign the Convention at any time, but it would be proper that the legislation to effect these changes should be sanctioned by Parliament before the Convention is ratified.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS,who took the opportunity to associate himself with the hon. Member for Norwood in expressing the pleasure with which they saw the right hon. Gentleman back in his place, asked the Prime Minister, in the event of the debate on the Address being concluded this week, what would be the business on Monday next.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As far as we can estimate, it will be possible, and therefore desirable, to bring the discussion on the Address to an end on Thursday night. As the right hon. Gentleman's question refers to next week, perhaps I might ask him to repeat the question on Thursday, which is the usual day for giving information as to the business of the following week.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAShoped the right hon. Gentleman, before finally deciding to close the debate on the Address on Thursday, would consider three Motions to which the Opposition attached

  729
  very considerable importance—the questions of a Minister of Commerce, the incidence of local taxation, and the state of the hop-growing industry.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We have no desire to shut out the Motions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers; but, in the interests of the general convenience, we think it would be right that the debate on the Address should be finished on Thursday night.
  MR. CHAPLINpressed the right hon. Gentleman to allow at all events the question of the status of the Board of Trade to be raised. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that this was a matter on which immense interest was taken by the local authorities throughout the country.
  MR. J. WARDreminded the Prime Minister that on the very first night of the session the debate could not be kept going the allotted time, and that last night the House was almost counted out.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERAN: That, Sir, is the other side of the picture, which it is the duty of the Government to keep in view.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Percy Archer Olive, esquire, for the Comity of Hereford (Southern or Ross
  Division).

NEW BILLS.
  CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
  "To amend the Law as to Coroners' Inquests in the case of Fatal Accidents on Railways, and for purposes relating thereto," presented by Sir Francis Channing; supported by Mr. Bell, Sir Charles Schwann, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Charles Nicholson, Mr. Tomkinson, and Mr. Massie; to be read a second time upon Friday, 8th May, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

  TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
  "To amend the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1907, with respect to the construction
  730
  and maintenance of Telegraphic lines for Telephonic and other Telegraphic purposes," presented by Mr. Sydney Buxton; to be read a second upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

  SCOTTISH LAND BILL.
  "To establish a Department of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland, and to amend the Law relating to agricultural holdings and allotments in Scotland," presented by Sir Edward Tennant; supported by Mr. Munro Ferguson; to be read a second time upon Friday, 21st February, and to be printed" [Bill 36.]
  FEUS AND BUILDING LEASES (SCOT. LAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Feus and Leases for Building in Scotland," presented by Mr. Findlay; supported by Sir Andrew Torrance, Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. Beale, Mr. Hodge, Mr. John Deans Hope, Mr. Laidlaw, Mr. Menzies, Mr. Murray Macdonald, and Mr. Dundas White; to be read a second time upon Friday, 14th February, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TRANSFER OF POWERS OF STANDING JOINT COMMITTEES) BILL.
  "To transfer to County Councils in England and Wales the powers and duties of the Standing Joint Committees," presented by Mr. Trevelyan; supported by Mr. Brigg and Mr. Adkins; to be read a second time upon Friday, 1st May, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]
  CORONERS' INQUESTS BILL.
  "To dispense with the compulsory viewing of bodies on the holding of Coroners' Inquests," presented by Mr. Higham; supported by Mr. Luke White, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Summerbell, Mr. Toulmin, and Mr. Cameron; to be read a second time upon Friday, 3rd April, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

  BALLOT ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Ballot Act, 1872, and to provide for the taking of a second ballot at parliamentary and other elections," presented by Mr. Higham; supported by Mr. Dunn, Mr. Rowlands, Dr. Shipman, Mr. Clough, Sir Maurice Levy,

  731
  and Mr. Fenwick; to be read a second time upon Friday, 24th April, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

  POLICE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Superannuation of the Police," presented by Mr. Samuel Roberts; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL.
  "To amend The Infant Life Protection Act, 1897," presented by Mr. Staveley-Hill; supported by Mr. Lee, Mr. Hay, Mr. Hills, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, and Mr. Nicholls; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 10th March, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]
  DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.
  "To promote the earlier use of Daylight in certain months yearly; and for other purposes relating thereto," presented by Mr. Robert Pearce; supported by Sir William Bull and Mr. Horinman; to be read a second time upon, Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]
THE LISBON MURDERS.

  RESOLUTION OF SYMPATHY.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of moving the Resolution which stands in my name on the Paper with regard to the terrible catastrophe which has just occurred in Lisbon. It runs as follows: "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to convey to His Majesty the expression of the indignation and deep concern with which this House has learned the assassination of His Majesty's ancient ally and friend His Majesty the King of Portugal and the Algarves, and of His Royal Highness the Duke of Braganza; and to pray His Majesty that he will be graciously pleased to express to His Majesty the present King, on the part of this House, his faithful Commons, their abhorrence of the crime and their sympathy with the Royal Family of Portugal and with the people of that country." Sir, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to find words adequate to express the horror and indignation with which the news
  732
  of this mad, revolting crime was received throughout the civilised world. And I think the House will agree entirely with me when I say that there are reasons which make that feeling even more intense, and cause a more genuine I commingling with it, of regret and sympathy in this country than anywhere else. The scene indeed is, I believe, almost without parallel in history. The main street of a great city is filled on a quiet afternoon with the usual crowd of peaceable and busy citizens. A carriage drives up containing the members of the Royal Family on their way to resume residence in their home in the capital—a family conspicuous for the qualities of affability, accessibility to all, and for the affection with which they are regarded by all who come in contact with them. Suddenly an assault is made by a group of assassins, and the King, the manly, friendly, kindly King, a man of high intelligence and of great accomplishment, a man devoted to his people and to his duty, is smitten to death as he sits, and together with him his son, so full of youthful hope and promise. Such a scene brings shame upon the human race, and that shame is only, alas! partially redeemed by the calm courage displayed by a noble woman. It is no wonder that this foul deed has been regarded with execration everywhere; but, as I have said, there are reasons in this country why it should particularly and peculiarly concern us. For Portugal is our traditional friend—the traditional friend of the British people. The King was the close ally and the undoubted friend of our Sovereign, and the stricken Queen was born and brought up within our shores; and if it is not too much to say, I think I may be permitted to do so, that in a large part of her associations and in her heart's affections and sympathies, she may be said to be English. We wish to let the widowed Queen know, we wish to let the young King, summoned amid such tragic circumstances to take so high a place in his country, know, and we wish the whole people of Portugal to know, that nowhere are there better well-wishers and keener sympathisers with them than in this House of Commons. It is for that purpose I move this Resolution.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I rise, Sir, according to precedent, to second the Resolution moved by the Prime Minister. I am sure that the Prime Minister has given expression to the universal feeling of indignation which exists in this House at the dastardly crime which has caused the death of the King of Portugal and of the Duke of Braganza, the Heir-Apparent. It would not be necessary to add anything to the eloquent language which has been used by the Prime Minister were it not that I am anxious to emphasise the unanimity which prevails in this House of abhorrence of the crime, of its sympathy with the Royal family of Portugal, and with the people of that country. Nowhere in the world will these cruel and senseless assassinations be viewed with greater indignation than in this country. Not only was King Carlos related to our Royal Family, not only was his Royal Consort born in this country, but he had made himself a familiar, and I may say a popular, figure to many of our citizens, at all events in the Metropolis. By his general intelligence, by his manly bearing, by his genial courtesy, by his true sportsmanship, and by his loyalty and his unswerving friendship to this country, shown during the whole period of his reign, he had cemented that traditional alliance between the two countries which no passing cloud of misunderstanding ever unsettled, which proyed to be so advantageous to this country, and which it is the desire of every patriotic Englishman long to maintain. We deplore the loss which Portugal has sustained, and we express by this Resolution our abhorrence of the crime which brought it about—a crime which is as brutal as it is useless. Our heartfelt sympathy goes out in its fullest measure to the Queen of Portugal, whose splendid courage we must all admire, to Portugal's new Monarch, Manuel II., on whose shoulders at so early an age and in so tragic a manner the burden of kingdom has been so suddenly placed. We trust that all that stands in Portugal for good government may rally round the youthful King, who has with so much touching candour admitted his want of knowledge and experience, and has appealed to his statesmen for guidance and advice.
  734
  Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to convey to His Majesty the expression of the indignation and deep concern with which this House has learned the assassination of His Majesty's ancient ally and friend His Majesty the King of Portugal and the Algarves, and of His Royal Highness the Duke of Braganza; and to, pray His Majesty that he will be graciously pleased to express to His Majesty the present King, on the part of this House, his faithful Commons, their abhorrence of the crime and their sympathy with the Royal Family of Portugal and with the people of that country.—(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)
  To be presented by Privy Councillors and Members of His Majesty's Household.

  KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [3rd February] to Main Question [29th January], "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. Lehmann.)
  Which Amendment was—
  "At the, end of the Question, to add the words, 'But humbly express our regret that Your Majesty's advisers have failed to refer to the increase of agrarian crime and disorder in Ireland, or to give any assurance as to the adoption of measures for the batter protection of the lives and properties of Your Majesty's subjects, and for the repression of lawlessness and intimidation in that part of Your Majesty's Dominions.' "—(Mr. Long.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. CHAPLIN: In the observations I was making last night when by the rules of this House the

  735
  debate stood adjourned, I was dealing with the condition of Ireland and the attitude of the Chief Secretary in regard to it. This afternoon, if I may, I wish to allude to the statement made not many days ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he put this question—"What is the charge, after all, against the Chief Secretary?" But it is not a charge against the Chief Secretary alone by any means—but against his colleagues in the Cabinet as well. The Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced their unreserved support of the Chief Secretary, not only for what he had done in Ireland, but for everything that he had abstained from doing, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer took opportunity on that occasion to utter some very valiant words of his own with regard to cattle-driving in Ireland and the action to be taken with regard to it. For not only did he denounce cattle-driving itself in scathing terms, he spoke of it as one of the most reprehensible, criminal and mischievous practices in Ireland at the present time; but he assurred the public in emphatic words that—"It must be put down, and put down it should be."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,)And it has been.
  MR. CHAPLIN: No, it has not been put down, as the right Hon. Gentleman will learn if he will consult the information available to him as well as to me, and certainly by no action of the Government. Cattle-driving, I admit, has undergone a considerable lull—with an intention which I will not characterise and of which I do not know the secret; but it is a fact that almost immediately after the right hon. Gentleman made his bold, outspoken statement of the intentions of the Government his speech was followed by a cattle-drive on one of the largest scales yet known. I have information, too, before me from sources which I am assured can be relied upon, showing that not only does cattle-driving exist to-day in different parts of Ireland, but it has extended from animals grazing in the fields to cattle which are stored in the homesteads. I find it stated in The Times on 30th
  736
  January that fifty animals were taken out of farm buidings on one occasion and driven away, and this in spite of all the declarations and pledges given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the members of the Cabinet. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary say that that was an inaccurate statement?
  MR. BIRRELL: I said I had not heard of the transaction.
  MR. CHAPLIN: It is very strange, and I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman's information as to cattle-driving is not all that we could wish. I take it from the charge of one of the Judges in Ireland, and it is confirmed by hon. Gentlemen who are well informed on these matters—from gentlemen who, when many months ago they warned the Chief Secretary as to the then condition of Ireland and what it would lead to, were derided and ridiculed by him.
  MR. BIRRELL: I did nothing of the kind.
  MR. CHAPLIN: That is a question of the interpretation to be put upon the language which he used.
  MR. BIRRELL: I did not.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Again I say, it is a matter of opinion, and it is my interpretation of his language when he described hon. Gentlemen on this side, with far better knowledge of the country than himself, as "carrion crows." Was that ridicule or was it not? At all events I am entitled to say this: when he took office the Chief Secretary has admitted that Ireland was more peaceful than at any time during the previous 600 years, and he ridiculed the men who warned him that he was mistaken in this view. But last night he had to come down and admit to a crowded House of Commons that the condition of Ireland during his tenure of office has been converted from a peaceful condition to one which even he looked upon with grave and constant anxiety. And, as I have said, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured the English public before Parliament met that cattle-driving should be put down we find that the practice

  737
  had been actually extended from grazing cattle to stall-fed cattle in the homesteads. The right hon. Gentleman says it is absolutely untrue. I hope it is untrue, and, if it is, I shall be justified in having raised the question, because it has given the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of contradicting the statement. I will read the report—
  "At Navan Quarter Sessions, yesterday, his Honour Judge Curran delivered judgment in an application for compensation for malicious injury arising out of a cattle-drive which took place in County Meath in November last. From the evidence it appeared that fifty-nine fat cattle, the property of Mr. William McKeever, were taken from the stalls where they had been penned for three weeks, were driven in various directions through the country, and were not recovered until the following morning. Judge Curran said the act was a most outrageous one."
  MR. ASQUITII: What was the date of the occurrence?
  MR. CHAPLIN: This is reported in The Times of 30th January. The date of the occurrence was November last.
  MR. ASQUITHwas understood to say that he was not aware of the occurrence at the time he spoke.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I apologise if I have in any way misquoted the right hon. Gentleman. Was not he aware of it at the time he made the statement?
  MR. ASQUITH: No.
  MR. CHAPLIN: No. Then the case was worse than he supposed, and there were additional reasons which he was not aware of for his emphatic declaration at the time he made it, viz., "that it must be put down, and put down it should be," one reason being that cattle-driving has been applied for a long time it seems—although the right hon. Gentleman has never had the information—to cattle in stalls. In this case fifty animals had been taken from their stalls by violence, and yet we have been told by Gentlemen opposite, and some of their warm supporters in that part of the House [pointing to the Nationalist Benches] that cattle - driving is a harmless offence, and that there was
  738
  no case known of injury having been done to animals driven in this way. But to put down cattle-driving is the one thing that the right hon. Gentleman has not done; it is the very tiling which he has abstained altogether from doing. That is perfectly evident, because it continues in a modified degree even still; and I am unable to reconcile the declarations and the pledges given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his unreserved support of the Chief Secretary in abstaining from doing the very thing which he undertook and unreservedly promised the Government should do. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, fell back on general disorder in Ireland, and there he made the rather ridiculous statement that the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on the first night of the debate was a caricature of the condition of Ireland. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find it somewhat difficult when he speaks to-night to prove it. I affirm from the information which is public property everywhere, that there has been constant open defiance of the law, and almost daily contempt of the law in Ireland, and that the country in that respect is worse at the present moment than I ever remember it. [MINISTERIAL Cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Members say "Oh!" It is true that as regards violent crimes we have not now anything like the murders which have been committed in Ireland. Are we to wait for wholesale murder in that country before the law is vindicated and law and order maintained I My observation was limited to this—and I challenge contradiction—that with regard to open, glaring defiance and daily contempt of the law in that country, the condition of Ireland was never more grave than it is at the present time. The figures given by the right hon. Gentleman last night were in themselves sufficient to contradict the Chancellor of the Exchequer's assertion that our statements and the statements in the Press are caricatures. What about the increase in outrages by firearms? They have grown enormously since the time that Ireland was represented as being in an exceptionally peaceful condition. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman try to reply to the powerful and able speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge University last

  739
  night? That speech was plain, frank, and outspoken, and, I believe, absolutely true. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer answer that speech if he can. [Laughter.] It is all very well for people to laugh, but it is a speech which requires a reply, and if it is not replied to—and nobody so far has attempted to reply to it—it is because it is true and cannot be answered and I am justified in my statements. But if the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with statements that come from us on this side of the House., what has he to say of the charges of Judges in Ireland? I am very sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the last man in this House to impugn the impartiality or to ridicule the gravity of the statements that have been made by the Judges in Ireland in their charges to juries. [NATIONALIST laughter.] I am quite sure that the laughter I hear below the Gangway is not joined in by the members of His Majesty's Government. I shall wait with great interest to know how much or how little of these charges has been brought to the attention of the members of the Government, apart from the Chief Secretary, whose special duty it is, to attend to them. I think I have seen them all, and statements of greater gravity it has never been my misfortune to road or consider, during all the years I have been in Parliament, although in former years I do remember that very grave statements came again and again from the Judges in Ireland at that time. I do not wish to dwell on them at undue length, but I must remind right hon. Gentlemen opposite that in this particular case they are the incriminated parties themselves. They are the defendants at this moment in the action which has been brought against them by my right hon. friend, and we naturally attribute more importance to the evidence of the witnesses whom we believe to be absolutely impartial, for they have nothing to make them otherwise. We give to it more importance than we do to the descriptions which the right hon. Gentleman gives to this House in defence of his colleagues and himself. The Judges have month by month depicted the condition of Ireland as going from bad to worse, without the smallest effect whatever on the attitude of the Government. In his address to the grand
  740
  jury at Longford a few days ago, Judge Curran said that in October last he referred to the persistent and long-continued conspiracy against certain individuals in the hope that the authorities would put an end to this persecution, and afford those unfortunate people some protection. I suppose that came under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I assume by his silence that that is absolutely correct. What did the Government do? One would have thought that any English Government would have taken some action on this statement. But the Judge goes on to say—
  "But he found that not a finger had been raised and not a movement had been made by the authorities for the defence and protection of those individuals. He found that since the last Quarter Sessions there had been twenty-six eases of boycotting, affecting fifty-one individuals."
  And yet the Chief Secretary last night only made most fervid declarations upon the cruelty and wickedness of boycotting—
  "There is nothing in the world," he said, "that I would not do to put an end to this abominable practice of boycotting."
  Yes, Sir. But he forgets there is one thing which we say he will not do, and that is to take the one effective method which other Governments have used, viz., to employ all the powers of the law at his disposal. The right hon. Gentleman stands convicted by his own words. Since he came into office there has been a steady recrudescence of boycotting, and under the influence of the Land League it is spreading rapidly to-day.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Was there no boycotting during the last Government?
  MR. CHAPLIN: In nothing like the same proportion it has reached since the right hon. Gentleman came into office, and we have it from the Chief Secretary that after many years of Unionist Government, that Ireland was more peaceful than it had ever been before. But the right hon. Gentleman says that, "The Crimes Act would be ineffective." Why? It was effective before. Why is it that other people have been able to put Ireland in a peaceful condition, and how and why is

  741
  it that the right hon. Gentleman has only succeeded in converting vast districts of Ireland into hot-beds of sedition and crime, during the few mouths in which he has held office? I might refer to any number of charges from other Judges, and Heaven knows there is enough in them to make the hair of hon. Members in the House stand on end! But I will not, and all I will ask is to go back for one single moment, if I may, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and cattle-driving. In connection with the sudden outburst of this new form of outrages the right hon. Gentleman made a very remarkable statement which struck me greatly at all events and which I cut out at the time. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is accurately reported, but in the report he says—
  "Cattle-driving was only a manifestation of something else of which the Government was bound to take notice. We believe that when we see manifestations of this kind going on over a considerable part of Ireland, undoubtedly it will be your first duty to enforce the law to protect property and to maintain order."
  But that is the very thing you have not done. It is his own declaration.
  MR. ASQUITH: "whose declaration?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman's. Here are his own words, and how can he get away from them?—
  "It will be your first duty to enforce the law to protect property and to maintain order."
  And yet he and his colleagues allow 400 cattle-drives to be made in one year and with impunity—a state of things which the right hon. Gentleman has described as a most reprehensible, most criminal, and most mischievous form of outrage; and the whole time neglecting what he himself has declared to be their first and primary duty. But I go on a bit further. The light hon. Gentleman says—
  "You cannot brush such manifestations aside as if they were meaningless, motiveless horseplay…. We must find something in the social and economical conditions of which they are the deplorable outcome to find some-thing which appears to palliate the illegal conduct of these men."
  MR. ASQUITH: I said "not to palliate."
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am delighted to hear it. I could not conceive that the
  742
  right hon. Gentleman meant to palliate such proceedings.
  MR. ASQUITH: I used the word "not," but it has been omitted from the report.
  MR. CHAPLIN: That is one of the misfortunes from which a great many of us suffer in these days, though the right hon. Gentleman not so much as others perhaps, from his distinguished position. And then the right hon. Gentleman goes on to describe what that something else is; and what does it amount to? It is the desire of a great number of the population of Ireland to get untenanted land. It is not an uncommon desire of a great portion of humanity to get possession of what belongs to somebody else; but I do not understand that that would in any way justify the attitude of the Government. But apart from that, the right hon. Gentleman forgets that that something else which he has found was in existence when his Government came into office. Probably Ireland has never been free from it. But if it was in existence when Ireland was so transcendentally peaceful, is it not perfectly obvious that this sudden recrudescence of disorder and outrage must have been due to something totally different? The Chief Secretary found Ireland in that position of peacefulness which made him contrast his happy lot so thankfully with that of so many of his predecessors. No, this recrudescence of crime was due to something totally different. What was it? I can only give my own personal impression from a careful study of the condition of Ireland, which I have always watched with the deepest interest; and I have no doubt as to the original cause. It was a most uncalled-for and peculiarly foolish statement of the Minister newly appointed to office and who had not then acquired probably all the knowledge of Ireland which was essential to the discharge of his duty. The right hon. Gentleman took an early opportunity of saying in this House that whatever might happen in Ireland, so far as he was concerned hon. Members from Ireland might take it that the Crimes Act would not be made use of, and that

  743
  that Act itself might be considered dead and buried so long as this Government continued in power. That was all very well. But it was news to a great many people in Ireland, and it spread throughout the whole of the country like wild-fire. The Irish people discovered that they were again confronted with a Minister and Government who had neither the courage nor the nerve to enforce the law and do their duty. They were told over and over again, and were allowed to believe, that they had the secret support of many of the members of the Government in cattle-driving, and that those who were the first to drive the cattle would be the first to get the land. When they were told that by Members of this House against whom the right hon. Gentleman never took a single step—when the right hon. Gentleman allowed these Members of Parliament to preach these doctrines all over the district and left the inciters to crime, the real authors of the mischief, to go free—when it was only by the action of one of the Judges who had more courage and determination than the right hon. Gentleman had, that one of them was at last imprisoned,—this mistaken action in the first instance among so excitable a people as the Irish, was more than sufficient to create that condition of things in Ireland which so unhappily prevails to-day. No reply worthy of acceptance has been made from the benches opposite up to the present moment to the charges made by the Judges and to the Amendment moved by my right hon. friend. The Government may rely upon it that their unfortunate action in these respects sooner or later will inevitably re-act upon themselves, and I am inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman has found that out for himself and that he has great fears for the future. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt the other night upon the difficulties of the congested districts, he spoke, indeed, in terms which betrayed his deep anxiety whether it would be possible really to regenerate or to improve and alter the condition of the people in certain parts of Ireland, and to bring about a new state of things, in order to relieve the congested districts. I gather that from one statement in which he referred to a question which was sometimes asked, as follows: "Did not
  744
  God make the Irish land for the Irish people?" "Yes," he said, "but what do you mean by that? Is the land of Mayo, is the land of Roscommon made for the people of Ireland?" There I think the right hon. Gentleman pointed and with perfect truth to a difficulty which is bound and certain to await him, which, except on one condition, will, I believe, defeat him in all his schemes for dealing with the great problem of congestion in the future, and that condition is that he teaches by his example and his action the Irish people to believe and know that both by him and by his colleagues the primary duty of a Government, so long neglected, the duty of maintaining law and order will be unflinchingly observed. Whatever your desires and wishes may be for the improvement of the congested districts, you have no warmer sympathiser than I am in regard to them. I remember advocating myself years ago that the only remedies for the congested districts were two things—migration wherever it was possible, but accompanied by something else, and that was emigration. Migration alone I do not think can ever be a remedy sufficient for the existing condition of things, but if there were in addition some carefully and well considered system of emigration, for which there are great openings in the Colonies, I do think that in that direction something real and practical could be done. I always thought that was the chief and best feature of Mr. Gladstone's Land Act of 1881, but, unfortunately, it was the one part of his Bill to which the least attention was given after it had become law, and I do not think that anything practical in this direction was ever attempted at all. I am afraid that nothing they have said to us to-night or last night can exonerate this Government from the charge which my right hon. friend made against them by the Motion which he placed upon the Table last night. You succeeded, on your own admission, to the government of Ireland when the country was in a most exceptionally peaceful condition, and in less than twelve months you have converted it, in many of its districts, into what it is no exaggeration to describe—I think this is language used by some of the Judges, though I would not pledge myself to that without further reference to their

  745
  Statements—as nothing but hot beds of disorder and sedition at the present time. You stand convicted of this, having all the time at your hands ready for use at any moment the means and the power of maintaining order, preserving peace, and of giving the protection of the law and of equal and impartial justice to every single subject of the King in Ireland, without the least distinction; you have failed—wilfully and deliberately as we think, failed to do it. What reply have you to give to the challenge across this Table by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge last night when he said that at this moment there are two laws in Ireland, viz: the law of the United Irish League; and the law of the King, and, unhappily we have too much reason to believe that under the reign of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on that bench, in the vast majority of cases, many of them utterly unknown to you, many of them never reaching the people of England in the smallest degree, it is the law of the Land League and not the law of the King which prevails in Ireland to-day. I have never heard it denied and I believe it is true that in many cases oven now under the rule of the right hon. Gentleman the writ of the King does not run. It is upon that count that you are tried to-day; it is on that count you will be judged and be convicted, whenever you have the courage to appeal to a tribunal other than this, namely, the people of this country.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the speech to which they had just listened very patiently, was a very fitting episode in a somewhat remarkable debate. He had a very great respect and regard for the right hon. Gentleman and he hoped he would not consider it offensive on his part if he said that his Parliamentary oratory always seemed to him to play the same part in literature that monumental sculpture did in other phases of art. His language was leisurely and lofty and slightly complex and he thought to-day that he gave the coup de grace to one of the most moribund debates the House of Commons had ever listened to. He had had the advantage of hearing the right hon. Gentleman so often that his speeches were already known to him before he delivered them.
  746
  For instance, he knew that one of the things that he would say was that the great misfortune to Ireland was to have a weak Radical Government. He agreed with him, but he should state that the converse of that proposition was quite true, that the most squeezable of all Governments and therefore the most useful for Ireland, was a weak Tory Government. He also knew that the right hon. Gentleman would say that the land hunger of Ireland was due to the effect of the selfish commercial policy of this country in the 17th century. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, but he immediately added that he missed from his speech some of the picturesque illustrations with which he had heard him adorn it on previous occasions. The right. hon. Gentleman was not satisfied then with saying that it was the selfish commercial instincts of this country in the 17th century that destroyed Ireland. He said it was the selfish commercial instincts of the Chamberlains' and the Collings' of the 17th century that produced land hunger. Since that time these two distinguished colleagues of his, who figured so largely in his former orations, had purified themselves from all charges of selfishness by accepting tariff reform. For himself he called this the most remarkable debate he had ever heard. A debate heralded with a greater amount of blazonings, trumpetings and Press preliminaries he had never known. It had been prepared and heralded by a most mendacious Press campaign, and he had never known an Irish Minister pursued with such a ruthless and merciless attack as the present Chief Secretary. And what had happened to this debate so loudly heralded? It began with the speech of the right hon. Member for South Dublin. The speeches of the right hon. Gentleman always left something to be desired on the score of lucidity and what he I might call political wisdom, but they had always a boisterousness and vigour, but his speech on this occasion was made in a state of apparently mental and physical depression; in fact, the right hon. Gentleman made one of the weakest speeches he ever heard uttered in this House. When he considered the rghit hon. Gentleman's policy he was

  747
  reminded of an American humorist who, alluding to another gentleman, said, "If he had a little more sense he would actually be half-witted," and if the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, had only a little more sense it would actually be half-witted. What was complained of in regard to the Chief Secretary was his weakness, his want of nerve and his failure. That was not the real charge; that was not the real reason that inspired murmurs from above the gangway. The real reason for mournful and funereal utterances was that the Chief Secretary had been strong, courageous, and successful. He suggested to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen above the gangway that their imaginations were a little wanting in artistic reserve and moderation. Whenever they started a campaign of this kind in the future he would advise them to indulge in a little less exaggeration of language than a great many of them, and some of their Leaders indulged in. The Marquess of Lansdowne, speaking in another place, spoke of Macedonia and Ireland in the same breath and marked the recurring note and refrain in all these articles and speeches. It had occurred so often that really it seemed to him that they were all formed upon the same model. The noble Lord said that the only places in Europe to-day where they could find any analogy to the state of Ireland were Russia and Turkey, and that idea ran through his speech. His Lordship said that he had seen it stated that in Macedonia in the course of four years there had been 10,000 deaths from violent causes in the villayets. Then he went on to refer to Ireland, and he said it was somewhat remarkable that there should be a complete omission from the Speech from the Throne of any reference to a matter which concerned us much more nearly than others, viz., the condition of a part of the United Kingdom itself. He suggested that the Macedonian paragraph might with a slight verbal alteration have met the case and that it might have read: "The condition of the population in several important Irish counties shows no improvement. Bands instigated by Nationalist Members
  748
  continue to pursue a campaign of violence and the situation gives serious cause for anxiety." That was the kind of language to which he (Mr. O'Connor) was alluding. In a well-known journal he also found the following quotation—
  "The Cabinet are engaged in pressing reforms upon the Sultan with regard to the most disturbed portion of his distressed dominions. It is Sir Edward Grey's official duty to lament the state of things in Macedonia, to point out the absence of security for property, the necessity for an effective administration of justice, the evils following from the want of all settled sense of public order. Abdul Hamid and his advisers are tolerably well-informed as to the contents of the foreign Press, and from the point of view of poetic justice he would be unanswerable if he caused the Sublime Porte to address a note to Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Government calling attention to the notorious and disgraceful conditions of lawless misgovernment agrarian outrage and political brigandage existing in the Hibernian province of the British Empire."
  [OPPOSITION cheers]. That observation was cheered and adopted by hon. Gentlemen above the gangway: that Ireland was in the same state as Macedonia. In Macedonia, according to Lord Lansdowne, and unfortunately he was speaking accurately, there had been in four years 10,000 murders. Ireland was in the same position, yet within the last twelve months there had been not 10,000 or 1,000, there had not been one agrarian murder. The unfortunate tiling for hon. Gentlemen above the gangway was that facts had a most inconvenient and almost disloyal way of contradicting their statements. Industries, it was said, were dying, and the very next year it was found that, according to the lying statistics, that industries were never so flourishing. Ireland was in a state of crime and disorder, and the statistics proved in the face of these lying calumnies that Ireland was an absolutely crimeless country. He attached some importance to these campaigns of calumny by one country against another, or a certain portion of the people against another. Calumny of this kind played a very important part in the history of many countries. It was the mendacity of Marat that created the Reign of Terror; it was the mutilating of a despatch that led to the Franco-German War. Why was this campaign started in Ireland, or lather what was the result of it? Every

  749
  honest high-minded and broad-minded man in England, every high and broad-minded man in Ireland considered it his duty at this moment so far as he could to put an end to the secular struggle and hatred between the mass of the English and the Irish people. It was a blessed, noble, and beneficent work for both peoples, and at the moment when that process was going on more rapidly than many persons could appreciate the gentlemen of whom he complained came forward and did equal injustice to both countries. They aroused the just anger of the people of England by representing the Irish as being a nation of murderers. They created prejudice and hatred in the English people by these false speeches, and in the hearts of the Irish people they created the feeling that if such a campaign could be carried on successfully against their country the English people must be reckoned as an incurable and ignorant enemy whose campaign of calumny could only arouse sentiments of contempt in Ireland. Therefore, these missionaries of Empire, these gentlemen who were so anxious to gather and knit together in bonds of love all the various parts of the Empire, were doing their best to open up the gulf of ignorance and misunderstanding and hatred which he had hoped was being healed between England and Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen were not satisfied with comparing Ireland with Macedonia; they said that Ireland to-day was in a worse state than ever before, and the assertion was made in the face of facts that must be known to some of the Gentlemen who made the statement. He could not excuse the right. hon. Gentleman who spoke last of making the statement that Ireland was worse than it had ever been. Lord Londonderry in the other House when rebuked by the Lord Chancellor for making a similar statement said he was not talking of crime but the demoralisation of the Government. So that when hon. Gentlemen talked of gigantic crime in Ireland, what was really meant was the demoralisation of the Chief Secretary. But there was cattle-driving in Ireland and the refusal of juries to convict. There was cattle-driving, but no crime as he understood it. He did not deny that cattle-driving was a very grave symptom which must
  750
  have given the Chief Secretary many hours of anxiety. It gave others besides the right hon. Gentleman many hours of anxiety. How was the Chief Secretary to deal with it? It was said that the right hon. Gentleman should have dealt with it as the right hon. Member for South Dublin suggested—by coercion. He should have adopted the Act which the right hon. Gentleman himself helped to pass in the year of the jubilee of the late Queen as a sign of the extreme love and loyalty of the people. But what would have been the effect of that? If the right hon. Gentleman had used coercion it would have meant, as the hon. Member for Cork said last night, not a comparatively small outbreak of disorder, but if it had not extended all over Ireland, it would have spread enormously from county to county; and cattle-driving instead of being the isolated action of individuals would have become the duty of every man in the country. If Members of Parliament were sent to prison dozens would be sent after them, and the result of it all would have been that Ireland would have been in the condition of chaos and anarchy that it was now described to be under the administration of the Chief Secretary. What would have been the effect in this country on the Government and on this House I The President of the Local Government Board recently said that there was in this House to-day the greatest instrument of progress that the world had seen since the day of the French Revolution. He agreed with that statement. Supposing this democratic Ministry with this democratic Parliament had used coercion, what would it have meant? It would have resulted in the bankruptcy of democracy in this country; and that was the reason hon. Gentlemen above the gangway wanted it. Democratic Governments were the children of hope, Tory Governments the children of disappointment, preyed upon by privilege and caste. The hope of hon. Gentlemen above the gangway was that if they could have driven the right hon. Gentlemen into coercion they would have been able to have gone to the constituencies and said, "Look at the sincerity of the Liberal Party. They declared against coercion for twenty years, and within two years

  751
  of coming into office they adopted the policy and found that coercion was the only means for governing Ireland." They would have in that way have disparaged and humiliated the Liberal Party in the country. The attempt to get the Chief Secretary to adopt a polity of coercion was not merely a conspiracy against the masses of Ireland, but a conspiracy against the masses of England. He understood that the hon. Member for East Marylebone was going to follow. He was an opponent worthy of any man's steel, and he thought he had treated him with chivalry as such an opponent deserved to be, because he had told him what he was going to say. On the question of boycotting he had told him that he was going to read the following quotation from Lord Salisbury—
  "I have seen plenty of suggestions that the Government are to blame because they have allowed the Crimes Act not to be renewed. Are you quite certain that the Crimes Act would have prevented what is taking place? Do not imagine that the effect of the Crimes Act has been very much exaggerated. While it was in existence there grew up a real danger, out of which boycotting proceeded. Then grew up a thousand branches of the National League all over Ireland. I have seen it said that the ("rimes Act diminished outrages, and that boycotting operated through the outrages, and therefore the Crimes Act diminished boycotting. That is untrue. The Crimes Act did not diminish outrages. Boycotting is a crime of a character which legislation has very great difficulty in reaching. It is similar to the excommunication and interdict of which we have read in the Middle Ages."
  He did not think it was necessary to go so far back as the Middle Ages for specimens of boycotting even in England—boycott of the living, boycott of the dust of the silent dead. They might have come from the Tariff Reform League, or from Hereford, where they were mainly engaged in the discussion of the hop industry. "The unemployed, whence come they?" was the title of a pamphlet in which the following passages occurred in reference to the hop industry—
  "This is a branch of agriculture which re-quires more capital and employs more labour per acre than any other. It is carried on principally in the counties surrounding London, and thus any reduction in plantation (which means the throwing out of work of large numbers of young men) causes the influx into the City of Loudon of a great many in search of Work; they are There preferred to the town dweller, who is accordingly displaced, and thus goes to swell the ranks of the unemployed."
  752
  The pamphlet went on to say—
  "' The following incident illustrates this. Edward Webb, of Worsley, one of the largest hop merchants in the Midlands, a large manure manufacturer and seed merchant whose interests would naturally be supposed to be identical with the hop grower, yet, his connections with the brewers were of so much more importance to him that he actually addressed a circular to them advising them to refrain from buying, in order to force down the market. So incensed were the Worcester farmers that they overturned his stand in the market, and jostled him out—treatment he richly deserved from the farmers' point of view."
  It was that kind of literature which partly accounted for the recent victory. His hon. friend the Member for Donegal had put into his hand an essay by Lord John Russell, on the English Government and Constitution, from the reign of Henry VII. to the present time., and in it he found this passage—
  "Thus, not only are juries in fact the real judges in England, but they possess a power no judge would venture to exercise, namely, that of refusing to put the law in force. Undoubtedly this is a very dangerous power, more especially as juries, consulting in secret, deciding without reason assigned and separating without being afterwards responsible, are free from all control but that of their own consciences; yet exercised as it has been with temper and moderation the diseretion of juries has proved extremely salutary. It has been the cause of amending many bad laws which judges would have administered with exact severity and defended with professional bigotry: and above all it has this important and useful consequence, that laws totally repugnant to the feelings of the community for which they are made cannot long prevail in England."
  To-day the name of Tyburn Tree brought thoughts of boys and girls hanged for stealing pocket-handkerchiefs; of men hanged for the stealing of sheep; and if these things no longer happened, to what was it due? Was it due to the action of Ministers or of Judges? No, it was due to the juries who refused to convict. And then let him not forget that they had in London lately a jury that was almost a gallery of popular heroes. They had also witnesses who were almost a chamber of honors. He did not say that because he blamed the juries. He thought it was an honourable and necessary instinct of juries to watch closely the administration of the law. Otherwise what chance would there be for poverty standing in the dock, friendless, discredited, without money to fee a lawyer? He wondered what would have

  753
  become of Wood if he had not been able, with the generous help of his employers' long purse, to fee Mr. Marshall Hall? And now he came to cattle-driving. What was the origin of it? It had been described as something modern, but that was not the case. D an Swift wrote that in the circumstances which the peasantry of the West of Ireland had to face, sheep were the most dangerous enemies of man, and that they should be treated in the same way as Don Quix te treated them It would be remembered that from the North of Ireland there had been a good deal more "people - driving" as distinguished from cattle - driving. Such things brought their own Nemesis. He was reminded of a personal experience. One of the friends he knew in America was the late Mr. Blane, the most popular figure in America, next to President Roosevelt, since Abraham Lincoln. He had a haunting feeling that there was something strangely familiar in him when conversing with him, and at last it struck him. He said to him: "Do you know that you have an Ulster accent?" Mr. Blane said,"I have never been told that before." But he had an, Ulster accent. And why? He had it because his great-grandfather was an Ulster man, and because a large Ulster colony had settled down in that part of Pennsylvania from which he came. And that colony was still there as was said in the Irish Parliament by the Earl of Mountjoy, the men who encouraged and aided and helped Washington, who cheered him in the hours of gloom, who nerved him in the hours of disappointment, who were the foremost generals of his army and the most fearless admirals of his fleet—the men who created and maintained the American revolution, were the sons of the Ulster men, whom the Party represented to-day by gentlemen above the gangway had forced out of their own country. One of his earliest recollections as a boy was the name of Allan Pollock, a gentle-man who amassed a fortune in Glasgow. He went to Ireland when that country was crushed and bleeding from every pore, when people were lying dead from hunger by the side of the roadside in a land of plenty, and he Jittered the dictum, that Ireland would be a beautiful country but for the people.
  754
  That was at that time the universal doctrine of British statesmanship. The one thing in the fifties and sixties which was preached in Parliament was that the cure for all Ireland's ills was to get rid of the Celt and to put the Saxon in his place. That led to a great many poignant tragedies. He was not surprised that the Chief Secretary resented the statement that he regarded Ireland as a joke. Ireland was so much of a tragedy that it required all his self-control to deal with it without betraying emotion. When he had to speak of a man like Allan Pollock, whose work they had to undo, he spoke of him coming to that fair portion of the county of Galway within a few miles of the town in which he was born and clearing 13,000 out of 15,000 acres of every human being upon them. He spoke of other scenes in Ireland where hundreds of families, some not owing even a penny of rent had been turned out in all kinds of weather, at all times of the year, on Good Friday and on Christmas Day, so that even Sir Robert Peel had to pass a Rill preventing evictions on Good Friday and Christmas. Now he had another word to say to the missionaries of Empire. The battalions of Ulster rebels that made the revolution which robbed this country of its greatest possession had been followed by other battalions, until to-day they had 10,000,000 or 12,000,000 of people in the United States, of Irish birth or Irish blood, who, whenever friendship was proposed—a friendship that might rule the world—between England and the United States, declared "not until England does justice to Ireland." He was in America recently and had the honour of meeting many representative men, from President Roosevelt downwards. He paid a brief visit to Canada and made the acquaintance of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He did not meet a single man of any race, religion, or political Party in the United States or Canada who did not say that of all the follies and crimes of which British statesmanship had been guilty the most glaring, and the most stupid, was the keeping open of this Irish question and refusing to Ireland what was given to other parts of the Empire. From the bottom of his heart he told gentlemen above the Gangway that in refusing to make Ireland satisfied and self-governed

  755
  they were striking the worst blow at the strength and unity as well as the repute of the Empire. That was the way the feeling with regard to cattle-driving had arisen in Ireland. They had to undo the work of Allan Pollock. This was nearly done already. Of all the Scottish settlers that he brought to the country only one remained. It was rather courageous of the Member for Cambridge University to make the old imputation "they have made a solitude and called it peace." In Mayo, in Queen's County, in Meath and in Galway, the Unionists had made a solitude and called it peace, and their work had to be undone. Could they wonder that the Irish in America differed from them? Could they wonder that a man like Michael Davitt should have spent his life trying to break down the institution of Irish landlordism when they remembered that he was walking about at four years of age with bare feet and very little food in his stomach? These were the things that lay behind cattle-driving in Ireland. It was almost at an end now. The Chief Secretary had made an appeal to the good sense and generous feeling of the Irish people. They became their own peacemakers and had done what a thousand Coercion Acts could not do. Cattle-driving would never recur if this Parliament did its duty by the people of Ireland. The Chief Secretary was about to bring in legislation, not to create or initiate a new policy, but to carry out that of the Unionists, to fulfil their promises and to show that after all the word of a British Parliament and of a British Ministry would not be in the future as it had been so often in the past, almost violated. For that reason they looked to the future with great equanimity on that bleak February day, inspired by the speech of the Chief Secretary and by another notable speech; they felt in their veins something of the glow and the heat and the hope of a beautiful spring day. In the dark days of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries their people used to address Ireland in terms of symbolism as the little dark rose. They said the little dark rose would bloom again. They did not see it, but their descendants would. The little dark rose was about to bloom.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he would make no attempt to imitate the somewhat exaggerated eloquence of the speech to which they had Just listened. He would no; as an Englishman perhaps have intervened in the debate had he not felt very deeply the importance of the issue not only to the Irish people but to the English also. An hon. Member who had spoken on the previous evening, had said he did not think an English Member had any right to intervene in a matter which really affected the purely domestic affairs of Ireland He had heard the statement with something like astonishment. Even if the great ideal of hon. Members below the gangway were achieved and Ireland were a self-governing Colony, he did not know that hon. Members oppoiste would refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of that country. He did not see why it was right to criticise the state of affairs in Natal and wrong to criticise them in Ireland. Apart from all that, until Ireland was a self-governing Colony, it would be the duty and privilege of every Member of that House to give his vote according to what he considered to be the best interests of the Government of that country. If the debate had not caused very great interest on the other side of the House it was because the Members of this Parliament were not so alive to their public duty as they ought to be. The issue was one of very great importance. What was the state of affairs in Ireland? They must assume that the condition of Ireland a year ago was exceptionally crimeless and peaceful. What was the state of things now? The hon. Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool complained bitterly of exaggeration, and he gave a long list of injuries which had been done in the past by campaigns of calumny. He did not notice that the hon. Member mentioned any of the campaigns of calumny which had been carried on by the hon. Member himself and his colleagues, and yet not long ago a Chief Secretary standing at the Table of this House had to state that he was not only an Irish Secretary but also an English gentleman.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes, that was said by Sir George

  757
  Trevelyan twenty-five years ago, and he has since become a Home Ruler.
  LORD E. CECILsaid the hon. Member for Donegal was quite right, for those were the words of Sir George Trevelyan. No doubt if Sir George had not become a Home Ruler he would have been assailed in the same manner at the present time. They all knew that the state of Ireland was very far from satisfactory, or at any rate this was the case in certain districts. It was, however, little satisfaction to know that the plague spots in Ireland were not over the whole country. It did not matter from the broad point of view whether it was one, two, three, or twelve counties that were affected. What they did know was that a part of the United Kingdom was not being governed in accordance with the principles of civilised government; that was a fact which was past dispute. They knew that a large number of serious outrages, including the shooting of persons, had occurred, and they also knew "that there had been a very serious increase of that kind of crime which was so justly condemned by the Chief Secretary, viz., boycotting. He wished to reply to an observation of a personal character which had been made by the hon. Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool. The hon. Member said that boycotting could not be stopped by any application of the criminal law, and he quoted a passage from a speech made by the late Lord Salisbury. That speech had often been quoted and almost always misunderstood. And it was wholly misunderstood by the hon. Member below the gangway upon this occasion. The late Lord Salisbury in the speech referred to was speaking of a particular Crimes Act passed by Mr. Gladstone in 1881 That Crimes Act he said had failed very largely in its object, which was to restore order in Ireland, and defending his Government for not renewing it, he asked what was the use of renewing that particular Crimes Act, because it would not be effective for the suppression of crime. It was absurd to say Lord Salisbury thought that the passing of any Coercion Act was ineffective or inadvisable, because he was a party to the Act of 1887, which, on the contrary, was a complete success.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that the late Lord Salisbury made that speech in Newport in September, 1885, and it was not directed against any particular Act but against coercion in general At that time Lord Salisbury was in league with the Parnellite Party.
  LORD R. CECILsaid the hon. Member was wholly inaccurate except as to the date of the speech. As for Lord Salisbury being in league with the Parnellite Party that statement was—he would not be permitted to call it untrue—a malicious perversion of the facts which had been constantly repudiated and had been as constantly restated.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLagain rose.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member for the Scotland division was listened to in silence and the least the hon. Member can do is to listen to the remarks of the noble Lord.
  AN IRISH MEMBER: Minorities must suffer.
  LORD R. CECILsaid the question whether Lord Salisbury was right in 1885, or wrong was wholly immaterial to the discussion they were now engaged upon. But apart from boycotting they had cattle-driving, and he adhered entirely, not only to what the Attorney-General said in Ireland but to what he said yesterday in this House. He agreed that if cattle-driving was allowed to go on unchecked it might produce a state of affairs worse than that which existed at the present time in West Africa. The last item was the total failure of the machinery of justice in Ireland, and that could not be disputed This was a matter of the utmost seriousness. No less than 287 prosecutions had been instituted by the Crown in which it must be assumed that according to the best legal advice to be obtained in Ireland there was a strong prima facie case. It must also be agreed that in case after case there was really no dispute as to the actual facts. And yet out of 287 cases brought forward only eight convictions ensued. That was un doubtedly a total breakdown of the machinery of the law. What did that mean? He did not think anyone could

  759
  read the history of the last twenty-five years in Ireland without recognising what those symptoms meant, for they foreshadowed the initial stages of recurring lawlessness in Ireland. He agreed that up to the present they had not spread so far as to seize the whole vital energy of the nation and the country in a way the disease had done in times past, but nevertheless they knew if this kind of thing went on exactly what to expect. This kind of lawlessness had begun before in the same way. It began as a matter of sporadic and trifling importance, but it gradually spread and at last the country became a scene of anarchy and disorder. That was a matter for the House seriously to consider. They often failed to recognise what was really at the bottom of the lawlessness, and forgot what was meant by lawlessness. They were so accustomed in England to the supremacy of the law that he did not think they always recognised what were the difficulties and the unnaturalness of that state of things. It was by no means a normal state of things for a society to live together under such conditions that without any controversy whatever the law was enforced. That was not the normal state of things under which human beings lived together, nor was it a very old state of things. On the contrary, this doctrine of the absolute supremacy of the overwhelming force of the law was quite modern. It was a modern and very largely a British invention, and it was one of the great achievements of the Anglo-Saxon genius for Government. [NATIONALIST laughter.] If hon. Members below the gangway doubted that statement they could not have read history aright. Not only was that a great achievement, but it was a matter of the most enormous value to this country, because it was essential to freedom and to prosperity. He heard an hon. Member near him cheer the Chief Secretary when he stated that after all they all lived under police protection. That observation was perfectly true, and if they did not live under police protection they could not carry on any of the ordinary occupations of life. If the forces of the law were to cease for twenty-four hours in this city the whole prosperity of the city
  760
  would be at an end. This has become so habitual that they treated it as a natural state of things. Even in this country the margin between order and disorder was by no means so large as people imagined, and it was not very long ago that through a mere blunder on the part of the executive officers of the law, the West of London was given up to something very like plunder arising from the riots in Trafalgar Square. There fore the enforcement of the law was a custom and a habit, and it could only be preserved by the resolute use of the necessary forces of society. He had made that slight digression because of an observation which the Chief Secretary made in his speech, in which he said that it was not sufficient in dealing with a condition of disorder to deal merely with the symptoms but that they must get down to the sources of the disorder, and he quoted an eloquent passage from Mr. Gladstone to that effect. What were the sources of disorder prevalent in Ireland to-day? The Chief Secretary attributed it to some disappointment amongst a necessarily limited class of the Irish peasantry. He utterly denied that that was the real cause of disorder in Ireland. Was it only in Ireland that there was a class of persons who desired property that belonged to another person? The Chief Secretary, therefore, had so mean an opinion of the Irish peasant as to think that he would be entirely induced to set aside the whole of the provisions on which modern society rested, because the land laws were not sufficiently enforced. He protested against that doctrine. They were accustomed to speeches from hon. Members who held Socialist opinions, who thought there were large classes of people in this country who were labouring under a far worse and more grievous sense of injustice than any of the people affected by the land question in Ireland. They said quite candidly that the present distribution of wealth was a great injustice and amounted to robbery of the poor by the rich. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will you join them?"] They said so at every street corner. Did it follow from that that they should raid and rifle the houses in Park Lane? They bowed to the law, because they recognised that the convention and custom of obedience to

  761
  the law was essential to the safety and prosperity, and even the freedom of the people of the country. What was really the curse of Ireland was not the Irish land system or anything of that kind It was the habit of disorder. The hon Member for the Scotland Division in an eloquent passage described the gross injustice and wickedness that was perpetrated in Ireland, and accounted for the violence of the opinions of the late Mr. Michael Davitt by what he had gone through as a child. He believed that to be a perfectly just and true account of what was the matter in Ireland. It was quite true that there had been grave disorders committed in the name of law. The fatal see-saw of defiance of peaceful government between one class and another had gone on until the habit of disorder had grown up. The Chief Secretary had spoken of the refusal of juries to convict, and, while admitting that that was a thing to be reprobated, he said that it had its value as showing the feeling of the country; it showed how removed the Irish people, or some portions of them, were at the present moment from that true conception of government on which alone modern society could rest. He would not stop to deal with the quotations which had been read from Lord John Russell. All he could say was that a more grotesque perversion of the facts of history than that presented by Lord John Russell he never had the misfortune to read. History showed that the greatest judicial crimes in England had been committed with the assistance of juries. The condition of Ireland seemed to him to be, he would not say exactly like, but not dissimilar to that of a habitual drunkard. It was the habit of disorder in Ireland which was the essential vice this House must keep before it if it desired to deal effectively with the Irish question. Just as the habitual drunkard would always be able to attribute each particular outbreak to some accidental cause, so the Irish would ascribe their breaches of the law to some defect in the land laws. The real vice was that the desire to avoid this evil was not strong enough to enable them to resist even the slightest temptation. That could only be met in one way as in the case of the habitual drunkard, and that
  762
  was by restraint and control. He at any rate was not ashamed to say that the first duty of the Government was to govern. If it found that the existing law was insufficient for the purpose of preservng order, it was bound to utilise all the powers at its disposal in order to effect that initial work. One quotation had been made from the late Lord Salisbury; he would give another. He believed thoroughly in the prescription of "twenty years resolute government." [Ironical NATIONALIST Cheers.] That observation was met at the time it was made in very much the same way as it had been met on this occasion. Events had proved that it was absolutely true. They had been told over and over again that when the late Government went out of office, Ireland was peaceful beyond what it had been for a number of years. They had been told to-day by the hon. Member for-the Scotland Division that the process of reconciliation between England and Ireland was rapidly proceeding. But that; came at the end of twenty years Administration, with a very small interval, of the Unionist Party and on Unionist principles. The first principle which had guided, and would always guide, Unionist Administration of Ireland was the maintenance of law and order by the ordinary law, but, if necessary, by an increase in the severity of the criminal law. They were told yesterday by an hon. Member that the people of England cared nothing for cattle-raiding. He did not know what constituencies the hon. Member referred to, but if he thought that the people of England as a whole cared nothing for cattle-raiding he was very much mistaken. He was quite convinced that the two great political principles which the people cared for were the principles of liberty and justice. He believed that they realised to the full that these principles could only be preserved by the enforcement and maintenance against all comers of the absolute supremacy of the law, and he believed from the bottom of his heart that, once the facts were plain to the English people, they would see that the supremacy of the law was enforced in Ireland with just the same determination and passion as they had shown on countless occasions before.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. REDMOND BARRY,): The noble Lord who has just sat down has made what I consider a very unfortunate speech. He has left us in no doubt whatever as to what his view of the situation in Ireland is and as to the root cause of that situation. I hope I do not misinterpret the noble Lord when I say that he attributes the present state of Ireland to some disposition on the part of the people in favour of disorder. His specific for the purpose of meeting the difficulties now existing in that country is a repetition of twenty years of resolute government. The Party with which the noble Lord is associated was responsible for the administration in Ireland for a period of well-nigh twenty years. During that time that country was subjected to considerable periods of coercion, and yet the noble Lord, not satisfied with that, would repeat it all over again. If he had his way Ireland would again be subjected from this point to a course of twenty years resolute government. There is a world of difference between those views and the views entertained upon this side of the House. We have no such opinions as to the future of Ireland or as to the proper means by which that country is to be governed. The views of the Liberal Party upon that subject are perfectly well ascertained and we are here to-night to maintain and defend them against the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin I have had some difficulty in presenting to my own mind a definite view of what the Amendment means. Up to the present the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman and hon Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches have not been very definitely formulated, but looking at the Amendment itself I gather it has a twofold object. It is proposed, as I understand, to invite the House in the first place to pass censure upon the Chief Secretary for his administration in Ireland during the last nine or twelve months, and in the next place to make an appeal to the House, the result of which, if successful, would be to impose upon the Chief Secretary or anyone who succeeded him the necessity of applying more stringent measures in Ireland for
  764
  the purpose of meeting difficulties existing there. Let us see how the case is made out on both branches of the Amendment. It is no doubt the case that there is existing in Ireland at the present time and has existed for some time back a condition of affairs which the Chief Secretary has admitted has caused him in the past considerable anxiety. But the right hon. Gentleman has stated truly that the state of things has changed materially for the better. While there is enough to cause the Government a certain amount of disquietude, still the state of affairs now there, and particularly during the last couple of months, gives the Government every reason for hoping that in a very short time peace in the full sense will be restored in that country. It is true as has been stated by certain hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that there has been an increase in certain classes of crime and disorder in Ireland. But when I come to the question of the censure passed on my right hon. friend, what, I ask, is the remissness charged against the Executive? I am told that there has been a certain number of cases of boycotting and of firing into houses, and I ask what did hon. and right hon. Gentlemen charge in respect of that? Do they suggest that the Executive is in any degree responsible for them; that the Executive has failed in its duty, so far as it could, to bring the offenders to justice in the case of these offences? What is the point of the charge preferred against my right hon. friend in these two classes of crime? It is suggested. as I understand, by hon. and right hop. Gentlemen opposite, that if my right hon. friend had put the Crimes Act into force, these offences would not, in fact, have occurred. Is that so? I hope this House understands—it is necessary that it should—that the Crimes Act of 1887 has no relation, good, bad, or indifferent to offences of that sort. The Act of 1887 would not enable the Executive to prosecute under it in the case of these offences or in any was to deal with them. If the Crimes Act of 1887 was at the present time in full force, not a single crime that has arisen from the use of firearms would be cognisable under it, nor could it

  765
  be prosecuted by any other than by process under the ordinary law. Reference has been made to the increase that has taken place in Ireland within the last twelve months of cases of minor boycotting. There is a difference between "what the police understand as minor and serious boycotting, and during the last year in Ireland the cases of serious boycotting had fallen to nine—the lowest figure reached during the last fifteen years. In 1899 there were thirty-three cases of serious boycotting; in 1900, twenty-eight cases; in 1901, they grew to ninety-five; and in 1902, they fell to forty-one; while now, fortunately to relate, such cases do not exceed nine. I again ask as regards the action of my light hon. friend and of the Executive in Ireland, what is suggested by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite? What could they have done which was not done with any one of these nine cases? It seems to me that the case for the Amendment, so far as there is a case at all to support it, depends upon the charges made against my right hon. friend for remissness on his part in dealing with the cattle-driving movement, which, unfortunately, arose in Ireland during the last twelve months. That movement the House will understand was one which caused my right hon. friend and those connected with him in the Government of Ireland very great anxiety and care. It arose from a situation in Ireland of which the House will take cognisance. It began, as I remember, about the month of April or May last year. It took place amongst the people at a time when they were suffering, as the House will appreciate, from a certain amount of irritation arising from disappointment of political hopes and from the fact that the congestion in the West of Ireland remained unrelieved. It is within the knowledge of both Parties that the Act of 1903 was intended to deal with and remove that congestion. We all know that that Act has failed to achieve that purpose. The hopes that existed had been grievously disappointed and, therefore, the movement arose under conditions very likely to cause great
  766
  concern to those responsible for law and order in Ireland. It was plain that the situation involved a large mass of the people, especially in the counties of Roscommon and Galway. Now what was the assistance which the Government had for the purpose of dealing with the movement? Under ordinary circumstances the Government of Ireland would be entitled to look to those who professed that they were law-abiding, for their support in dealing with the movement. How were they assisted by such persons when this movement was showing its head in Ireland? Day after day, both in the newspaper Press and on the platform, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen and their friends were insisting through-out the country that my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary and those connected with him, were in secret league and sympathy with that movement. The language of my right hon. friend and other members of the Government was used I fear for the purpose, and in the hope of instilling into the minds of the people of Ireland the impression that the movement was one wholly favoured by the Government and that any attempt to suppress it was being made merely in deference to the public opinion of this country. I need hardly tell the House that the immediate effect of all that was to encourage the law breakers and to add to their numbers. And this I know, and I say it with a full sense of responsibility for what I am stating, because I was engaged in many of the prosecutions—that that language proved a great embarrassment to us in asserting the law both in the Magistrates' Courts and in the trials before juries—The situation was one of great stress and difficulty, and very little would have made it a very serious movement for the Executive to deal with. The danger was that a single false step would have aggravated it into a movement no longer local but national in its proportions. Now, what was the Executive to do? Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest that it was their immediate duty to put the Crimes Act into operation. [OPPOSITION cries

  767
  of "No."] I understood so from the observations of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  AN HON. MEMBER (on the OPPOSITION Benches): No; not until after the ordinary law had been tried and exhausted.
  MR. REDMOND BARRY: But the Executive did their best to deal with the movement under the ordinary law. I make bold to say that there was not a single resource of the ordinary law which was not used for the purpose of dealing with it—not one.
  AN HON. MEMBER (on the OPPOSITION Benches): And failed.
  MR. REDMOND BARRY: I will come to that in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin yesterday spoke of the act of the Government in proclaiming five or six counties and putting in force a Statute of William IV. I must tell the House what that was for. Under that Statute it is competent for the Government of Ireland in case of disturbances in a county to proclaim that county as in a state of disorder, and to send an additional police force. The Government took that step at once, and a large number of additional police were sent to the disturbed counties. Not only was that course calculated to arrest the disorder, but those counties had to pay, as a sort of punishment, half the cost of the additional police. What next? There was not a single case of cattle-driving that came under the notice of the Executive from that time to the present, where any evidence was forthcoming, in which a prosecution was not instituted. In all during that time 572 persons were dealt with under the ordinary criminal law. A great number of those were brought before the magistrates in sessions. The number of persons who were ordered by the magistrates to find bail was 228. It is right that I should say at once that that procedure, which was somewhat decried by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, has been so far successful that with the exception of one single case, not
  768
  one of these persons who were bound over to keep the peace afterwards engaged in the crime of cattle-driving. In every single ease the order of the magistrates was perfectly effective for its purpose. No doubt before other magistrates there was failure to obtain convictions. As many as thirty two persons were discharged, while in the case of seventy-six accused informations were refused by the magistrates for reasons which seemed good to them—I suppose because of the failure of evidence. Now what was going on concurrently with that? One hundred and twenty-six persons were returned for trial before juries by magistrates in connection with cattle-driving offences. These 126 persons were not tried separately. The number of cases in-which these persons were involved did not exceed thirteen in all; that is to say there were thirteen cases of indictment, involving 126 persons, What was the course taken by the Government with regard to them? I think hon. Members opposite will admit that the Government were perfectly justified in taking the course they did, in giving a fair chance to the ordinary law. These cases were returned for trial, some of them to the Summer Assizes of last year. One of them, and one only, was tried at Birr, the prosecution being conducted by my right hon. friend the Attorney-General.
  The prosecution resulted in a disagreement of the jury. There were eight cases-for trial in the counties of Roscommon and Galway, and, my right hon. friend seeing, as the result of the disagreement of the jury at Birr, that it world not any longer be safe or desirable that the trial of these offences should take place in a local venue, an application was made to have the venue or place of trial transferred from Galway and Roscommon to the City of Dublin. Do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen suggest that there was any remissness up to that point on the part of those charged with the administration of the criminal law in Ireland? As far as I understand, it was a proceeding which was approved of on all sides. [Sir E. CARSON "Not on ours."] It was approved of because at that time the condition of Galway and Roscommon was such as to render it doubtful that there could be a fair trial in either of these counties. The application was made at the Summer Assizes of 1907. These cases

  769
  were the only outstanding ones at the time in which men had been returned for trial. In the other cases the men had been already taken before magistrates and dealt with, in the way I have described to the House. The cases transferred to Dublin were brought to trial there in the week beginning the 20th of November last year. I have been asked by the hon. Gentleman "has the ordinary law broken down or not?" and I would ask the House to consider the state of things in Dublin when these cases came on for trial. The hon. Member for North Fermanagh last night, as I understood, suggested that the failure of juries in Ireland to convict in these cases was due either to intimidation offered against witnessess, so that the evidence was in-sufficient, or else to intimidation from which the jurors suffered. I understand that an hon. Gentleman opposite assents to that. Now what was the situation in Dublin in November of last year, when these cases came for trial? Do hon. Gentlemen opposite from Ireland, or any hon. Gentleman, in any quarter of the House, who knows Ireland, suggest that a state of intimidation prevailed in the City of Dublin, such as would render it impossible to obtain a fair trial before a jury in that city? I have here a report of the charge delivered by the Recorder of Dublin on the 18th of November, 1907, at the City Criminal Sessions, and let me say that Mr. O'Shaughnessy is well known to many Members of this House and is one whom we all know in Ireland, as filling his high office with great distinction to himself and great advantage to the City of Dublin. He is a gentleman unrivalled in his knowledge of Dublin and its people. In addressing the Grand Jury he described the normal peaceful condition of the City of Dublin and during the three or four years that he has been Recorder he has on many occasions made several observations of the same character. That, then, was the venue at which these trials were to take place—a venue in which it is impossible for anyone who has any acquaintance with the affairs of Ireland to suggest that intimidation was rife, or that any circumstance existed which would prevent the trial of any criminal being conducted under perfectly fair and impartial conditions. As we
  770
  know, in the first case tried, there was a conviction. Seven more trials occurred; in one of them there was an acquittal and in the rest there was a disagreement of the jury. One asks oneself the question, "What was the meaning of it all, and to what was the result due? Was it caused by intimidation? I say emphatically no. I was present with my right hon. friend throughout these trials, and it would be a perfect mockery of the truth to state that the jurors or witnesses were intimidated. I am bound also to say, that so far as I could see the cases were, I thought, clearly proved, and they were cases in which in my judgment the accused ought to have been convicted. To what then is the failure of the juries to be ascribed? An hon. Gentleman, who is well aware of what took place, referred to the pleas offered before the juries for the defence. I will tell you what they were. In the first place the counsel for the defence urged, and in many cases urged with a great deal of force, that these acts, which I think were plainly illegal and deplorable, were nevertheless unaccompanied by personal violence or by injury to animals, and, in my opinion, the jurors in Dublin, knowing the unhappy Western problem, were unwilling to declare as criminals men who had taken part in what they regarded as a demonstration intended only to force the. Government into action for the purpose of relieving the distress. It may not be a satisfactory state of things, and I see it gives some pleasure to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am, however, merely stating facts. The trials in Dublin occurred between the 20th of November and the last day of the month, and during the following week trials took place in three other important venues in Ireland. One was a trial at Wicklow, conducted by my right hon. friend, in which a Member of this House was prosecuted for actual participation in a cattle-drive. It was the case in which my right hon. friend made the speech which has been so much the subject of discussion in this House, and may I say one word in passing in regard to that. It is somewhat hard on him who made that speech to find it suggested that he has been all along in secret sympathy if not in actual league with those engaged in these practices. The prosecution failed in Wicklow. Wicklow, as all hon. Gentlemen from Ireland know,

  771
  and none better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, is a venue wholly free from intimidation. It is a venue often appealed to in Ireland, and never have I heard it suggested that the jurors of any class, whether common or special, were likely to submit to any intimidation which would account for a failure to convict. The other two venues at which the remaining cases were disposed of were Cork City and the city of Limerick. The right hon. Gentleman is well acquainted with Cork City. [Sir E. CARSON "No, except by hearsay."] All the right hon. Gentleman heard I will venture to say was in favour of Cork jurors, and yet the Cork jurors, known as they are in Ireland for their fearless action in criminal cases, not only did not convict, but actually acquitted. Then last comes the city of Limerick, where the two remaining cases were tried, the prosecutions being conducted by my hon. friend the Member for North Fermanagh. Limerick stands also upon a high level in the estimation of those who have presided as Judges there. Mr. Justice Wright has complimented the juries there on the fearless and impartial way in which they had acted. The Member for North Fermanagh did not, last night, give the House the benefit of his views as to the conditions under which the jury came to disagree in these two cases at Limerick. I should be greatly surprised if he attributed the failure to intimidation. In the result then the situation was this, that while magistrates were prepared to deal with these cases in the manner I have mentioned, the jurors of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Wicklow, all drawn from neighbourhoods in which it is ludicrous to suggest that intimidation prevails, point-blank refused to find men guilty for cattle-driving offences. What is the moral to be drawn from that? What do right hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest should have been done by the Government? Their view, as I understand it, is that the Government should have put the Crimes Act in motion on the spot. Mark the dates. It was not until the last week in November or the first in December of last year that these trials took place. The position at the moment has to be considered. Already public men had by letters to newspapers
  772
  and otherwise proclaimed the folly and illegality of this practice of cattle-driving. Persons in the highest stations had publicly denounced it as being both illegal and immoral, and already it was plain to the Executive in Ireland that the practice was declining rapidly. In November I find the number of cattle-drives that had taken place was 108, in December they had fallen to eighty-one, and in January to thirty-four. So that in November and December, when we were confronted with what hon. Members will suggest was an absolute breakdown of the ordinary law, the situation on the other side was that public men of all sorts were declaring against the practice and the number of offences themselves was declining day after day. What was the Government to do in that state of affairs? Right hon. Gentlemen opposite will suggest that my right hon. friend should have forthwith proclaimed the Crimes Act. Will that commend itself to the House? Would my right hon. friend be heard in this House if he appealed for exceptional powers to enable him to deal with the situation that then existed in Ireland? The Executive wisely, as I think, took an absolutely contrary view. My right hon. friend took his stand upon this, that, as representing a Liberal Government in Ireland, he would apply himself with what speed he might to the root evil of this outbreak, and do what he could by legislation to remove it. Since then, day by day the movement had been declining, until we may congratulate ourselves that in has practically disappeared. I have been dealing with cases in which actual prosecutions took place. I should also mention that in January, so far from displaying any inactivity in the matter, two of the cases in which disagreements had taken place were ag in tried before special juries in Dublin and with the same result. I suppose no one will suggest that the special jurors of Dublin were the victims of intimidation. Another part of the indictment levelled against my right hon. friend is that certain individuals, one Member of Parliament in particular, were not proceeded against for speeches in connection with cattle-driving. This House will understand that

  773
  the consideration of that matter was one of deep concern to the Chief Secretary. The problem of dealing with any man, whether a Member of this House or otherwise, for making speeches in connection with a matter involving a question of public or political interest is always one of difficulty. The question, I think it will be admitted, can never be confined to the mere question of whether or not a speaker deserves to be prosecuted for his particular utterances. The Executive must take a much wider view of the situation than that, and in determining whether or not a particular speaker is to be prosecuted the Executive are not merely entitled, but bound, to take into account the public opinion of the country, the effect which a prosecution would have in giving intensity and momentum to the movement in which the speaker was engaged, and the effect it might have in consolidating public opinion in its favour. My right hon. friend has been a good deal challenged for the discretion which he claimed for the Executive in directing or not directing prosecutions against particular individuals. He was right, I think, in claiming that discretion for the Executive. The decision taken by the Government was not, as has been rather unworthily imputed, an act of dispensation in favour of any particular man, whether a Member of Parliament or otherwise, but the decision was arrived at because it was believed to be consistent with the real interests of peace and law in the country. Now I have dealt with the action of the Government, and I should be disappointed if any Member of the House entertained the notion that there was any remissness on the part of the Executive in applying every resource of the ordinary law to combat this movement. What, then, is the present situation? What is it that hon. Members suggest should be done in future in Ireland? As I understand the second branch of the Amendment, the Executive are to be called upon forthwith to put the Crimes Act into operation in Ireland. Is that the object of hon. Gentlemen opposite? Is that what they wish for? I think we are entitled to an answer to that.
  SIR E. CARSON: We say you ought to do anything that is necessary to enforce the law.
  MR. REDMOND BARRY: I think, with all respect, that is not an answer. I ask, in the situation in which we now stand, are we to put the Crimes Act into operation or are we to depend upon the ordinary law?
  SIR E. CARSON: If the ordinary law is sufficient.
  MR. REDMOND BARRY: The truth is that when the present situation comes to be considered, when it comes to be understood that this cattle-driving movement is all but dead, it will be recognised I that there is no situation in Ireland now which would justify any responsible politician in claiming that the Executive should put the Crimes Act into force. The House will rejoice that the movement has practically disappeared. The fact, however, is apparently to some hon. Gentleman opposite not so much a source of gratification as of suspicion and a matter to cause disquietude In some quarters the cessation of cattle-driving is suggested to be actually the result of a discreditable bargain arrived at between my right hon. friend and certain persons in Ireland. We attribute it however to other causes—to the reassertion of the good sense of the Iris' people—to their awakened confidence in the administration of my right hon. fried, and in the determination, they ascribe to him, that he will do his part to remove the real grievances which underlay that movement in Ireland. That is the true source of an event which I think ought to give satisfaction to Members in every part of the House. It is the reward, as we consider it, of the right hon. Gentleman's patient and courageous administration in Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen opposite scoff at that, but, in the situation in which he was placed, the patience, and temperance of my right hon. friend displayed more real courage than in making a precipitate appeal to other methods. Reward has come speedily to him for refusing to yield to clamor and obloquy, and the result is but part

  775
  of the fruits yet to be expected from his administration in Ireland.
  MR. LAMBTONwho was imperfectly heard, said the hon. Gentleman had contented himself by asking what the Opposition proposed to do, but he must know that it was the Government and not the Opposition who had to submit legislative proposals for Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman supposed that the Amendment meant censure on his right hon. friend, and had gone on to admit the case of the Opposition by saying that every resource of the ordinary law had already been put into force. He had remarked that the calling attention to these matters caused the Chief Secretary very great anxiety, but they caused very great anxiety to other people besides the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt they had every sympathy with him in his position; indeed, the right hon. Gentleman was always asking for sympathy, and they readily accorded it. What the Unionists maintained was that the condition of Ireland was causing enormous anxiety, not only to many people in Ireland but also to many people in this country, and they asked that steps should be taken to remove the causes of that condition. Steps ought to have been taken long ago. The fault of the Government, in the opinion of the Judges in Ireland, was that the Executive had not lifted a finger to maintain the law. Surely that was a strong charge, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman's speech had removed one single cause of anxiety as to that point. The hon. and learned Gentleman had continually asked them if they wanted the Government to put into force the Act of 1889. That was not the business of the Opposition. What they said was that if the ordinary law did not suffice, the right hon. Gentleman should come to Parliament and ask for means to maintain law and order in Ireland. That was the first duty of the Government. The hon. Member for Cork last night had spoken of the colossal ignorance of the English people of affairs in Ireland. He confessed that many people did not understand the Irish, and he was reminded of Burns' line—
  "Oh, wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us,"
  776
  He had noticed that hon. Members below the Gangway were sometimes annoyed when they considered that Englishmen were blind to some of the best qualities of the Irish people and some of their best performances in Ireland. Englishmen, he confessed, could not always see that the Irish goose was a swan. They might be ignorant of the nature and feelings of the Irish people, but they were not ignorant of the fact that £100,000,000 had been granted by Parliament to Ireland.
  MR. BIRRELL: The landlords got some of it.
  MR. LAMBTON: The right hon. Gentleman says the landlords got it.
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes, a third of it.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid the money went to buy the land, and had been given to the Irish people, and it was because the land had not been divided quickly enough that a feeling of impatience had arisen to which a great deal of this crime was due. The right hon. Gentleman said he had made his first long speech in the House on the Act of 1887, but he himself could go back to 1882, when he made the only speech in his life which had had any effect. He made it on the Crimes Act of the Liberal Government.
  MR. BIRRELL: My speech was on the Home Rule Bill.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid that when he heard denunciations of the Act of 1887 he was rather inclined to go back to some of the things said on the previous occasion. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech had given a lot of statistics which were more suitable to stockbrokers than to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman said, "What is the price?" That was at the bottom of the whole question. What price had the right hon. Gentleman given for the temporary cessation of cattle-driving?
  MR. BIRRELL: None.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid he was glad to hear it. What price did the Irish people expect from the Government? What

  777
  price did hon. Members below the gangway expect? They might have brought about the cessation of cattle-driving much earlier, and they had brought it about now, in their own words, "to give the Irish Secretary a chance." The right hon. Gentleman had screwed his courage up to say that his fingers itched to arrest some of the people in Ireland, but he had done nothing. They had been told by the Foreign Secretary, and other Members of the Government, among them the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Chief Secretary had the support of the Cabinet. He presumed that meant the majority of the Cabinet.
  MR. BIRRELL: NO; the whole Cabinet.
  MR. LAMBTONbelieved there were a score of members of the Cabinet, and that the whole twenty of them were itching to arrest malefactors but were afraid to do so. He would like to have seen that Cabinet meeting. Some of the members must have been rather restless. He heard the speech of the Secretary for India and also that of the Chief Secretary, and he could not understand how they could be members of the same Cabinet. The Irish Secretary said he governed Ireland on Liberal principles, but the Secretary for India, in reference to that country, said he would not remain at the India Office or in any other responsible department if he had first to catalogue his principles and arrange his duties on those principles. But the Chief Secretary for Ireland openly boasted that he was going to carry out the Government of Ireland on Liberal principles. All he could say was that he would rather have the Secretary for India's view than that of the Secretary for Ireland. Because the Government made certain speeches in 1887 nothing would induce them now to touch the Coercion Act; but he would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that there was another Coercion Act which they might have used—namely, that of 1882, which was passed by a Liberal Government, and which contained strong provisions making protection from crime more positive than it was. The Chief Secretary and the Solicitor General had told the
  778
  House that in the ease of these cattle-drivers the Government could not get juries to convict. The Solicitor-General had told them that the chief instigator of the cattle-drives, who was in gaol now, was not prosecuted by the Government because the Irish people were not in entire sympathy with the law. It was unfortunate that the Government bad created the impression that as the Irish people were not in sympathy with the law, therefore the law was not to be enforced. Now it appeared the Irish people were satisfied that they were going to get from the Government all they wanted, for lawlessness had ceased. He could not veil his eyes from the iniquity and weakness of the Government, and he feared the effect that would be produced upon future good government in all parts of his Majesty's dominion.
  MR. J. DEVLINsaid the hon. member who had just sat down was one of the Tory free trade how it was Tory free traders had made Members of the House, and having heard the hon. Member's speech on this occasion he now understood so little progress in England. Recently there had been an effort made in England to subordinate tariff reform and other questions to racial prejudice. They hoped to save themselves by raising an Irish scene, and by pursuing a propaganda of calumny. The right hon. Member for South Dublin, who opened the debate, referred to a question of his (Mr. Devlin) which was on the Paper, and said that the reason for that question was that the hon. Member for West Belfast was afraid to have the returns therein referred to published, as they would indicate the criminality of Ireland. Nothing of the kind. He simply objected to a principle which did not exist in English Courts being perpetuated in Ireland, especially as these returns had been used by Irish Judges for the purpose of delivering harangues from the bench and for the purpose of intimidating jurors. They had the case of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, who actually from the bench rebuked the Attorney-General for not prosecuting an Irish Member, although he (the Lord Chief Justice) might be the very Judge who would have to try the case. And in another case in Ireland an Irish Judge—a man of great legal eminence and impartiality outside of

  779
  politics,—actually walked on to the bench and proceeded to reply to a political speech delivered by the hon. Member for Water-ford. This was in a Court of justice Specially selected as the particular arena where persons charged with cattle-driving should be tried. When they heard Judges quoted in that House lot it be remembered that Irish Judges were partisans. It was stated that there had been conspiricy, intimidation and boycotting in connection with Ireland. So there had been. But the conspiracy was in England and in the I north of Ireland. The conspiracy was a conspiracy between the English Unionst newspapers and the Ulster Unionist Members and the official classes in Ireland. He read the other day in the Daily Telegraph a statement in which it was stated that the United Irish League was responsible for keeping the village ruffians quiet, and that the moment the inspiration was given from headquarters murder would once more be rampant.
  That was a scandalous and infamous allegation. The United Irish League, like its predecessors the Land League and the National League, had been a mighty instrument to leach the people how great agrarian revolutions could be carried on, and how great reforms could be achieved without applying those dangerous criminal methods. The late Mr. Parnell and Mr. Davitt had taught the Irish people the true power of constitutional agitation, and when a paper like the Daily Telegraph published a scandalous statement of that character it gave one the feeling that the slandering of Ireland, the impeachment of the Irish nation, and the exaggeration of every little incident in the country against the Just claims of the people for self-government, only showed how essential Irish unity was and how I powerful a, movement like the Irish National League ought to be made to meet the forces which had conspired to slander a people and ruin a whole nation. There had been intimidation not only in Ireland, but in this House. There had been one remarkable omission from this debate, one picturesque figure absent, and that was the hon. Member for North Armagh. He had not told them anything about intimidation. Could there be anything more intimidatory than the letters which the hon. Member for North Armagh wrote to Mr. Bailey. The Ulster
  780
  Members talked about Nationalists intimidating a man who owned 6,000 acres of untenanted land in the congested districts of Ireland. Was that any worse than the action of a Member of the Ulster Unionist Party who endeavoured in this House, to intimidate a public official appointed by the Government of his own party, and who, in the discharge of his administrative duty was threatened by the hon. Members that unless he became the plaything of the Ulster Members of Parliament, when the Unionist came back they would dismiss him because he had refused to be the creature of the Landlord Party in Ireland? He noticed that during the Mid Devon election, the reverend Mr. Rogerson, preaching in Mid. Devon, said that those who belonged to the political majority of Mid Devon would have every excuse, if they came to think it preferable, to deal with tradesmen out of the town, rather than with those who, not only in a recent election, but constantly in previous elections, had refused that freedom to their political opponents which they claimed for themselves. That was not the statement of a Catholic priest in Ireland who saw the woes and sorrows of his country, and the Squalid condition of the Irish people, but political English partisan clergyman, who threarened the Liberal traders of Devonshire as to what would happen to their trade, because they had dared to exercise their rights and functions as citizens, and had given their votes for Liberal and Progressive Members. And notwithstanding this, hon. Member above the gangway came to the House of Commons with their sneers, and le tured the Irish people for intimidation in regard to an agitation which simply desired to rivet public attention upon a great economic wrong, and which endeavoured to secure the land of their country, upon terms which were extravagantly generous to the landlord. Every acre of land which had passed from the landlord to the tenant under the Act of 1903, had been transferred at a price, which, as the Chief Secretary had already stated, was calculated to excite the envy of the greatest landlord in England. This great movement in Ireland was not one to steal the property of others, but a legitimate and constitutional agitation. Personally he had never justified cattle-driving in Ireland, and he had never spoken at a meeting where cattle-driving was advocated, but

  781
  nevertheless he came to the House of Commons prepared to defend it. His reading of the political history of the last thirty years had been that so long as they came to the British Parliament and appealed to their reason, they were only met by the scoffs of gentleman of the type of the hon. Member above the gangway; but when they came with an organised people and a united Ireland, when the Irish people knew their wants and were able to exercise their power, then they came with the real logic of an irresistible claim. It was that House which had taught them that it was only by cattle-driving and methods of that kind that they could obtain any beneficial measure from the British Parliament. It was only in that way that they had been able to extort from generous statesmanship the recognition of their claim for the remission of the wrongs under which Ireland had suffered.
  LORD R. CECIL: Hear, hear.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: Yes, the noble Lord knew that was so, and no one better, because it was hereditary with him. The noble Lord was the son of "twenty years of resolute Government." He knew that twenty years ago two policies were placed before the English people in regard to Ireland, one of them the policy of Mr. Gladstone—a policy of pacification, conciliation, justice, and liberty—and the other twenty years of resolute Government. To-day Ireland was no nearer to the British Empire, although it might have been if Mr. Gladstone's policy had triumphed. Lord Salisbury received his verdict from this country, and he got his twenty years of resolute Government, and where did they stand to-day? The noble Lord had said himself that there was more lawlessness in Ireland now, and more discontent than there was before. If that were so, where did this policy of twenty years of resolute Government come in?
  LORD E. CECIL: The result was destroyed by the present Chief Secretary.
  MR. J. DEVLINsaid it was notdestroyed by the Chief Secretary, but by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover. The last Unionist Government introduced
  782
  the Land Act, but the Ulster Members and their supporters put every obstacle in the way of its becoming the solution of the problem which the statesmen on both sides of the House desired it should be, in the interests of both the tenant and the landlord class. The Ulster Members cared for nothing but the misrepresentation of their own country, and they seemed to be proud of anything they could use for the purpose of blackening the fair name of Ireland, and holding up to the scorn of the world the country which they ought to be as proud of as the Nationalists were. The Ulster Tory Party, which claimed to speak for the North of Ireland, had made Unionism in Ulster stink in the nostrils of every decent man. He could understand them demanding the rigorous application of the law if that policy was argued concurrently with the policy of social reform and economic advancement. But who ever hoard a fruitful suggestion in favour of their own country? Let them take as an example the Order Paper of the House of Commons any day. What was it filled with? With questions put down for the purpose of showing that Ireland was a criminal country. He was an Ulster man himself, and represented one of the seats which had been won from the Ulster party, because Ulster democracy had revolted against them. Belfast was a Protestant and Unionist city, and he would be ashamed of himself if for the purpose of party capital—although he had come there and put questions on the Paper equally relevant, and from his own point of view far more politically effective—he resorted to the use of his position to slander his own people and to outrage every sense of decency in trying to hold up to scorn the people amongst whom he lived and to whom he belonged. They had heard a good deal about cattle driving, but he had not heard the name of Sergeant Sheridan mentioned. Sergeant Sheridan did not drive cattle, but mutilated them, and he was allowed to go to America. Why was he not convicted? They had heard a great impeachment of the law officers of the Crown and the Chief Secretary for depending upon the ordinary law of the land, but Sheridan was guilty almost of every offence against law and justice, and he was responsible for sending innocent men to prison. And yet this cattle

  783
  mutilator was allowed to leave this country, and this perjurer and uniform ruffian who was responsible for all these crimes in Ireland was now at large in America and his chief assistant was engaged in training young recruits for the Royal Irish Constabulary in Ireland.
  There was another case of boycotting which he thought that whatever sense of fairness they possessed might have induced the men who made this attack to refer to. That was the case of Miss Sweeney and Mr. Cooke, J.P. Mr. Cooke was an Ulster Unionist, and a magistrate, who demanded the dismissal from a school of a teacher of sewing on the ground that she was a Catholic. There was no error as to the ground. Mr. Cooke had been quite open about it, and told them plainly what was the reason. To this demand the Presbyterian clergyman, who was the manager of the school, did not give way. The hon. Member did not know whether that rev. gentleman had at that time any cattle. He supposed he had not. At all events, there had not been any of his cattle driven or injured. He escaped with having the doors of his church destroyed. In that case they were face to face with an: effort to secure justice. But that had not been the kind of decision which had been given in agrarian cases. And today Mr. Cooke wason the Bench dispensing justice to the part of the country which was benefited by his presence, one of the Host devoted maintainers of the Union, one of the chief props of Empire in that part of the north of Ireland. He had heard with interest the maiden speech last night of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. The hon. Member had manifested both vigour and ability; and his speech had been a great relief by contrast with the dull and dreary speeches of the Ulster Tory Members. He had said that all the misery had been brought upon Ireland by the agitators. But the misery was not brought on in Ireland by brains, but by breweries. He would suggest that the hon. Member, when he had the opportunity, should visit the West of Ireland, in which even for selfish reasons he might feel an interest, seeing that there was the chance of their being able to become better customers of his concern. Irish Members had been waiting to hear this threatened great impeachment of Ireland, and of the
  784
  national movement in Ireland. They had listened to it. Was ever such tawdry eloquence—no argument, no facts, no basis for the changes so long maturing—so fruitlessly delivered? The Chief Secretary had faced his accusers with courage and had routed them. It would have been well if in the speech of the Solicitor-General there had been more human sympathy and loss law. The Attorney-General, to be frank, had used an expression which had been so often quoted by the enemies of Ireland, for the use of which there was no ground of excuse. The Irish people were not savages, nor were they to be compared to the people of West Africa. He was-sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have used that expression thoughtlessly, otherwise he would not have committed himself to it. It showed how the administration of the law, prejudice and politics, were all mixed up in the Courts of law in Ireland. The speech made by the hon. Member for Jarrow the other day was both pathetic and tragic. The hon. Member drew a picture of the desperate competition that existed in the industrial centres, and pointed out that by English and Scottish legislation an endeavour was being made to solve the problem by keeping the people on the land. People were leaving the land in England for other than agrarian reasons, whereas in Ireland they wished to romain on the land. Surely the attempt which they were making to secure their homes and their land was one that ought to command the sympathy of hon. Members not only on the Liberal side, but on all sides of the House. Were the supporters of British government in Ireland satisfied that in sixty years the population of the country had been reduced from 8,500,000 to 4,500,000, those who remained being more impoverished than the larger number who formerly lived there? The Chief Secretary had struck the right note and grasped the key of the situation. Let the House distribute the grass lands on fair and equitable terms, make economic the uneconomic holdings, give some breath and sweetness and hope to; the Irish peasant, and crminality, as Englishmen understood it, would disappear, because its root cause would have disappeared. Then they would have Ireland no longer a by-word and a shame to the Empire; it would be its glory, and the right. hon. Gentleman

  785
  might have pride in having laid the foundations of a mighty superstructure of English content and Irish happiness.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid he had listened with great pleasure to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland below the Gangway. While he appreciated their vehement rhetoric, the fury of their denunciations always caused him to question their sincerity. He verily believed that if ever the Home Rule policy were carried to its fullest extent the Irish Party would be a hopeless and forlorn Party, because their one object of agitation would be entirely gone. He had listened with very great interest to the speech of the Chief Secretary. He had come down to the House with, to a certain extent, an open mind, and had been greatly astonished at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that if the question of land settlement was ever to be brought to a successful issue it must be based on law and order. The security of the land stock also could only prevail with security of law and order in the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had condemned the Opposition for the difficulties they had placed in the way of settlement of the land question in Ireland. Therein he disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, who ought to put the responsibility upon those who sat below the gangway, and who had been the instigators of all that had taken place in Ireland during the recent past. Perhaps the most responsible of these was the hon. and learned Gentleman who sat for the City of Waterford, and who in no circumstances had deprecated cattle-driving. In fact, in a speech in Portumna in October last, the Leader of the Irish Party said with a reference to the Evicted Tenants Bill, that peace in that district would be a dishonour to the district and to Ireland. If the Leader of the Irish Party used such words they should not attach so much blame to the hon. and learned Gentleman's followers or to the poor dupes who followed their advice. The statement that the Opposition were making the question of the land settlement in Ireland more difficult was a mere travesty of the case. They had had a most interesting speech from the Solicitor-General for Ireland, the chief part of
  786
  which, however, was taken up in asking the Opposition Questions. The hon. and learned Gentleman's first Question was, "Did they (the Opposition) consider that the Executive was remiss?" He did consider that the Executive was remiss if any law-abiding citizen in Ireland had to go in terror of his life or of being shot at. The Solicitor-General had asked what more could the Executive have done in the way of putting the ordinary powers of the law in force? Well, if those powers were not strong enough they could have put other powers into operation which they had at their disposal. The Solicitor-General asked if the failure of the juries to convict was to be ascribed to the Executive; but perhaps the situation had appealed to the sympathies of those juries and made them unwilling to convict the poor dupes, when hon. Gentlemen below the gangway were the instigators of the crime and outrage which had taken place; and yet they heard that the right hon. Gentleman was itching to prosecute, but had been' unable to do so. They had heard a good deal about governing Ireland according to Irish ideas, but hitherto the country had seen the maximum of government according to Irish ideas and the minimum of government by His Majesty's Ministers. They had had vague hints that education would be the secret of the future settlement of the land question in Ireland. In that sentiment he agreed with the Chief Secretary, but in this vague and theoretical suggestion the right hon. Gentleman left out of account those individuals who were at present in their holdings cowering and intimidated because the Government would not put in force the powers at their disposal. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the shooting incidents, and said that the shots had been fired over the house; but, he asked, how would the right hon. Gentleman himself like it if a few bullets were fired through the roof of his house at Chelsea, even if he occupied the ground floor?
  MR. BIRRELL: I should hope that the man would be arrested.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHthought that the right hon. Gentleman would consider it a serious crime whether the shot was fired in a part of the house which was inhabited or not. They had

  787
  been told to compare the figures of crime in England and Ireland. There was no analogy whatever. Crime in England was not part of a conspiracy, but was committed from motives of personal gain to the individual; whereas in Ireland it was committed by the participants in a conspiracy fomented by other people against the law of the land. If there was an honest intention to govern Ireland in accordance with the principles of equity and justice, he asked the Chief Secretary if he proposed, in the event of a recrudescence of cattle-driving, to put in force powers more effective and more drastic than they saw in operation at the present moment? In fact, if the situation demanded it, would the Government put in force the Crimes Act again? He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in having a detestation of repressive measures, but the Government were at fault in not putting in force that drastic measure. He thought he could recall the reason for it. It was due to the fact that when in Opposition they had, from purely Party motives, not supported the previous Government in passing and using the Crimes Act, and now, when in power, they were unwilling to admit that that was done from purely Party, and really unworthy, motives. No suggestion had ever been put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite towards the solution of this difficult and almost insoluble problem. He should have hoped that something in the nature of statesmanship would have been displayed by the Government. What an opportunity there was for the settlement of this Irish question by a Minister who had already twice failed! He be belived that the task was not a difficult one if the Government only made up their mind to repress sternly all illegalities and provided protection to every individual who had a right to demand it. He wondered if the events which were occurring in Ireland would be tolerated in any other civilised portion of the world for a moment. The worst feature of cattle-driving in Ireland was that it was received with approbation by hon. Gentlemen who sat below the gangway. They also heard from those who were in sympathy with the movement that cattle-driving was not a criminal offence. He would not argue that point, but he did not think that anyone would deny that it was in itself cruel in its
  788
  action, and that the animals who were subjected to that treatment were injured thereby. [NATIONALIST cries of "No."] He maintained that it was so, and also that it was most reprehensible in its results. It was bound to be injurious to the whole morale, of the people of the-country, and to the administration of the law in Ireland. He submitted that if the Government failed to put down any recrudescence of this agitation they would be guilty of something akin to criminal negligence. But they were told that there was to be no more cattle-driving. Whether that was so or not he did not propose to say; but what were the reasons for this lull in cattle-driving? The reason put forward the previous night by the hon. Member for Cork was that—
  "For the first time the present Chief Secretary had taught the Irish people that there might be such a thing as their own law and order, which it was their own interest to enforce. He had succeeded in making the Irish people their own peacemakers to an extent which deserved a vote of thanks rather than a vote of censure."
  He was very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be very glad to receive that pat on the back from the hon. Member for Cork; but, the Lord Chancellor used very different language and expressed the idea that it was owing to the proceedings taken under the Statute of Edward III. that the people were brought up and sent to prison. It was curious to note that this employment of the Statute of Edward HI. was said by the hon. Member for East Mayo to be-worthy of the worst days of coercion; so-that the hon. Member for East Mayo had proved up to the hilt that cattle-driving had come to an end by coercion. He maintained that there was only an armistice in cattle-driving for the time being. The reason for that was not much in doubt. He believed that Irish Members were giving the Government a chance to fulfil some of the promises they had made, to fulfil that part of the bargain which had been so strongly repudiated by the Chief Secretary.
  MR. BIRRELLwas understood to deny the suggestion.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid that the interpretation of various things which the right hon. Gentleman had

  789
  said was that if the Irish Members behaved in a certain way and gave him their support, he would support them. That was, he believed, the reason why the Irish Members were giving him a chance—a proud position for a Minister of the Crown to stand in. He asked whether it was a coincidence that unrest and disturbance in Ireland ran concurrently with a Liberal Administration. How was it that for the last twenty years there had been to a large extent peace and tranquility in Ireland? The reason was that the Unionist Administration when it came into power, where he hoped they would be again at an early date, grappled with the problem in the initial stages of their administration and by doing so suppressed that germ of unrest which was now rampant in the country, and they left the country in a peaceful condition, a fact which had been testified to on all sides and by no less an authority than Mr. Bryce who was the Chief Secretary at the commencement of that Administration. The reason of the unrest and disturbance was that there was in power an unscrupulous party who had sown the seed of unrest and they now had to reap the harvest of insurrection. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to have done with those philosophical arguments and theoretical views which he put forward and not to wink at crime and almost to connive at it. He would urge upon him to put forward the strong arm of the law for the purpose of giving protection to every person in Ireland instead of allowing all the civilised world to point the finger of scorn at this country because its administration was dictated by a set of turbulent Irishmen. He believed that the idea was held in some quarters that there was something ill this matter of Home Rule and that if it were given to Ireland the question would be settled once and for all. He would recommend those who held those views to study very carefully the history of Ireland from 1886 up to the present time, and he thought they would see that, so long as no vague promises were held out, so long as lawlessness was suppressed, the Irish people were a law-abiding race, but that it was easy to inflame the passions of the people of Ireland by political devices, and he
  790
  could only say that those devices should have been apparent, but that those devices were not so apparent was the reason of the present state of affairs in Ireland. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to take his courage in both hands and to use drastic measures when they were necessary and to enforce the Crimes Act, which to his mind brought about the peace and tranquility which prevailed before a Liberal Administration came into power. With these few words he desired to support the Amendment which had been moved from the Front Opposition Bench.
  MR. POWERwho was indistinctly heard in the Gallery was understood to say, that by the Land Purchase! Act of 1903 the House had shown themselves willing to pay a large amount to secure peace and contentment in Ireland, and if they could have seen that poverty and despair would be banished they would have been prepared to give a larger bonus than they did to the landlords. It had turned out in the working of that Act that the portion of it favourable to the landlords had been largely used, but that the portion of it most favourable to the people, and which they had hoped would put them on the land, had been to a large extent a dead letter. He did not think that the people of this country had any idea of the grinding poverty which existed in some parts of Ireland. They had on several occasions relief works started and thousands of people were employed upon them and in no case did an able-bodied man get more than 6s. a week or 1s. a day for his ten hours' work. If that was not an awful proof of the poverty which existed he did not know what was. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway said that the real cure for any disorder that existed in Ireland was repressive measures and the re-enactment of the Crimes Act. In former periods when Coercion Acts were introduced they were brought in for a limited period and when crime was rife in Ireland, but that could not be said of the present Coercion Act which hon. Members were so anxious to revive in all its ferocity. It was introduced not to put down crime, and was aimed not at crime or criminals but at tenants' combinations

  791
  and organisations which were absolutely necessary to preserve the very lives of the people. He remembered that Mr. Gladstone, when the Act was under discussion, said that if England was to coerce Ireland for crime, Ireland could say, that compared with England she had relatively less crime. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought the measure was more needed by England than Ireland, because for Ireland it was a question of suffering, and she knew how to suffer, whereas for England it was a question of shame and dishonour, and to cast away shame and dishonour was the first business of a great nation. Unfortunately those words were not heeded and the Act was passed. There was one phase in the passing of that Coercion Act which he thought was almost unique in Parliament. There was considerable opposition on the Liberal side to the passing of the Act, and to allay that opposition the Leader of the House, in his hearing and in that of his colleague, promised distinctly that there should be an appeal from the decision of these removable magistrates in every case. That statement disarmed the Liberal opposition to a large extent, because they believed it would be a safeguard, but that was not the view of the Nationalist Members because they thought the appeals would go to Judges in whom they had very little confidence. The Leader of the House, however, never took any steps to fulfill his pledge, and there had been no appeal in any case provided for. His principal object in rising was to allude to the Glenhaheirg case, because it happened to be in his constituency. There was an appeal pending, and he knew from the newspaper reports that reference had been made in another place to this question.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGrose to a point of order and said the case to which the hon. Member was referring was undoubtedly sub judice at that moment, and if any hon. Gentleman on that Bench mentioned the case they would undoubtedly be at once called to order by the Nationalist members. He ventured to ask whether it was possible to discuss the Matter in any way.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid it was certainly undesirable to discuss any case which was likely to come before a Court of Law and if the case was still sub judice he should deprecate all discussion.
  MR. CULLINANwished to bring to the Speaker's notice that when the hon. Member for East Tyrone rose to object to a reference being made by Members from the North of Ireland to the case of several prisoners and what occurred during the trial, he had ruled that it was permissible to refer to the matter.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he thought the hon. Member was mistaken. That was a wholly different matter. In that case the speech of the Attorney-General who was prosecuting was quoted in this House in order to show what in the opinion of the Attorney-General might result from certain crimes being continued. The observations did not in the least touch the case of the prisoners who were being tried, and might be tried again.
  MR. POWERsaid he would not enlarge on the matter, but he wished not so much to allude to the ease of the alleged blowing up of Lord Ashtown's lodge as to call the attention of the Government to the state of things existing round about that estate which was dangerous to the peace of the country. Prosecutions had been going on for a long time, and to give some idea of the tension he would give one case. Some persons were being prosecuted for trespass and they watched the doings of a certain underkeeper of Lord Ash-town's. He was found to visit one of their farms; they went to his place and found pheasants there, and they found six shots in the pheasants which it was said were put there with a view of incriminating someone. That showed the tension which existed in that district and which might well lead to disturbance. It was only right to say that Lord Ashtown dismissed that underkeeper after that was proved in open Court, but still it was a strange thing for an underkeeper recently appointed to do. He desired to call attention to the state of feeling that existed and to ask the

  793
  Government whether they could do anything to allay it. He was sorry to say that when this gamekeeper was convicted and sentenced by a majority of the bench without hearing the prosecution fully, someone released the prisoner upon an ex parte statement. He also called attention to the fact that there was an evicted farm on Lord Ashtown's estate. The tenant who had been evicted was most anxious to get back, and although he had written and applied to be allowed to go back Lord Ashtown had taken no notice of the application, but had commenced planting trees upon the farm. He (Mr. Power) had written to the Estates Commissioners, who had approached Lord Ashtown and asked him to stop the planting, but no notice had been taken of their remonstrance. He hoped the Government would be able to do something to stop this planting until some settlement was arrived at. Feeling in the district was very strong and much excited over this and other matters, and at any moment the place might become a storm centre. If both sides got warm no one could tell what would be the result. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway seemed to think that coercion was the only remedy, but unfortunately coercion in Ireland was directed not against crime but against political opponents and organisations. The senior Member for Cork took an action against Lord Salisbury for a speech made at Watford. That action was tried at Manchester and certain witnesses were summoned from Ireland, among others Captain Slack. That gentleman said that for ten years previous to the foundation of the Land League the condition of Ireland was very satisfactory. He was then asked his opinion as to the condition of. Ireland during the ten years that succeeded the foundation of the League and his reply was that it was most unsatisfactory. Captain Slack was compelled to admit that in the ten years preceding the foundation of the League twenty murders had been committed and that none had taken place in the ten years succeeding its foundation. But when asked to explain why he considered the period in which twenty murders were committed so much more satisfactory than the latter period Captain Slack showed
  794
  the official view by saying that in the period when the murders took place there was no combination and no organisation in the neighbourhood. No crimes and no murders had taken place when there was an organisation, so that the House could see that the founding of this political organisation was necessary to keep the people in their homes. Of course he knew what the result of the division would be, but no one could say what this campaign of conspiracy would end in. It was an ignoble thing on the part of anybody to bring up the shortcomings of their country, if they were shortcomings, but the present campaign went fa beyond that; and he was glad to think that this ignoble proceeding on the part of hon. Members above the gangway would recoil on their own heads. When the people were called upon to give a decision upon the subject they would record a verdict which would stop a campaign of conspiracy which was a disgrace and discredit to the country.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that with regard to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down he had only to say one word. The hon. Gentleman had given his version of an incident that had occurred on the estate of Lord Ashtown at Glenaheiry and it was only fair that the House should hear the other side. Two gamekeepers in the course of their duty saw two men fishing not only in private waters but out of season. They went to these men and the head keeper showed his warrant and informed them that they would be searched. He proceeded to search them and found upon them an illegal engine used for fishing, called a stroke haul. He then summoned them, but the poachers also summoned him for assault and Laresny. The case was tried by a local bench of magistrates, on which Nationalists predominated, who dismissed the summons for illegal fishing, and convicted the keepers of assault and sentenced them to a fortnight's imprisonment. As soon as these facts were reported to Dublin Castle an immediate order was sent down for their release. It was only fair that the hon. Gentleman having stated his view of the case the House should hear the other side. So much for the speech of the hon. Member. The speech delivered by the

  795
  hon. Member for West Belfast was to an even greater degree than usual both vicious and vulgar.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order. Those are not expressions that should be used in this House in regard to the speech of an hon. Member.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he would, in deference to the ruling of Mr. Deputy Speaker, withdraw the expressions used. The hon. Member's speeches resembled each other very closely. He began by abusing the hon. Member for Durham, who immediately preceded him and whose speech in the opinion of those who had heard it was one of the best delivered during the debate. He then proceeded to deal with the hon. Members representing the Unionists in the North of Ireland, and having singled out the hon. Member for North Armagh who was not present and therefore unable to reply to his attacks, he proceeded to inform the House that every obstruction that it was possible to put in the way of the efficient workins of the Land Act of 1903 had been placed in its way by the Unionist Members for Lister. That was the one statement made by the hon. Member which he thought it worth his while to contradict. During the progress of the Land Purchase Bill through this House the representatives of Ulster did all in their power to assist it, and since it had become law they had done everything to make it a success. The greatest success the Act had achieved had been in Ulster. When the hon. Gentleman condescended to deal with the Amendment the only justification he could bring forward for the action of cattle-drivers and other law-breakers was that during the Devon election a Devonshire clergyman advised that certain persons should be boycotted for not voting in the way in which he desired they should vote. If the hon. Gentleman could only find that case in Mid Devon and the case of Mr. Coote in Tyrone—with the details of which he was not sufficiently acquainted to be able to reply to the hon. Member—to justify these cattle raids, boycottings and shootings, he could only say the hon. Member had made out a very poor case indeed. The hon. Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool had objected to the remarks
  796
  made by Lord Lansdowne in another place, comparing in some respects Macedonia and Ireland. Lord Lansdowne had not meant to represent that Ireland was in the same state of lawlessness as Macedonia, but he (Mr. Craig) endorsed to the full the comparison which the noble Lord had made. It seemed to him that before His Majesty's Ministers sought to lecture the Sultan of Turkey on the maintenance of law and order in his own dominions, they ought to look to the state of Ireland, and in lecturing the Sultan it seemed to him they were approaching perilously near the region of hypocrisy. The King's Speech also contained a reference to the Congo State. It said that the Government were fully aware of the great anxiety felt with regard to the treatment of the people of the Congo, and its only desire was to see the government of that State humanely administered. There was an old proverb-that those who lived in glass houses should not throw stones, and he thought I that if ever there was a case in which it applied, it was with reference to the doings of the Government in Ireland. They found those words in the King's Speech with reference to the Congo, yet in Ireland boycotting, the deprivation of innocent men's means of living, shooting into houses, and outrages of all kinds were going on unchecked on all sides of them, and this in the very heart of His Majesty's dominions, within twelve hours of that House. It was pure hypocrisy on the part of His Majesty's Government. What right had His Majesty's. Government to lecture a foreign nation on what might be going on in their territory when such a stale of affairs existed in Ireland as had been described. It was said that the charges which they made against the Irish Office had not been precise. He hoped that accusations would not be made against him personally. The charges which he made against the Irish Government, and particularly against the Irish Secretary as she head of it, were, in the first instance, that during the whole year he had been in office the Chief Secretary had systematically misled the House as to the true state of affairs in Ireland; that he had tried to diminish and minimise as far as possible the state of lawlessness which existed, he did not say in the whole of Ireland, but in certain parts of it—seven or eight counties. The second, and one of

  797
  the most serious charges against the Chief Secretary which he had to make, was that he had failed, on all occasions, to give to the person who had suffered damage or injury from these lawless acts that protection which was the right of every subject of His Majesty. In the next place, and this was also a very grave charge, the right hon. Gentleman from the time he had taken office, had given the most deliberate encouragement, to cattle-driving. The last charge against him was that he had allowed the United Irish League to usurp the functions of the Government which he was bound to keep in his own hands and guard most jealously. The Chief Secretary was entrusted by this House with very great powers; he had a great range of departments, and his responsibilities were as great and much more varied than those of any other member of the Government. The powers entrusted to him should not be used by anybody except the authorised subordinates of the Irish Office. The fact was however that the United Irish League was rapidly becoming, if it had not already become, an authorised subordinate department of the Irish Government.
  When the Chief Secretary came into office the state of Ireland was not of course as bad as it was now, but he (Mr. Craig) did not admit that it was in so satisfactory a condition as had been represented. There was, as a matter of fact, a very considerable amount of cattle-driving, though it was of a different form. It consisted generally of pulling down walls surrounding grazing farms and driving the cattle into the road. When the Chief Secretary came into office a year ago he asserted that at that time Ireland was crimeless, and he made a now almost historical speech at Halifax in which he said that Ireland was in a more peaceful condition than it had been for 600 years. It was a mistake to suppose that cattle-driving only began last March. It began, as a matter of fact, in the time of the hon. Member for South Dublin. In the early stages of cattle-driving the people never imagined they would be allowed to carry on their nefarious business with absolute impunity; and, instead of doing it in the light of the day, these proceedings took place in the dead of night. They used to go to a man's land secretly in the night and pull down his wall or gate and
  798
  drive his cattle; in the morning they had disappeared, and of course there were no signs of the perpetrators of the act. The hon. Member for South Dublin very soon put a stop to that. He simply said it was a lawless proceeding and must be stopped. He used the ordinary powers of the law, doing all he could to trace the offenders, and when he could he prosecuted them and brought them to justice; but, apart from that, he made a rule prohibiting any land from which cattle had been driven being sold through the Estates-Commissioners. That had the desired effect, and when the right hon. Gentleman retired, cattle-driving for the time being had ceased altogether. Then Mr. Bryce came into office, and the first statesmanlike action he performed was to rescind that Estates Commissioners' Rule. From that moment, of course, cattle-driving began again and increased from day to day. In the early days as he had said it was carried on at night, secretly; but gradually people became bolder. They found very little notice was taken of cattle-drives by the Government, and they thought it was much less inconvenient to be there in the middle of the day. In a very short time after the present Chief Secretary came into office cattle-drives were carried out in broad daylight. Often they were advertised and frequently the operations were enlivened by the presence of many bands. In fact they were carried out with every publicity, as though the miscreants knew perfectly well the Government would take no serious action against them. It was true that publicity and advertisement of it were greater now than a year ago, but it was erroneous to suppose that when the right hon. Gentleman came into office there was no such thing as cattle-driving and that the country was, as he had said, in as peaceable a condition as it had been for 600 years. Their contention was that, if the Chief Secretary had been serious in his determination to put down cattle-driving, he could have done so with the greatest ease, especially in the earlier months of his office. He submitted to the House that it was a fundamental mistake to say that cattle-driving, as the Chief Secretary had said, was the outcome of disappointed hopes. It was nothing of the sort. It was precisely what the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone had said. It was a habit of disorder with the

  799
  people, and it was produced by nothing more than by the knowledge of the people in the West of Ireland that, if they agitated and committed outrages for a few short months, they would get all they wanted from the Government. That had been proved from time immemorial. It had seldom mattered which party was sitting on the Treasury Bench. The Nationalists had learned long ago the lesson which Englishmen seemed far from learning, that if they wanted anything all they had to do was to agitate for it. That was the true explanation of the commencement of cattle-driving. Was it not absurd to tell the House of Commons, because the Land Act had during the last four years, not worked as expeditiously with regard to the division of grass lands in Connaught as was expected, there was any justification for cattle-driving? How could anyone solemnly make such a statement to a body of English gentlemen? To put that forward as an excuse for cattle-driving was one of the most extraordinary doctrines any Minister of the Crown could enunciate. Was it impossible for Englishmen to get into the way of looking upon Irishmen as ordinary human beings instead of something totally different from themselves? Irishmen were human, and had the same ideas of right and wrong and justice and injustice as themselves. Why, then, could they not treat them as ordinary rational beings, and apply the same principles to them as they would apply to themselves? Would any English Member countenance for a moment in his own constituency in England what was being done in Ireland? Would they think for an instant that the fact that the Act of 1903 had not worked to their entire satisfaction was any justification for cattle-driving? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that when he saw all this going on his idea was not so much to punish the guilty as "to look behind the movement for the cause of the disturbances." That was directly contradictory of the English idea of government He had charged the Chief Secretary before with having condoned these offences, and he would repeat that charge now. The Chief Secretary and every other member of the Government who had spoken of cattle-driving
  800
  had not only tried to minimise it, but had gone out of their way to find excuses for those who committed these offences. In other speeches they had the well-known dictum of Lord Denman, who during the last few days had tried to wriggle out of what he had said, which was to the effect that in the opinion of the Government cattle-driving was not a serious offence. Lord Crewe had stated distinctly that it was contrary to law, but he always qualified this by dwelliug on the wretched condition of those who took part in these drives, and generally sought to minimise or excuse the whole wretched business, And although every Minister of the Crown had been obliged to admit that this kind of thing was contrary to the law of the land, they had all done their best to minimise cattle-driving and present it to the country as a matter of no importance. The Unionists of Ireland pointed out long ago that language of the kind used by the Ministers of the Crown could only have one effect. What effect did they suppose their words would have upon the minds of those poor peasantry in the West of Ireland? The effect was that they saw that the Government were indifferent and would not take any serious steps to punish them for cattle-driving. If the Chief Secretary had been serious in his endeavour to put down this form of lawlessness it was at any moment in his power to do so, not necessarily by having recourse to the Crimes Act but by re-enforcing that very proper rule which the Member for South Dublin put in force when he was Chief Secretary, which instructed the Estates Commissioners that no person who had been identified with or convicted of taking part in any cattle-driving should be allowed to take part in the division of that land. He did not think there would be any hardship in such a rule as that. Last session he asked the Chief Secretary several times if he considered the state of affairs in regard to cattle-driving had reached such a pitch as to justify the adoption of a rule of the kind he had alluded to, and on each occasion he refused, and he had never yet given any explanation why he had not adopted such a rule. But there was the other remedy which might have been employed. He did

  801
  not say that the time had arrived for its adoption in March or April last year, but the time had long since arrived when it was not only justifiable but it was the bounden duty of the Government to put the Crimes Act into force in order to put down cattle-driving. Here he would like to quote the Prime Minister in support of his contention that when the law breaks down it is the duty of the Executive to put into force whatever powers they possessed for the purpose of maintaining order. These were his words—
  "In many parts of Ireland for offences of an agrarian character they could not trust to the ordinary class of jurymen doing their duty, partly from prejudice, but mainly owing to the cruel and overpowering system of terror of the National League. He could not be sure with the clearest evidence, of being able to get a verdict. In order to maintain the arm of justice in Ireland it was not only reasonable but necessary, to provide some measure which would overcome that difficulty, and it might very well have been made part of the permanent law."
  In reference to trial by jury, the Attorney-General for Ireland was asked when he was going to put the Crimes Act into force, and he replie that the Liberal Party would never put it into force. It had been said that sterner measures were not adopted because juries could be trusted to preserve law and order and do their duty; and if the jurors of Ireland had known they were going to be backed up by the Government they would have done their duty. Had jurors been led to believe that the Government were serious in their determination to put down cattle-driving, the hundreds of judicial farces which took place in the county courts and at the assizes last year would never have happened. Did the Attorney - General think that the Irish juryman was more slow-witted than those who took part in cattle-drives? He had talked about the judicial farce at the winter and summer assizes. The learned Solicitor-General, in a speech he had made earlier in the day, had tried to show that they had done everything in their power to bring these people to justice. He would admit that so far as mere legal forms were concerned they had done. Juries felt that at any rate, whatever the reason of
  802
  it was, the Government did not want convictions. Whatever the cause was, the fact remained that out of these 237 persons tried at these two assizes there were only eight convictions. If anything in this wide world could give a more extraordinary exhibition of a judicial farce than that he would be very pleased to hear it. The jury disagreed in 158 cases; fifty-six were actually acquitted, and the proceedings were abandoned in fifteen cases. The Government with such a statement as that before them and so long as cattle-driving existed—and when that happened it was increasing—with those figures before them there was one duty and one duty only cast upon the Government, and that was to say, "This must cease"; and no matter what they personally thought of the Crimes Act and of putting measures of that sort in force, they were bound to maintain law and order, and whether they liked it or not put that Act into force. But they knew that did not happen. There had been several theories mentioned as the reason why cattle-driving had stopped—he did not say himself that it had stopped—but at any rate so far as one could judge there was a partial lull in the matter of cattle-driving. One theory was that the Chief Secretary had made a bargain with Cardinal Logue on the subject of the University Bill.
  AN HON. MEMBER: That is denied by the Chief Secretary.
  MR. CRAIGsaid that another theory was that a definite and deliberate bargain of some sort had been entered into with the Leaders of the Nationalist Party that, if cattle-driving was stopped, measures embodying the fullest provisions with reference to dividing up the grass lands in the West of Ireland would be produced at the eariest moment. He did not think that actually any agreement of the sort was entered into, but he thought the explanation of the whole thing was perfectly simple. The Chief Secretary and the Under - Secretary, Sir Antony MacDonnell, and other members of the Irish Executive had had this question of the dividing up of the grass lands in Connaught under their consideration for a great many months, probably before the beginning of last year, and when they

  803
  saw these very lands which they proposed to divide up amongst the peasants of Connaught had been cleared of stock and thrown into the hands of the Estates Commissioners without the necessity of any Act of Parliament or anything else, they were not displeased. He could imagine a conversation between Sir Antony MacDonnell and the Chief Secretary, "Why should we interfere with this operation of cattle-driving when all these lands which we are so anxious to acquire for the purpose of dividing up amongst these people are actually being cleared and thrown into our hands without any action on our part?" He thought that was the explanation of the supineness of the Chief Secretary. He wanted these lands just as much as the poor peasants did who were raiding cattle from them, and he had been very loth all along to take any action to prevent what, he had no doubt, he considered a most excellent operation, which in every way would facilitate and help him in the passage of the Bill which, he understood, he was shortly going to bring into the House of Commons for the compulsory acquisition and division of these lands. It seemed to him that no further explanation was necessary. That was at any rate the explanation which he gave, and which he firmly held was the motive which actuated the Chief Secretary in the absolute want of energy he had shown from the very beginning to put down this lawless cattle-driving. Supposing the theory he put forward was correct, he left it to hon. Members opposite to impute the measure of praise or blame to the Chief Secretary for his action in that matter. Personally, he thought his action in the matter had been most reprehensible. For any Minister of the Crown to tolerate lawlessness, to condone and encourage it, as he maintained the right hon. Gentleman had done, for the mere purpose of serving his own ends was a very serious view to take of his duties. He had called himself a middle-aged man in a hurry, and he wanted to do these things in the shortest possible time. He saw in the clearing of these lands his task made easier. He saw that he would be able to use these cattle-drives as a fulcrum with which to get from the House of Commons a stringent Act
  804
  giving him greater compulsory powers, and he saw large stretches of country which he wanted to get being thrown into his hands without any Act of Parliament. Any person who for these selfish reasons would allow the state of lawlessness, which had existed new during the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's term of office, to go on, was not worthy of being a Minister of the Crown—he was not worthy of being allowed inside the walls of the House of Commons at all. There was a quotation which he particularly desired to place before the House of Commons. They had had that afternoon, he thought from the hon. Member for Durham, a quotation from a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India. He commended this quotation to the earnest attention of hon. Members opposite. Speaking at Arbroath on 31st October last, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "We have somehow or another, wisely or unwisely, by a right policy or an erroneous policy—we have got to maintain order. Disorder, whatever your ultimate policy may be, at any rate violent disorder, must be put down, and that with a firm hand."
  Those were the words of a statesman. He wanted to know how these two diametrically opposite policies—the policy as set forth by the Secretary of State for India and the policy set forth on the previous day by the Chief Secretary—could emanate from the same Cabinet. How was it possible for a Cabinet which endorsed every action of every individual member of the Cabinet to be in favour of both these policies? How was it possible for the Chief Secretary to maintain friendly relations with the Secretary for India when their policies were so diametrically opposite? The words which he would particularly dwell upon in the quotation were "Whatever your ultimate policy may be, disorder, at any rate violent disorder, must be put down, and that with a firm hand." That was exactly the policy he and his friends advocated for Ireland at the present time. Whatever the ultimate policy of the Government might be whether or not it was to clear every inch of ground in the West of Ireland that was suitable for planting these uneconomic tenants on, he maintained, and the Secretary for India endorsed it, that their first duty was to maintain law and order.

  805
  Just before he sat down he would refer to what he had said at the beginning of his speech and that was that one of the curses of the country to which he belonged was that English politicians would not treat it seriously. If every hon. Member opposite would provide himself with a small handbook of the Parliamentary history of Ireland during the last fifty years he would find outstanding on every page the fact that hon. Members below the gangway, most of whom were endowed with the faculty of being able to make a mountain out of a molehill, presented a case which in the majority of instances had only a remote resemblance to the real facts, but which was time after time enough to make hon. Members for English and Scottish constituencies think Ireland was being ill used and ill treated, and that they had wrongs which required instant redress. What Ireland required more than any other thing in the world was to be left alone. He asked hon. Members opposite to learn that what Ireland required was rest from eternal agitation in this country, and the eternal attention it received from the House of Commons. The Land Act of 1903 was working as well as it possibly could. The only thing required to make the Act absolutely successful was money, and, as the Chief Secretary had observed, that money must be found at all costs to preserve Ireland from terrible disaster. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in that. It was the most elementary nonsense for Members to say that the fact the Act was not working faster was a justification for the lawless proceedings which had lately darkened the lives of so many persons in eight or nine counties in Ireland. In his humble judgment it was an insult to the intelligence of any English Member to expect him to believe such a thing.
  MR. KETTLEsaid that some of his friends had referred to the length of the speeches made by hon. Members from Ulster. He had no objection to them on that score, for in view of the spirit they had shown in the course of the debate the sooner would Home Rule come to Ireland. This Amendment was an attack at once upon Ireland
  806
  and Liberalism. It was an attempt to injure Ireland through Liberalism, and to injure Liberalism through Ireland. The speech of the Chief Secretary yesterday was the most brilliant and courageous dealing with any great question since he entered this House. A previous speaker had referred to the unreality of the debate. The Opposition had by this Amendment raised the question of Irish Government, but where were the other questions in which they were supposed to be interested? Such an exhibition of meanness and cowardice had not been given by any great Party in this country for a considerable time. Where was tariff reform? Why was the official Amendment of the Opposition not one dealing with that question? Was not that the question on which they claimed to have won Mid Devon and South Hereford? This debate had collapsed for want of statistics. It had been like a mill trying to grind without any corn to grind. One Member had argued that the absence of criminal statistics in Ireland was the real measure of criminality in that country. That was rather an uncomfortable position for the people of Ireland to be in. If the figures of crime were high they were at once accused of lawlessness, and if they were low, as at present, they were also liable to a like charge. The only speech he listened to with interest was that of the noble Lord the Member for Maryle-bone. The noble Lord had a hereditary interest in Ireland. What was the theory he put forward? It was that the Anglo-Saxon race had effected a sort of corner and exclusive patent right to civilisation, and that nowhere else in the world, except in this happy country, did people believe in or accept law; while the people of Ireland were given to habitual disorder and were a sort of habitual drunkards from the political point of view. What was his prescription? Coercion on a twenty years lease, renewable for ever. It was really an advantage to find real and unadulterated Toryism put forward by the noble Lord. What did it mean? As had been said, the Attorney - General for Ireland had used language not justified by facts. But the language spoken in heat by the Attorney-General was the language spoken in coolness by the

  807
  noble Lord. The noble Lord's theory was that The people of Ireland were infected with an incurable inferiority which made them unfit for the management of their own affairs. He (Mr. Kettle) protested against the noble Lord's comparison of the agitation in Ireland to an organised attack on millionaires' mansions in Park Lane. There was no motive of spoliation or confiscation on the part of those engaged in land war in Ireland. They were parties to an Act under which the landlords were receiving a more generous price for their land than had been obtained by any landlords in Europe. What they wanted was to have the Act of 1903 carried into effect, and that the train of broken promises in Ireland should be interrupted by, at any rate, one bright interval. He protested against the deliberate malice of the statement in the Party Press and on the platform in England, that they had sought to deprive anybody having proprietary interests from getting the full market value of their land. When these Opposition critics dropped statistics they fell back upon Judges' charges. He believed it was a rule of order in the House that one was not allowed to attack a Judge except on a Motion for his removal. He was rather sorry that such a Motion was not more frequently brought before the House. He did not wish to name or attack any Judge, but he did think that certain Judges of his acquaintances—at any rate one Judge—should devote his moral energy to paying his hotel bills. I OPPOSITION cries of "Order." He hoped hon. Gentlemen above the gangway were not in favour of Judges not paying their hotel bills. He would not bring before the House the natural history of Judges in Ireland in their ascent To the Bench. But how were Irish Judges manufactured? [OPPOSITION cries of "Order."]
  MR DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member does seem to me to be overstepping the limits of order in speaking of the Judges in this way.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: On a point of order I attacked two Judges, and I was not called to order by the Speaker.
  MR. KETTLEsaid he would conclude that part of his argument by reading a
  808
  passage from the speech of a distinguished statesman, Mr. Gladstone, speaking in December, 1889, said—
  "The Attorney-General has been rewarded for his jury-packing in Ireland, and his mode of conducting business by being appointed Lord Chief Justice."
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order! As I understand that applies to some Judge at present on the bench, and is not in order. [NATIONALIST cries of: It is a quotation from Mr. Gladstone.]
  MR. KETTLE: I will leave the application of the quotation from Mr-Gladstone's speech to The House.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Are we not to be allowed to read a quotation from Mr. Gladstone?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand that it applies to some Judge at present on the bench, and I ask the hon. Member not to proceed with the quototion.
  MR. KETTLEsaid that in deference to the ruling of the Deputy-Speaker, he would not pursue that branch of the quotation, but there was another part of it which was entirely general in its reference. Mr. Gladstone, speaking of the difference between those matters in Ireland and England said—
  "When these proceedings go on, do you think it odd that the Irish people have not the same affection that you have, and do not place the same confidence as you are able to place in-the Judges of the land."
  He did not want to apply that observation of Mr. Gladstone's to any special Judge in Ireland, but he thought hon. Members would be able to make the application for themselves. When the Judges' charges were brought up in condemnation of the people of Ireland he always looked up the paragraph in "who's Who," to find out under which Government these gentlemen ascended the bench. On this general question of agrarian outrages did The House realise the extraordinary difference That existed in the practice in England and Ireland? When a drunken or malicious tramp set fire to an outhouse or a haystack in England, that was put down as an ordinary crime. It was returned in Ireland as an agrarian offence, even

  809
  if it was committed without any connection of any kind with an agrarian or popular movement. A very considerable portion of those crimes in Ireland were wanton or malicious, and could be charged to no public movement, and no public movement ever accepted responsibility from them. That ought to be taken into consideration by the House. The Solicitor-General for Ireland had made a speech in the debate of a technical and legal character. He agreed with the criticism of the hon. Member for West Belfast when he said that in order to understand things in Ireland one must be human and humane before one began to be legal. But he was very glad that the Solicitor-General had brought before the House the point that a very good and excellent defence might have been sent up before any jury in regard to the cattle-driving cases. Hon. Gentlemen above the gangway assumed as soon as they got a paragraph about a case from a news-agency that there ought to be a conviction. He did not think that those hon. Members who were so strong on law and order knew much about technical law. He had listened to the evidence in every one of the cases of cattle-driving tried both in the city of Dublin, and at the Wick-low Assizes, but not in a single case from beginning to end was there any evidence whatever of violence or intimidation of a serious character. In every case the affair in question was a peaceful demonstration against the ranching system. He did not for a moment assume that the juries knew anything about the seven Bishops. No doubt their consciences were on the side of the men in the dock, but they listened to the evidence carefully, and found that there was no suggestion of violence, and no suggestion of boycotting. He detested boycotting as much as the Chief Secretary, and he was only sorry that it prevailed so much in fashionable institutions like the British Army, the English Church, and the London clubs. But there was no evidence of boycotting in any one of these cases. Those who imputed motives to the juries in these cases were bound to take into account the technical law and the actual evidence. It was said that they had only the ordinary law in these
  810
  cases, but he thought they had not only the ordinary law, but a double dose of it. It should be marked that not a single one of those cowardly offences which were put down in the criminal statistics in Ireland as agrarian, had been brought home to the United Irish League or was associated with the popular land movement. Hon. Members from England especially were surprised at the part taken in these debates by the Ulster Unionist Members. The weakness and inherent political vice of that party were touched upon by the hon. Member for West Belfast when he pointed out that there had never come from that quarter a single fruitful suggestion for the solution of any of the problems in Ireland. They only whined about what they called the oppression of minorities in Ireland. It should be noted that two of the gentlemen who took part in this attack upon the Government were gentlemen holding the post of Crown Prosecutor in Ireland under this very oppressive Government. He was not very much surprised at the action taken by the Ulster Unionist Party which had organised this campaign of calumny against the country which had the misfortune to own them. An undue compliment was paid them when they were termed a Party. Ulster Unionism was not a Party; it was only an appetite. If they took away from them the people who held office, the people who hoped for office, the people who had canvassed for office for other people, and who were pushing the claims for office for their brothers and their brothers-in-law, and sons and nephews, the Ulster Unionist Party would be represented by about two Members. Every measure of progress or reform with reference to Irish affairs brought before this House had been met with the persistent organised opposition of the Ulster Unionists. They had opposed the Evicted Tenants Bill, obstructed the Labourers Bill, the Town Tenants Bill, and successive Land and Franchise Bills. They had heard a good deal that night about the law of the United Irish League, but what about the law of the Orange Lodges? The cry came from Ulster about the misdeeds of the Home Rule majority in the House. When hon. Members talked about boycotting, what about

  811
  the land in a northern" town, which was only let out for building on the condition that no Nationalist and no Catholic was to occupy a house? What about the political blackmail of the Estates Commissioners, of which the hon. Member for North Armagh was convicted in this House? He did not want to fight those Gentlemen, there however, because they were fighting them in Ulster, and their death warrant had already been signed. [Ironical cheers.] Well hon. Gentlemen would find it out at the next election. He was not surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the senior Member for Trinity College demanded coercion. Why, he graduated in coercion courts! They formed the milk tap from which the infancy of his profession was fed and from which he had grown to such fatness and dignity. This was an economic question much more than it was a political question. County Meath, as any Member who knew the district was aware, was the most fertile county in Ireland, but the population in fifty years had fallen from 160,000 to 60,000 people. Any Member who went to Queenstown or Derry or the other emigration centres, would see a long line of emigrants file out to the tenders. Landless men drive from a manless land. Hon. Members talked about law and order, but the law had two arms, one of repression and one of reform. If the Government had recourse to the arm of reform and gave it a fair chance and free play, following the lines of the magnificent speech of the Chief Secretary, there would be no need for the arm of repression.
  SIR E. CARSON: I should like to make it clear that in the course of the few observations which I have to make in bringing this debate to a close, I shall dwell mainly upon the speeches of the Chief Secretary for Ireland and of the Solicitor General. I am sure the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down, therefore, will excuse me if I do not follow him into the details of his speech. He has referred to me, I do not know whether he meant it to be in complimentary or uncomplimentary terms, as having many years ago now—I am afraid when I was a much younger and more vigorous man—engaged in the
  812
  struggle of Ireland, which others have had to take up. If he means it as a reproach I will only say that there is a great difference between the view of the hon. and learned Member and my own. Hea dvocates the coercion of the mob; I advocate if necessary the coercion of the law, and if I, in my earlier legal days, was engaged in assisting in putting down tryanny and intimidation in Ireland, I tell him at once, that even after this longish period, when I can perhaps take a better perspective view of the situation, I can say that I have done nothing which I in the least regret or of which I am in the least ashamed. But, after all, this debate has, I think, wandered in many respects very far from the notice which is on the Paper. That notice is of a simple though of a very important character. It regrets that the speech of His Gracious Majesty has "failed to refer to the increase of agrarian crime and disorder in Ireland." The increase of agrarian crime and disorder in Ireland is frankly admitted by the right hon. Gentleman. The Resolution on the Paper goes on to say, "or to give any assurance as to the adoption of measures for the better protection of the lives and properties of your Majesty's subjects." Having admitted as he did that there is an increase to a very serious degree of agrarian outrage in Ireland, when the Chief Secretary is asked what he is going to do for the protection of life and property, in that dramatic way which only he can assume in this House he thumps the box and says, "I will not do anything." I hope I shall not do any injustice to the Chief Secretary when I state in a few moments why he will not do anything, but I at all events start with this, that we have an admission—I think a grave and serious admission in relation to the government of any country under the British flag—as to the increase of outrage, and we have what I think is, to every law-abiding citizen, a disappointing announcement on the part of the Chief Secretary that he will not do anything beyond what he has been doing for the purpose of putting an end to the evils caused by that increase of crime. The hon. Gentleman who had just addressed us said that he had been fighting shy of statistics. I do not know why he made that observation; I do not know whether he has been

  813
  in the House while this debate has been going on. I always know, however, that the hon. Gentlemen who speak most freely of the course of events in this House are those who enjoy themselves otherwise than by listening to the speeches. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "That is just what you are doing."] All I can say is that I have listened to every speech in this debate except one, and I have taken the trouble to read that. I think that is as much as anybody can be expected to do. There is no use, therefore, in making a charge of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution based his whole case upon statistics, which have had to be admitted, and which have not been in the whole course of this debate and never could be explained away. What was the admission of the Chief Secretary? I even took the trouble to read his speech over again, although I am accused of not attending to this debate. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The fact is, that the state of certain parts of Ireland at the present moment is not so satisfactory as it was this time last year. I admit it to the full."
  Let us start with that. I do not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman for the statement he made; at the same time I give him no credit for it. He could not help it. The facts and the papers are conclusive, and what are they? Boycotting increased in the year from thirty-four to 116.
  MR. BIRRELL: Minor cases.
  SIR E. CARSON: Oh! what is a minor case of boycotting?
  MR. BIRRELL: Is there no difference between a minor case and a serious case?
  SIR E. CARSON: I know that there may be a difference in police classification.
  MR. BIRRELL: A very serious difference indeed.
  SIR E. CARSON: I know that a serious case is that of a man who very likely every moment of the day holds his life in his hands. Yes, I understand that there are only nine of these cases, and the right hon. Gentleman may take full credit for that. But
  814
  what are the minor cases? Has the right hon. Gentleman read the three cases mentioned by Judge Curran in the charge to the grand jury of Longford a few days ago? Are they minor cases? [Mr. BIRRELL assented]. So they are minor cases. What were these minor cases? One of them was that of a lady who left Sligo to seek employment in Longford, and, because her father was boycotted in Sligo, when she got into employment at Longford she was turned out of it by the ban of the League. What is the next minor case that Judge Curran referred to? A man refused to leave the employment that he had been in for twenty years, and when he died his own brother was refused timber to make a coffin that he could be buried in. And what was the third case? It was that of an old woman who for over twenty years had received at the hands of the parish priest a few pounds for cleaning out the chapel, and because her husband remained in an employment that was not popular even this poor woman was compelled by the priest, at the dictation of the League, to give up that petty employment. These are cases of minor boycotting, and they have increased from thirty four to 116 under the kindly and beneficent rule of the right hon. Gentleman during the last twelve months. What does Judge Curran say about this?—
  "No mercy has been shown to these parties by their opponents, who are merciless in their persecution."
  Is it too much to expect that even at the eleventh hour their cases will be taken into consideration by those at whose hands they are entitled not to mercy but to common justice and the protection which the law is bound to give them? I say that if we had no other foundation than that statement of a Judge when he says that these people have been commended by him to the executive power, but no step has been taken—it is our duty as long as Ireland is governed under the United Kingdom to bring this matter before the House.
  MR. BIRRELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember how many serious cases there were in 1902?
  SIR E. CARSON: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that an answer, I make him a present of it. I have been very much surprised in the course of this debate, not at the right hon. Gentleman, but at some Members in this House, for the manner in which they have received the reading of the reports of the charges of the Judges. The right hon. Gentleman, I do him the justice to say, has not said a single word against it. But is there any better method of obtaining an absolutely fair opinion on the condition of the country than the charges of the Judges to the grand juries on materials laid before them—by whom? By the right hon. Gentleman himself. These are not materials taken at random by some cursory writer of the Press from what are called the ordinary sources of information. These are the returns ordered by the right hon. Gentleman. There is no evidence of a more trustworthy character that can be laid before the House than the evidence of these Judges. And may I quote a high authority for that purpose? Listen to what a member of the Government has said about this—
  "The statement as it comes from Mr. Justice O'Brien is one of the most solemn that Parliament could consider. It is in relation to the Judge's charge."
  That was the statement of the hon. Member for South Tyrone at a time when he was much more anxious about the liberty of the poor people of Ireland than he is now. That was the time when the hon. Member did not think it was an answer to tell poor people who were boycotted and denied the necessaries of life that one of the banks of Dublin had paid a good rate of interest. The habit in this House of jeering and sneering at the Judges when they have done their duty as best they can, very often under the most difficult circumstances, is one against which I venture to enter my most solemn protest. They have been sneered at on this side of the House and on the other during the whole course of this debate, and I say that the Judges who draw attention to these matters, and who stand up against mob law, are deserving of every praise and not of condemnation. If I want authority to support me in that, may I draw attention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to a statement made by a great man only a few days ago, namely, the President
  816
  of the United States of America. President Roosevelt said—
  "No man should lightly criticise a Judge, and no man should even in his own mind condemn a Judge unless he is sure of the facts. If a Judge is assailed for standing up against public folly, and above all against mob violence, every man should immediately rally to his support."
  I have called-attention to the statements of Judge Curran as regards boycotting, and I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman last night describe boycotting as the negation of Christianity and the repudiation of humanity. Indeed, that is what I should have expected from him. I think that is a very apt description of boycotting. But how many men has the right hon. Gentleman brought to justice during the last twelve months for the "negation of Christianity and the repudiation of humanity"? How many men has he attempted to bring to justice in that time? Not one. Ponder this fact for a moment. The increase of that class of cases has been from thirty-four to 116, and no single individual is even attempted to be brought before a Court of Justice to be punished for this negation of Christianity and the inhuman conduct pointed out by Judge Curran. I pass then from the question of boycotting to that of police protection. Police protection by patrol has increased from 150 cases to 222 cases, as I understood the figures the right hon. Gentleman gave us last night. What does that mean? Lot us not gloss over these figures. They are all grim realities. It means that in 222 cases—and always, be it remembered, confined only to a few counties in Ireland—night and day you have to have police patrolling in numbers in and around the houses and dwellings of the people to protect them from the terrible outrages which otherwise it is anticipated by the Government might be perpetrated on their persons or property. I come to the next head. The right hon. Gentleman stated that crime against the person has increased from nineteen to twenty-six cases. On this account, how many men have been brought to justice I do not think one.
  MR. BIRRELL: No arrests.
  SIR E. CARSON: No. Twenty-six cases and not one person brought to

  817
  justice. Cases of firing into houses have increased from twenty to sixty - six cases. They have more than trebled. Cases of firing outside the house have increased from fourteen to twenty-six. I do not draw the fine distinction which the right hon. Gentleman does as to whether you fire into the kitchen when the man is in his bedroom or into the bedroom when the man is in his kitchen. My mind is not of that dialectical or intellectual kind. I look upon it all as being part of one grave and great conspiracy against the law for the purpose of intimidating people who will not, as it is called in Ireland, "fall into line," and who are not allowed to carry on their occupation as they would like to do Whether it is in the bedroom or in the kitchen the object is the same, and that object is to teach the people that the law of the mob is superior to that of the right hon. Gentleman. Here we can have no comparisons, because this has grown up during the year, but here we have, in addition to the agrarian outrages of which I have spoken, 381 cases of cattle-driving in five or six months. Will the House picture to itself what the condition of the country must be in which 381 of these cases have occurred? What condition of affairs do these cattle-drives bring about? Let me call the attention of the House to a statement which shows the object and effect of this cattle-driving. It is a statement made by the hon. Gentleman who is now being punished for having infringed the law. This is what he says—
  "The only way in which progress can be made is by the people themselves making the ranches unsaleable. In Roscommon ten ranches have been cleared and have been run into meadow. No man would take a patch of the meadows, no man work upon them. Even the crows are afraid to fly over them, they are so well boycotted. That state of things is brought about not by resolution, but by the men and women banding themselves together and letting it be clearly seen that whoever touches the ranches is the enemy of the people."
  Does the right hon. Gentleman think that ten ranches being given up and abandoned and left to run derelict is a thing that will lead to prosperity in the economic conditions of Ireland? That is the meaning of cattle-driving, and that is the class of case that has leapt up to 381 during the last six months. I shall deal with cattle-driving in detail in a moment, but at this point I will just say that I think a more
  818
  disastrous speech than the one which the right hon. Gentleman made last night has seldom been delivered in this House by any responsible statesman. I should have thought that by this time the right hon. Gentleman would have learnt that it is a very dangerous thing in Ireland to be the apologist of crime. I have dealt with the record and statistics. But that does not represent the whole of the case as regards agrarian disturbance in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are a vast number of cases that are not and cannot be returned in statistics. No record is kept of the daily surrenders that are made by men of the rights of their property at the behest of the National League. No record is kept of the fines that are paid in hard cash daily and hourly, as we know, to the League for the purpose of buying the right to carry on business and to carry out the ordinary duties of citizens of the United Kingdom. The Solicitor-General told us this evening—and if I may say so his speech, as his speeches always are, was delivered in the most charming way—that 532 persons had been prosecuted by the Government in relation to agrarian outrages during the last twelve months. I do not know whether he meant in relation to cattle-driving alone, but it does not matter. Why, is not the very fact that this Government, with all its indulgence, have felt compelled to prosecute 532 of these persons an eloquent declaration as regards the state and condition of Ireland? How many of these 532 have been punished? I know very well that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General and his colleagues would never have set these prosecutions on foot without knowing there was a clear case to be brought before the tribunal. How many of the 532 persons have been punished? Not a dozen. And if the Law Officers of the Crown thought it right to prosecute 532 persons and not a dozen have been punished, what about the second part of our Resolution as to the absolute failure, and the breakdown and the paralysis of the law in Ireland? With these statistics of crime before him as to the paralysis of the law, all the right hon. Gentleman, when he is asked what he will do, says is—" I shall do nothing." Why has the law failed in Ireland, even

  819
  the ordinary law? The Solicitor-General gave us a very interesting account as to his opinions as to why the law has failed in Ireland, viz., that hon. Members on this side of the House have gone about saying that the Government are in league with the cattle-drivers. That is hardly worthy of the Solicitor-General. He was at the trials and knew or ought to have known a good deal more about it. I will tell you how it failed. In the first place it failed before the magistrates because ex-officio magistrates came and packed the bench and out-voted the resident magistrates. What is my authority for that? The statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary made in excusing himself at Southampton. I should like to ask him this one question; What are these corrupt magistrates doing now? Are they still on the bench? The right hon. Gentleman says he has done everything possible under the ordinary law to bring about a better state of affairs in Ireland. We know that at the present moment these very magistrates are there doing from day to day exactly what they were doing three months ago. There was one case in which the magistrates on the bench referred to the statement of a noble Lord, Lord Denman, in the other House, in which he said that the Government did not look upon it as a serious crime. What was the statement of the magistrate who adjudicated?
  "When the Government do not look upon this—I quote the words of Lord Denman—as a serious crime, are we magistrates, living in the midst of these people, to look upon it as a serous crime?"
  That is why cases have broken down before juries. I think the Solicitor-General really gives us a great deal too much credit when he tells us that the one thing that was influencing the minds and the wishes of the juries of Dublin was what hon. Members on this side of the House had been saying. No, that was not the defence. I have read the accounts of these cases, and I say that what was put forward by the counsel for the defendants was, first, the statement of Lord Denman that the Government did not look upon this as a serious matter. There "was a graver matter, and it was—
  "If the Government are in earnest and serious about these matters why have they not prosecuted the ringleaders? Are we jurors of
  820
  Dublin to be asked at the bidding of the Government, who have not got the courage themselves seriously to prosecute those who are giving rise to all this lawlessness in Ireland, to prosecute these mere dupes and corner-boys and in some way or oilier redeem the courage of the Government?
  I tell the Solicitor-General this—and I speak as an ex-law officer for Ireland and also for England: If you adopted any such course in this country, aye, in this city, and brought up the dupes and refused to prosecute the real criminal and ringleader, there is not a jury in the City of London or in England who would give you a conviction. I say more: There is not one who ought to give a conviction in such a case.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY): Oh, oh.
  SIE E. CARSON: The right hon. Gentleman is very indignant.
  MR. CHERRY: I am.
  SIR E. CARSON: But is it not well that "the jury should be used to get at the real expression of the opinion of the people and what they think of the Executive who are in power for the time being"? I am sorry I must pass on very quickly, for I must only occupy one or two moments more in dealing with this question. The right hon. Gentleman has given us a reason for allowing this state of things to go on. He has told us that after all you must look at the origin of the crime and at the hopes held out to these people. I wish I had plenty of time to argue that question with him. All I can say is, no more dangerous proposition can be laid down by this House than that pending the redress of grievances you are to allow people any latitude in the commission of crime. I dissent entirely from the suggestion that any policy coming from this side of the House gave rise or ought to have given rise to any hopes that those great ranches were to be broken up and that the grazing industry was to be destroyed in Ireland. What is likely to be the effect in Ireland and upon those who are asked to pay the taxes in England for the purpose of raising this money if this kind of crime is to be allowed to go on? Some of these cases were those of men who had bought their land under the Purchase Acts, and they were trying to

  821
  earn the instalments to pay into the British Exchequer. They have been driven out by these cattle-drivers for whom you now make an apology because it suits you on the present occasion. I do not know how far this is to be allowed to go on, but, if you are going to say, because there is not enough land to go round in Ireland, therefore you are going to excuse and palliate deeds of this kind, I say you are preaching Socialism pure and simple, and Socialism of a more advanced type, I venture to think, than anything that has been put forward by hon. Members inside or outside this House who are said to have raised the red flag. The truth of the matter is that the Government are in an impossible position, and I will tell them why. The right hon. Gentleman said last night that he was a Home Ruler. We all know it, and he has a perfect right to be a Home Ruler. Yes, every man on the Government Bench is a Home Ruler. They are Home Rulers, but they are Home Rulers without the courage to put their policy before the country. They are Home Rulers and would tell you "our hearts' belief is that all this difficulty arises because the Irish people have not got a Parliament of their own." Holding these opinions they dare not try to enforce them, and at once any person can see the weakness of the situation; because if men who believe that is the only remedy go on attempting to govern Ireland as still part of the United Kingdom they are at the same time trying to run Home Rule and Unionism Tinder a united Parliament; and, believe me, no Government has ever been able to pursue a policy of that kind without coming absolutely to grief. I must apologise to my right hon. friend for not leaving him longer time to speak, but I have had to deal with a good deal of matter. I will conclude by reading a statement which was made in a somewhat similar debate which seems to me even now to fit the situation. It is a quotation from the hon. Gentleman who sits opposite and whose opinions are always so valuable because they are always so variable, and they are always delivered in such moderate language as to commend themselves even to the
  822
  most moderate men in the House. Here is what he said—
  "It is a definite matter of urgent importance. He said that now nobody could challenge that assertion and he maintained this that before they disestablished churches, before they wrecked the empire, before they made a laughing stock of the English Constitution: aye, even before they closed public houses or attempted to close them, which they were not going to do, he said, even before that they were bound to see that every poor man and woman in County Clare had the protection of the law to which he or she was entitled."
  I am quite satisfied that that should be my last word.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): The speech which we have just listened to from the right hon. Gentleman is the greatest example in my experience of what exaggerated and inflamed rhetoric may do and can do without any solid basis of fact and without a single practical suggestion as to what the Government should do under the circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman enlarged in terrific terms upon the terrible evils of boycotting, and in proof of his assertion he mentioned three cases. But he did not mention the fact, which he knows and which has been referred to again and again in these debates, that the amount of boycotting in Ireland now in 1908 or at the end of 1907 is a great deal less than it was in 1902 when his Government was in power. If the House will allow me, I will again mention the figures. In 1902 there were returns of forty-one cases of serious boycotting in Ireland. In the year 1907 there were nine. The right hon. Gentleman asked what are the Government doing—are they abandoning their functions of preserving law and order. I want to know what was the Government of 1902 doing. Were not they doing exactly the same as we are doing, giving every protection we can to boycotted persons, bringing to justice any person who commits an offence against the law, and striving to maintain the law and to maintain the peace of every individual in the country?
  SIR E. CARSON: If the right hon. Gentleman asks me the question, I am entitled to say that in 1902 the Government did proclaim certain countries under the Crimes Act.
  MR. CHEEKY: I think if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the statistics and at the Criminal Returns he will find that there were no prosecutions for boycotting in Ireland in 1902.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not purposely mislead the House. I only wish to inform him that he is in error on that point, because in that state of affairs it was the duty of the Government to proceed with prosecutions under the Crimes Act, and they fulfilled that duty.
  MR. CHEEEY: I do not understand the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman. I asked whether there were any prosecutions for boycotting under the Crimes Act in 1902. I believe there were not. I may be in error but as far as my recollection of the figures goes there were none. So much for boycotting. Time is short and I wish to deal with more serious matters than boycotting, because I think even the right hon. Gentleman would admit, though he takes such a serious view of boycotting, that there are other and more serious crimes, and I think I am entitled to ask the attention of the House to the condition of Ireland in the year 1907 as regards crime generally and not as regards one particular form of crime alone. The right hon. Gentleman apparently disregards the figures, but the House will be astonished to hear that if you take any form of serious crime and go down through the list you will find, with one exception which I will point out in a few minutes, not only that there was less crime in Ireland in 1907 than in any year since 1902, but that it was very little more than half the amount of the average of the five years preceding. These are remarkable facts. Now I will take first the most serious crime known to the law—murder—and bear in mind, I am talking of crime generally now and not confining myself to one particular class of crime. In 1902 according to the Returns, there were thirty-nine cases of murder in Ireland. That is not a very large number. I do not say that it is. As compared with England I daresay it is comparatively small. In the year 1905, which is a year we are told of profound peace under a Unionist administration, there were thirty-six cases. In the year 1906 when the present Government came into power and when, of course, all the disorder at once broke
  824
  out again, there were nineteen cases And how many cases does the House suppose there were of murder in 1907? Exactly seven, about one fifth of the number in 1902. The average number of cases for the five years preceding 1907 was thirty-nine. The number in 1907 was seven. And yet we are told that Ireland is seething with crime and disorder. Take, next, attempts to murder. They fell from eight in 1902 to three in 1907. Assaults of all kinds, which are serious things—woundings, felonious assaults and common assaults—the average number for the five years preceding 1907 was 315, and the number in 1907 was 177, very little more than half the number. If you go down the list—I regret to say I have not time to do so now—but if you take offences against-property you find exactly the same result. In some classes of crime, there has been an increase in 1907 as compared with 1906, as in the case of riots and affrays which have risen from eight to eleven. If you go back to 1905, the year when Ireland was a paradise of peace according to hon. Gentlemen opposite, you will find that there were fourteen riots and affrays as compared with eleven. I cannot understand why agrarian crime should be worse than any other form of crime. Is it because property in land is more sacred? Is the life of the landlord more sacred than the life of the poor wife who has been murdered by her husband? Hon. Gentlemen opposite always speak as if the only class in the community that is worthy of protection is their own class. As regards both person and property I think all classes ought to be equally protected. But I am willing to take the test that hon. Gentlemen are so anxious for. They want to know about agrarian crime, and they are technically right because the Amendment deals only with agrarian crime, that being as I said, the only matter in their opinion worthy of consideration. Now take agrarian crime—agrarian murders. I have had prepared for me in quinquennial periods the number of agrarian outrages in Ireland, and I will give the House the result very shortly, coming from 1880 down to the present time. The House has been told that there were last year 372 agrarian outrages—a terrible total!—which called for the immediate attention of Parliament, and that

  825
  there was an increase over the preceding year, an increase, I agree, of 138. Does the House realise what the number of agrarian outrages in 1881 was? Hon. Members laugh I do not know why. The number was 4,439—more than ten times the number of last year—and yet we are told by the Member for South Derry and in another place by the Marquess of Londonderry that Ireland was never in such a state of disturbance as at present. The number has come down from 4,439 to 372. When you take the more serious cases you find the result is still more startling. Take the case of agrarian murder. The average number of agrarian murders in the five years 1881–85 was ten. In 1886–90, when the Crimes Act was in force,; it was 4·4. During the years 1906 and, 1907 I am happy to say there was not one single agrarian murder in Ireland; and yet the House has been told Ireland is seething in crime and disorder. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh."] If hon. Members were speaking in regard to any other country in Europe being in disorder they would readily quote the number of murders. Have hon. Members for Ireland compared the number of murders in such places as Russia, Macedonia, or any one of the South American Republics? Have they reflected what is the number of murders in England? Take, next, assaults endangering life. The average number for the first period of five years I have mentioned was thirteen, for the second period eight, and last year three. Taking incendiary fires, they have fallen from 192 in the first period to thirty-eight in 1907. In ordinary crime, the only increase has been in intimidation. These cases were mostly sending threatening letters, and the persons who received them treated them with contempt. When the more serious crimes have been got rid of, as they have been got rid of, threatening letters become matters which we can disregard altogether. They are only serious when they lead to crime. The policy of the Government has been clear; it is to enforce the ordinary law by the ordinary means, and to give everybody a fair trial. We believe that by abolishing jury-packing and not resorting to exceptional laws we shall gain what we cannot otherwise gain—we shall get the people on the side of law instead of against it. By this means we shall teach
  826
  the people that the criminal law is not the enemy of the common people but their friend, that its object is to protect and not to oppress them. Our policy will tend to make the people sympathise with the law instead of obstructing it and trying in every way to prevent its operation. Jury-packing has been mentioned. In one of the trials before the Courts in Dublin, after there had been two or three disagreements, an official connected with the Castle came to me and said he had made a list of the jury panel and that there were thirtynine who were thoroughly reliable. If I had exercised my power as Attorney-General of standing aside all the jurors except those thirty-nine, I could have made sure of a conviction in the case. I do not wish to name the official who gave that information. [OPPOSITION cries of "Name."] I shall not give the name. My reply was that I would far rather have a hundred acquittals than a conviction obtained by such means; I would rather fail to convict in a hundred cases than pollute the very fountain of justice by packing the jury. I believe that by administering the ordinary law fairly and impartially we shall do more for the peace and good government of Ireland than by resorting to the Crimes Act or any of the exceptional methods adopted by our predecessors to obtain convictions. The object of the Government has been not so much to punish cattle-drivers as to stop cattle-driving, and in that we have succeeded, because the number of cases in November last was 108, in December eighty-one, and in January this year the total has fallen to thirty-four. I think, therefore, that I am entitled to claim that the decrease of cattle-driving is in large measure due to the policy of the Government. I firmly believe that if we had adopted the opposite policy; if we had filled the gaols of Ireland with cattle-drivers, we should have increased cattle-driving and produced other and worse crimes as well. My speech to the jury at Wicklow has been twisted and turned outside this House as if I had said that Ireland was last year in a state of anarchy. I never said anything of the kind. I always thought that cattle-driving was a very dangerous and very foolish process, and I never condoned it. But, anxious as I was to stop it, I was not prepared to go outside the ordinary law, and in following that course the Government

  827
  have acted best in the interests of peace. Some cases of boycotting have been referred to. Now, I happen to know well the McCann case which has been mentioned, and I have no hesitation in saying that it has been grossly exaggerated. Mr. McCann carries on the business of a grazier and he has a large shop. His farm is fully stocked with cattle and his cattle are protected. His shop is open and he is doing a large trade, and all this talk about terrible persecution is exaggerated rhetoric. I know there are certain evils in Ireland as in England, and in every other country in the world, but Ireland is no worse than other countries, and any Irishman who says it
  is so is not a good Irishman. Ireland has been in subjection to the rule of another country for centuries, and the effect of that has been to turn the people against the law. The object of the Government is to alter that feeling, to make Irishmen friendly to the law, instead of being opposed to it, and if we succeed in doing that we shall accomplish more for the peace and prosperity of Ireland than we could do by any amount of coercion.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 115; Noes, 414. (Division List No. 3.)

  AYES

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Percy, Earl

  Aubrey,-Fletcher Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Gordon, J.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Haddock, George B.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hill, Lord Arthur (West Down)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hills, J. W.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Cave, George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

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

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Keswick, William

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. - Col. A. R

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

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

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J (Birmingh'm

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  M'Arthur, Charles

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

  Cross, Alexander

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Winterton, Earl

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Doughty, Sir George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Younger, George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS POP. THE AYES.—Vis count Valentia and Mr. Forster.

  Fell, Arthur

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Alden, Percy

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Allen, A. Acland (Christehurch)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ambrose, Robert

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Delany, William

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barker, John

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dillon, John

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hodge, John

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone. N.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hogan, Michaell

  Beale, W. P.

  Duckworth, James

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Beauchamp, E.

  Duffy, William J.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Bell, Richard

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hudson, Walter

  Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S Geo.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Bennett, E. N.

  Elibank, Master of

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romf'rd

  Erskine, David C.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Essex, R. W.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Boland, John

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jenkins, J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Brace, William

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Branch, James

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Brigg, John

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Bright, J. A.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Jowett, F. W.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Joyce, Michael

  Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gill, A. H.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Glen-Coats, Sir T.(Renfrew, W.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Glover, Thomas

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lambert, George

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lament, Norman

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Grant, Corrie

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Grove, Archibald

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Clough, William

  Gulland, John W.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn Sir W. Brampton

  Lough, Thomas

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Lupton, Arnold

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Collins, Sir Wm. J (S. Pancras, W

  Hall, Frederick

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Halpin, J.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E Grinst'd

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Harms worth, Cecil B. (Worc'rh

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harmsworth, R. L.(Caithn'ss-s)

  Maclean, Donald

  Cox, Harold

  Harrington, Timothy

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Hart-Davies, T.

  MaiNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Crombie, John William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Crooks, William

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harwood, George

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Crossley, William J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Cullinan, J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  M'Crae, George

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Kean, John

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  M'Killop, W.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hazleton, Richard

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Maddison, Frederick

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mallet, Charles E.

  830

  831

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

  Pollard, Dr.

  Summerbell, T.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford. E.)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Massie, J.

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Radford, G. H.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Menzies, Walter

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Thorne, William

  Mond, A.

  Reddy, M.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Toulmin, George

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Mooney, J. J.

  Rees, J. D.

  Verney, F. W.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Rendall, Althelstan

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Vivian, Henry

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Wadsworth, J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Richardson, A.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Morse, L. L.

  Rickett, Sir J. Compton

  Walker, H. Do R. (Leicester)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Muldoon, John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Murnaghan, George

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Walton, Joseph

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

  Robinson, S.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Sauthampton

  Myer, Horatio

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wardle, George J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Waring, Walter

  Napier, T. B.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Nicholls, George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Nicholson, Charles N. Doncast'r

  Rowlands, J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Runciman, Walter

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Russell, T. W.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Scott, A. H.(Ashton-under Lyne

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sears, J. E.

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  O' Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

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

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Williamson, A.

  O'Dowd, John

  Sheehy, David

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  O'Grady, J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Malley, William

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Partingdon, Oswald

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Scares, Ernest J.

  Winfrey, R-

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wood, T., M'Kinnon

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Perks, Robert William

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  TELLERS FOR ME NOES. Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Main Question again proposed.
  And, it being after Eleven of the Clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
  Adjourned at twelve minutes after Eleven o'clock.

EARL OF CLANWILLIAM.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Arthur Vescy, Earl of Clanwilliam in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
FAIRFAX PEERAGE.
Petition of Albeit Kirby Fairfax, claiming to be Lord Fairfax of Cameron in the Peerage of Scotland; that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause his right to the title and dignity of Lord Fairfax of Cameron, to be declared and established; together with His Majesty's reference thereof to this House. Presented (by Command), and referred to the Committee of Privileges to consider and report.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Hurly's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. A Bill intituled an Act to dissolve the marriage of Honoria Hurly with Maurice Randall Hurly, a Major in the 93rd Burma Infantry, her now husband, and to enable her to marry again, and for other purposes. Presented (on petition), and a copy of the proceedings in and of the decree of the King's Bench, Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland delivered (on oath) Bill read 1a; and to be read 2a on Tuesday the 31st day of March next. The usual orders made.
Hurly's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Petition of Honoria Hurley that the depositions of Ella Morrison, Estelle Hamilton, Ada Norris, and Thomas Harold Mortimer Green may be received in evidence on the Second Reading of the Bill; and that a duly attested copy of the Bill and the Order for the Second Reading thereof, and the usual Orders of this House may be transmitted by registered letter to Rodway Charles John Swinhoe, Solicitor, of Mandalay, Upper Burma, and that the attendance of the said Rodway Charles-John Swinhoe before this House to prove personal service of the Bill and Orders be
650
dispensed with, and that an affidavit of the said Rodway Charles John Swinhoe, of such personal service sworn before the Legal Commissioner or a Justice of the Peace for administering oaths be deemed good and sufficient proof of such service. Presented and ordered to be taken into consideration on Friday next.
Ammanford Urban District Council Water Bill [H.L.]; Audenshaw and Saddleworth Urban District Councils Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Briton Ferry Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Camberwell and other Metropolitan Borough Councils (Super annuation) Bill [H.L.]; Herne Bay Pier Bill [H.L.]; Huddersfield Water Bill [H. L.]; Keighley Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Kings College, London (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]; London and District Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.]; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill [H.L.]; Magee Presbyterian College (Londonderry) Bill [H.L.]; Malvern Hills Bill [H.L.]; Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Monmouthshire County Council Bill [H.L.]; Ravensthorpe Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Skegness Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Swansea Valley Gas Bill [H.L.]; Thames River Steamboat Service Act (1904) Amendment Bill [H.L.]; Upton Town Hall Bill [H.L.]; Wath-upon-Dearne Urban District Council Gas Bill [H.L.]; Presented, and read 1a.
Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]; Bognor Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [H.L.]; Commercial Union Assurance Company Bill [H.L]; Llanelly Gas Bill [H.L.]; London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [H.L.]; Northern Assurance Company Bill [H.L.]; Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Bill [H.L.]: Pontypridd Water Bill [H.L.]; Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill [H.L.]; Stratford - upon - Avon, Towcester, and Midland Junction, Evesham, Redditch, and Stratford-upon-Avon Junction, and East and West Junction Railways (Amalgamation) Bill [H.L.]; presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 4th

  651
  February, 1908, providing for special grants in aid of certain School Boards in Scotland.

  LIGHTHOUSE ADMINISTRATION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Report of the Royal Commission on Lighthouse Administration. Vol. I. Report.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE LISBON MURDERS.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (the Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I rise for the purpose of moving that your Lordships agree to an address to His Majesty the King; and I am quite certain that this proposal will receive the unanimous approval of your Lordship's House. There are many precedents for a course of this kind. Similar addresses were presented in the cases of the King of Italy, of President Carnot of Prance, of the Emperor of Russia; who were assassinated and also, in days yet further back, in the case of President Lincoln of the United States. If there were many reasons for presenting such an address on those occasions, there are in some respects yet stronger reasons for doing so on the present occasion, because those who have been the victims of the atrocious crime which was committed last Saturday at Lisbon were close allies and intimate friends of this country. The ties which have bound Portugal to England during a long period of years have been so close as to render everything connected with that country a matter of great interest to us. We know also that there has been during the same period a friendship existing between the Sovereigns of Portugal and of this country of an intimate character, and that alone would render it our duty to present an address to His Majesty the King. But, apart from those considerations, which would themselves have been amply sufficient to justify the Motion, there are in this particular crime circumstances of horror which have sent a thrill throughout the world, and which have called forth, I may say, almost unanimous condemnation. Such a crime, I am happy to think, is almost unheard of. It was an attempt to destroy, not an individual, but a whole family, an attempt
  652
  under the most cruel circumstances and of the most wicked description, and it was accompanied by characteristics so deeply moving as to attach to it a special degree of interest. For, my Lords, we must all have noticed the high courage and noble bearing of the Queen of Portugal, as she stood there endeavouring to shield her sons from the bullets of the assassins. It was not only that upspringing of a mother's love we must remark, but we have also to observe that under a loss almost unparalleled in the history of mankind, she rose from her sorrow, from the side of the corpses of her dead husband and son, and walked forth, calm and noble, to take her place in the councils of her country, and to ask from the councillors of Portugal assistance for her young son. That is enough to call forth the sympathy of any Assembly in the world; and I am quite sure that it will move your Lordships unanimously to agree with the proposal I have to make. Then, my Lords, look at the touching words which were addressed by the young King of 18, who had just witnessed the murder of his father and his elder brother, to his State Council:—
  "I am without knowledge or experience. I place myself in your hands, counting upon your patriotism and wisdom."
  I think, so far as we can judge, that that confidence of the new King is not likely to be misplaced, and I hope that, as God brings so often good out of evil, there may arise in that kingdom a happier and more satisfactory state of affairs. I beg to move.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to convey to His Majesty the expression of the indignation and deep concern with which this House has learned the assassination of His Majesty's ancient ally and friend, His Majesty the King of Portugal and the Algarves, and of His Royal Highness the Duke of Braganza; and to pray His Majesty that he will be graciously pleased to express to His Majesty the present King on the part of this House their abhorrence of the crime, and their sympathy with the Royal Family of Portugal and with the people of that country."—The Marquess of Ripon.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, Upon this occasion, the noble Marquess gives utterance to feelings

  653
  entertained not only by those who sit with him, but to those of the whole House. I can add but little to the eloquent words which have just fallen from his lips. The terrible crime of Saturday last has created a feeling of consternation throughout the whole of the civilised world. It was attended by circumstances of horror and pathos for which it would be hard to find a parallel; and in this country the universal emotion has, I venture to think, been even more deeply felt than in other parts of the world. Portugal, as the noble Marquess reminded us, is an old and trusted ally of this country, connected with us by immemorial ties and by centuries of reciprocal goodwill. The late King and his gracious and illustrious Consort were well known in this country, respected and liked by all who had the good fortune to meet them. The King possessed many qualities which endeared him particularly to us, qualities of manliness and of unaffected good humour, for which he was conspicuous. The Portuguese Royal Family are connected with our own Royal Family by ties of relationship and by ties of the closest intimacy. My Lords, we cannot hope that anything we can say or do will have the effect of lightening the heavy burden of sorrow which has fallen upon Portugal and the Portuguese Royal Family. We can only offer our deep sympathy, first to the illustrious lady who as Queen is mourning for her husband, and as mother is mourning for her son. We can offer that sympathy to the Portuguese Royal Family, upon whom this calamity has fallen so heavily, and to the Portuguese nation, upon the annals of whose history a dark and unfortunate page has been inscribed. Last of all, we may offer our sympathy to our own Royal Family, to whom we know this deplorable event has occasioned the deepest anguish. Our sympathy is all we can offer. We offer it with the utmost respect, and with all our hearts.
  On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente. The said Address ordered to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  BRITISH INDIANS IN THE TRANSVAAL.
  LORD AMPTHILLrose to call attention to the treatment of British Indians
  654
  in the Transvaal and to move for Papers The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have left the Motion which stands in my name upon the Paper in spite of altered circumstances, because I ventured to think that it would be desirable that the compromise which has been happily arrived at between the Transvaal Government and the Indian community in the Colony should not pass unnoticed in Parliament. I am sure this House will desire, by a consensus of individual opinions, to congratulate the Transvaal Government on their courageous and statesmanlike action. I say that the action of the Transvaal Government was courageous because the concession was offered at a time when it required the highest degree of moral courage to make it. I say it was statesmanlike because by it the statesmen of this young Colony have demonstrated their appreciation of the cause of Imperial unity, and have recognised that Imperial considerations are paramount and above the local interests of the Colony. We may also congratulate the Indian community in the Colony on having obtained the concession for which they were willing to sacrifice so much. Surely the courage, unanimity, and consistency with which they have pursued their end are not less admirable than the moderation which has never failed them and the modesty with which they have put forward all their demands. To us as an Imperial race it cannot but be gratifying that our Indian fellow subjects should have learnt from us and have adopted that which is best in our political methods, that they should have such a high sense of what is due to their individual and their collective dignity, and that, they should so sincerely value that liberty which we in this country consider the birthright of every man.
  We may also congratulate His Majesty's Government; and I do venture so to congratulate them, on having escaped a great danger, the danger of being held responsible for a vital injury to the Empire at large, and of a mortal affront to His Majesty's loyal subjects in India. To that extent we may congratulate them and I only wish—and I say so quite sincerely—that we could also congratulate them on having themselves brought about this fortunate compromise, a compromise

  655
  which comes as a relief and gives the greatest satisfaction to all men and all parties in this country.
  The question which I should like to ask your Lordships to consider in connection with the Blue Book which has just been issued, and I hold that the issue of a Blue Book by His Majesty's Government at the very opening of Parliament is an invitation to comment and criticism on their policy, is whether it was inevitable that the Government should have allowed such a situation to have arisen as that which existed in the Transvaal Colony a week ago. What was that situation? Briefly it was this—200 British Indians were in gaol, thirty had been ordered to leave the Colony, twenty more had been warned, three were in the Chinese goal, and 13,000 of His Majesty's loyal Indian subjects were prepared to sacrifice everything that men hold valuable in life, their personal prospects and worldly possessions, and to face even exile and actual starvation, rather than sacrifice their individual and communal self-respect and submit to a law which they regarded as humiliating and oppressive. They were men of all classes, men of high culture and men of lowly station, barristers, merchants, Government officials, soldiers who had worn the King's uniform and gained war medals; men who hold a large stake in the country, and whose property amounts to many thousands of pounds sterling; men who had served the country in the Ambulance Corps of the Boer War and Natal Rebellion. Such were the men—and many of them had been over twenty years in the Colony—who regarded this new law as tyrannical and intolerable.
  It is asked by some whether they were reasonable in this view, but that is a question which I will not detain your Lordships by discussing, for no one who has made himself at all acquainted with the subject can deubt that the Indians were reasonable in their objections to these regulations. We have, moreover, the declarations of successive Ministers of the Crown in this country that the disabilities and restrictions which were imposed on the Indians were such as could not be regarded as fair and just in this country. That was the situation in South Africa, and there was also a rapidly-growing feeling of indignation in India which culminated
  656
  in the great meeting at Bombay, where we beheld the unusual spectacle of Hindus, Mahomedans, and Parsees united in one common object of protest, and headed by such a man as His Highness the Agha Khan. Those who are acquainted with India will know the significance of the fact that the Agha Khan, who is a power in the Mahomedan world, not only within the confines of that vast dominion, but also beyond the shores of India, should have placed himself at the head of such a movement.
  I ask, then, ought things ever to have been allowed to come to such a pass? I am not going to blame the colonists or the Colonial Government. I think I appreciate to the full the local difficulties of the situation, and one must also not fail to remember that colonial statesmen cannot possibly have the same information, the same opportunities of judging Imperial necessities, as the statesmen who are responsible for the control of affairs at the head of the Empire. I therefore blame His Majesty's Government for having allowed the situation to reach such an alarming pitch, and my object this afternoon is to ascertain from the noble Earl who presides over the Colonial Office whether he is able to adduce any proofs, by the publication of further Papers or otherwise, that I am not justified in holding His Majesty's Government responsible for having allowed things to go so far. Thus far the only explanation which we have received from members of His Majesty's Government is that it is impossible to interfere with a self-governing Colony. Now I protest, in the first instance, against the question-begging use of the word "interfere," which I think misleads the people in this country. If by interference is meant the assertion of authority which the Imperial Government does not possess or of claims which cannot be supported, then I agree that there can be no question of interference, and that interference is wrong. But if interference with a self-governing Colony means the proffering of advice and suggestions which can properly come from the head partner in the Imperial concern, if it means the explanation by the Mother Country of the rights of the other partners and the individual citizens of the Empire—if it means insistence on those rights, then, I say, we are as much

  657
  justified in interfering with a self-governing Colony as we are in interfering with foreign nations as indeed we often do in similar cases.
  I need not delay your Lordships by giving instances of the cases in which we have interfered with foreign countries—countries with whom we had no relations, and over whom we had no shadow of authority—on behalf of individual British citizens. But if the noble Earl still persists that it is impossible to interfere, then I will put to him this challenge. Supposing that the Transvaal were to decide to-morrow that the repatriation of Chinese coolies was to cease, will the noble Earl tell me that His Majesty's Government would not interfere? That is a question to which it would be very interesting to have a direct answer. Leaving that aspect of the question—it is, of course, highly debatable and possibly too academic, I would put this practical question: Why did you give self-government to the Transvaal Colony until this question was settled? That is really at the root of the whole question. The matter was ripe for decision. It had actually come to a head, and there was no possibility of ignoring it. The question, after all, was one of the main issues for which the South African war was fought, for which such stupen dous sacrifices of blood and treasure were made by this country and the Colonies. Where, I ask, was the knowledge, the prescience, the statesmanship which we have a right to expect from those who control the destinies of the Empire and are at the head of the Imperial Government, that that question should have been ignored at the time?
  The grant of self-government to the Transvaal Colony was somehow or other associated in the minds of the people of this country with the question which is known as that of Chinese slavery. There has been much dispute as to how it was actually associated, but the belief of most people in this country is that self-government was granted in order that Chinese labour should cease. Why, then, I ask, was Chinese slavery more important than Indian slavery? And I use the term Indian slavery advisedly and with full consideration. Let us compare the conditions. His
  658
  Majesty's Government and their supporters taught the people what it was right to regard as slavery. They defined slavery, and their definition was accepted in all good faith by the great bulk of the people of this country. Now, the marks of slavery, according to Members of the Liberal Party, were identification by means of finger prints, inability to hold fixed property, and relegation to compounds. A member of His Majesty's Government—Dr. Macnamara—alluding to the fact that Chinese coolies had to give thumb prints only for registration, said in the House of Commons—
  "If this is not slavery, what is?"
  I say, then, that there might have been—and this is one of the dangers that His Majesty's Government have escaped—a cry of Indian slavery in this country, a cry which would have gravely affected the prestige and influence of His Majesty's Government; and if there had been it would not have been a cry devised by mountebank politicians and spread by party wirepullers, but it would have emanated spontaneously from the hearts of the people—an irresistible manifestation of that Imperialist spirit which has always been innate in the people of this country, the spirit which protests at oppression and injustice wherever they may occur on the face of the globe.
  The opportunity of making conditions at the time of the grant of self-government was lost; but the Government had more recent opportunities to which I shall presently refer. But, first of all, may I be permitted to clear the issue? There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about it, and as that, misunderstanding continues I think it is well to use this opportunity of explaining the position of those in this country who have taken up the cause of our Indian fellow-subjects. No one who has spoken with any knowledge, or with any sense of responsibility, has denied the right of the Colonists to manage their own affairs. We admit that right. We admit to the full the right of the Colonies to restrict immigration. We admit the justice and the propriety of their contention that their territories should be regarded as white man's lands, and that they should be

  659
  retained for the natural overflow of the population of this country. All that is elementary. It is a mere extension to communities of the ordinary rights of property. It is a right of property, but, like all rights of property, it is subject to well-known and well-understood limitations. No individual can exercise rights of property to the detriment of the community at large, no community can exercise rights of property to the detriment of neighbouring communities; still less can any individual or any community exercise rights of property to the injury and the detriment of those with whom they are associated or on whom they are in any way dependent.
  Now, the Transvaal Colony is a partner in the great Imperial concern, and the Transvaal Colony, as her statesmen have most rightly and wisely recognised, cannot pursue her own interests in such a manner as to injure the other partners, any or either of them, or to injure the whole business. But it may be argued I that this is a case of the private domestic concerns of the Colony. The analogy of individuals may be taken again. You may argue that in a business partnership the private life of one member does not concern the other. I say it does. The private life of a partner in any business concerns the other partners when the honour and redit of the firm, or the stability of the business, are affected and I say that this is the case in regard to the Asiatic question in the Transvaal and elsewhere, even if you take the narrowest possible view of Colonial interests and duties. The honour of our nation, the reputation before the world of our Imperial hegemony, the stability of the Empire, are affected, and therefore we have a right to insist that our point of view—the Imperial point of view—should be considered; and the Imperial point of view requires this, that for the sake of the honour and the unity of the Empire, British citizens, whatever their colour, should be treated as such, that they should not be oppressed or degraded, that they should receive fair and even generous treatment wherever, the British flag flies, and that pledges given by our Sovereign and by the British Government should not be
  660
  disregarded on any account by British citizens in any part of the Empire. That point of view is not merely based on humanitarian and sentimental grounds. It is based on very practical considerations—those of the peace and contentment of all peoples united under the British Crown, and of the harmonious purpose without which the Empire cannot possibly be secure.
  India as a part of the Empire, the largest part of the Empire, the great entity which has made the Empire possible, and, more than that, the strategic pivot without which the Empire could not possibly be secure—India, I say, is as much the concern of all the Colonies as she is our concern. If the Colonies were inadvertently to get us into trouble with India, they would do us as much, even more harm than if they got us into trouble with foreign nations. I say inadvertently, for it could not be otherwise. The Colonies value Imperial unity as much as, or even more than, we do. We have had ample proofs of that, not only in the South African War, but quite recently in the satisfactory circumstances which have arisen as regards Canada and Japan, and now this latest instance in the Transvaal. I say, then, that there is no question—we cannot doubt—that the Colonists value Imperial unity, and will make sacrifices, if sacrifices be necessary, for the sake of Imperial unity. But Colonial statesmen, and still more the people of the Colonies, cannot be so familiar with all the great problems which arise as the Ministers of the Imperial Government. They have not the information, and it is obvious that they are not brought into the same relations with other parts of the Empire and with foreign nations. I say, then, that it is the business of Imperial statesmanship to explain these considerations to the Colonies.
  Some noble Lords opposite are and have been engaged in loud conversation during my remarks. There is a Standing Order of this House which requires that noble Lords who desire to indulge in private conversation should do so in the Princes Chamber. I am sure that I am voicing the wishes of every speaker in this House when I ask your Lordships

  661
  to insist on the observance of that Standing Order, which is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. I myself have always carefully refrained from interrupting speakers by any loud or protracted conversation, and I think, therefore, I have some little right, the common right of every Member of this House, to ask that I should be treated in the same way.
  I say that it is the business of Imperial statesmen to explain these things fully, and to explain them from the point of view of the superior knowledge which they naturally possess. Casual references are not enough. An eloquent passage in the speech of a Minister, or in a despatch is not what I mean by explanation. If we wish to bring home great national and Imperial necessities, requirements, and principles to the people of this country, we are only able to do so by constant reiteration, and by a system of political education which is familiar to you all. This it is that is required at the present stage of the development of the Empire from Imperial statesmen and from Colonial statesmen, but it is, of course, for Imperial statesmen to take the initiative.
  Why was this not done at the Imperial Conference last year? It was not from want of suggestion. I ventured to make the suggestion to the noble Earl myself in this House, but he did not attach any great importance to it. After first explaining that it was not on the agenda of the Conference, the noble Earl, when he was pressed for a more satisfactory answer, said that this question of vital importance to the Empire would be considered at the Conference "should opportunity offer and time permit." I ventured to think at the time that that was not an answer which we could regard as satisfactory. If it was not an opportunity when Colonial statesmen came at great personal and public inconvenience thousands of miles over the seas to discuss questions of Imperial importance, what is an opportunity? And as for time permitting, who has ever heard that there is not time for the discussion of questions of vital importance in public affairs? Time must be made when these questions arise.
  662
  But let me descend from the general to the particular instance. Where, I ask your Lordships, in the Blue-book which has just been issued is there any proof that any attempt was made to explain to the Transvaal authorities the principle and the details of the question over which all the trouble has arisen? Take the question of the finger prints. It is not the whole question, and it has been given, perhaps, undue prominence, but it is important because it illustrates the general spirit of the legislation. The Blue-book shows what a very negative part was played by His Majesty's Government. His Majesty's Government allowed the Transvaal Government to tell them what was done in India. Why did His Majesty's Government not refer at once to the Government of India and ask them exactly how the matter stood there? If they had done so, they would have learnt that there are several methods of identification by means of finger prints, and that the ten-digit system, the system of simultaneous impressions, was only one of those methods, and was confined absolutely to criminals in India. They could have passed that information on to the Transvaal Government. The Transvaal Government relied on a Report by Sir Edward Henry, late of the Indian Service, and although that Report made it very fairly clear that there were different methods which were considered equally effective and less objectionable, yet it seems to have been misread in the Colony and here, and the impression seems to have been allowed to remain that there was only one method, and that, the method adopted by the Colonial Government.
  The system in India is that in the case of the registration of documents only thumb impressions are given. Pensioners, whether they be civilian or military, are required to give the impression of the thumb and the four fingers of the left hand only. The impression of the fingers and thumbs of both hands is required only of criminals, but there is nothing in the Blue-book to show that these facts were considered or ascertained or communicated to the Transvaal Government. That question is, happily, settled for the present. But what I wish to impress on

  663
  your Lordships is that it does not settle the whole question of Indian disabilities. The question of identification for the purposes of registration is only one detail of that larger question. It is a new question. It is a grievance which did not exist under the old South African Republic, and all the grievances which did exist under that régime, against which we protested "before the Empire and before the civilised world," to quote the words of a former Colonial Secretary—all those disabilities remain. Let us hope that the better understanding that is bound to arise from the compromise which has been happily effected, a compromise which ought surely to result in mutual self-respect, will lead to a fair settlement of these other disabilities if the Colonies and the Indians are aided by wise counsel and prudent advice from the Government of this country.
  But let me return to the opportunities of the Government, which in my opinion, were lost, for it is in relation to these that I hope the noble Earl will give us an explanation. Supposing that it was impossible to interfere, supposing that there was no opportunity of agreeing, no possibility of agreeing, on principle with the Colonial Government, I say that there were opportunities for bargaining; and you can bargain with any one, whether you have authority over him or not, whether he is a friend or a foe. There is no question of interference when it comes to bargaining, and more particularly can you bargain with any one to whom you lend money. That applies as much to the case of communities as it does to individuals. I ask, then, why, when you granted a Constitution to the Transvaal Colony, did you not make a bargain, if it was impossible to delay the grant of self-government? What, again, was the object of the reservation under Clause 39 to the Imperial Government of questions relating to Asiatics? One is inclined to ask whether His Majesty's Government only made this reservation in order that they might redeem electioneering pledges in regard to the Chinese.
  Again, there was the opportunity of the Registration Law. Why was assent not made conditional on the drafting of fair regulations? The Blue-book does
  664
  not show that any attempt at bargaining on this point was made. Still later you had the opportunity of the Immigrants Regulation Bill. Having failed before, surely you could have bargained then, but just because His Majesty's Government did not use their opportunity the Colony made the best of theirs, and the Blue-book shows us the extraordinary spectacle of this young child of freedom holding a pistol at the head of His Majesty's Government, and saying: "Now we are going to pass another law even more severe than the first, and we want you to assent to it by telegram before you have even seen the text." The noble Earl, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, very properly objected to this suggestion, but it is surely an illustration of the manner in which His Majesty's Government have pursued this matter that such a situation could ever have arisen.
  Lastly, there was the opportunity of the Transvaal Loan. I hope the noble Earl will tell us why these opportunities were not used. I say once more that I do not blame the Colony. It is no part of my intention to blame the Colony. They were entitled to get all they could, and they naturally did their best to do so. But, the Blue-book shows that the attitude of His Majesty's Government throughout—was one, first, of timorous protest, and, secondly, of reluctant acquiescence in everything that was proposed. Such an attitude does not command the respect of communities any more than it does of individuals. We shall not quarrel with the Colonies, if we say straight out what we think and what we want, just as they say to us what they think and what they want; and what I desire to know is why His Majesty's Government have not adopted that frank and open attitude. In this matter the eyes of the world are upon us. By our action the world will judge of the sincerity of our professions in regard to the cause of justice and humanity, whether it be in our own affairs or in the affairs of others. Mr. Lyttelton, in a despatch to Lord Milner on 20th July, 1904, wrote as follows—
  "His Majesty's Government for many years repeatedly protested, before the empire and the civilised world, against the policy and

  665
  laws of the late South African Republic in relation to this subject. His Majesty's Government hold that it is derogatory to national honour to impose on resident British subjects disabilities against which we have remonstrated."
  Those disabilities, my Lords,—and this is the important point, and one which is very little recognised at this moment—those disabilities remain the same as ever. The registration question is a new one which has been superimposed.
  Now, what are His Majesty's Government going to do? My Motion is one for Papers, and I hope the Papers which the noble Earl will be good enough to produce, if he accepts my Motion, will show, in the first place, whether there is any present intention of redeeming the lost opportunity, and referring this whole question as a matter of principle to the consideration of the Imperial Conference; and, secondly, whether any negotiations are proceeding at this time in regard to the removal of other disabilities. I will not detain your Lordships by reciting what those disabilities are, and still less will I venture to suggest how they might be modified and mitigated; but I venture to repeat that the civilised world will judge according to what is done, how far we value that national honour of which we have spoken, and how far we have the courage of our professed opinions. I am not exaggerating, my Lords. Those of you who look at the newspapers of the Continent will see how carefully foreign nations are watching our action in this matter. We have asked to be judged, and we shall be judged, in our claim to Imperial dominion and leadership in the world's counsels, by the action of His Majesty's Government in this matter.
  Moved, for Papers relating to the treatment of British Indians in the Transvaal.—(Lord Ampthill.)
  EARL ROBERTS: My Lords, it is a great relief to me to learn that the trouble between our Indian subjects in the Transvaal and the Government in that colony has been settled, and in a manner which, it is to be hoped, will be successful. I agree it is a trouble which ought never to have arisen, if we may judge by the ease
  666
  with which a compromise was arrived at as soon as public opinion was drawn to the question in dispute. In my opinion it is much to be regretted that some person, intimately acquainted with the habits and customs of the natives of India, was not deputed in the first instance to confer with the Transvaal Government when the Asiatic Law Amendment Act, 1907, was being drawn up. If this had been done, it is scarcely possible to believe that the Amendment would have been drawn up in a manner which gave such offence to our Indian subjects.
  No one who knows the difficulties which the white men have to contend against in South Africa in earning a livelihood can for a moment doubt that the Transvaal Government is justified in making such laws as may be necessary to prohibit the future immigration of Asiatics into that Colony, and also to arrange for the deportation of those who have obtained admission by fraudulent means. But on perusal of the Blue-book which has recently been issued, I gather that it was not so much the Act itself that was resented by our Indian subjects as the measures which were adopted to give effect to that Act, chiefly the registration by finger prints and the insistence upon the names of female relatives being noted in certain cases. These were, in my opinion, grievous errors—errors which could not fail to cause the deepest offence to Indians, and to warrant their objecting to the law.
  I rejoice that the question of registration has been settled, and that henceforth the finger-print system is not to be enforced in the case of Indians of whose respectability there can be no doubt; and I would earnestly express my hope that, in that class, may be included all natives who have had the honour of wearing the King's uniform, and have served loyally and faithfully in the Indian army. It is true, as stated by Sir Edward Henry, that finger prints are utilised in India in most branches of public business, but the origin of the finger-print system was the detection of criminals. Its use may since then have come into general practice; but the system has a smack of criminality; and I think we can all readily understand that its application,

  667
  especially in a foreign land and to only one section of the community, must necessarily be felt as a degradation by any self-respecting Indian.
  I hope, too, that in the form of registration for an adult Indian the mention of a female relative will not be insisted upon. It may seem a matter of small moment in this country, but I can assure your Lordships that it is a matter of the greatest importance to Indians. In their country, even amongst the most intimate friends, no allusion is ever made to a native's female relatives. So strong is this customary reticence that it is a sufficient reason for their objection to this law. When Indians elect to travel over the world they must, of course, abide by the laws of the country where they may be dwelling. At the same time, it is clearly our duty to watch as carefully over the interests of our Indian subjects as over the interests of our own subjects. And while the various Governments of South Africa are at liberty to make such laws as they may think necessary for the protection of those who are under their rule, we cannot expect that we shall escape obloquy, and perhaps something much more serious, if we do not do our best at all times to save our Indian subjects, wherever they may be, from being treated without due consideration.
  LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I should not like to remain altogether silent while this subject is being discussed. It is a subject which came very much to the front while I was ill India. It is one in which I took the warmest personal interest, and in which the Government of which I was the head played a somewhat prominent part.
  The question came before us in India in a twofold aspect in relation both to Natal and the Transvaal. The Government of Natal, where the same difficulties have long existed in a much greater and more acute degree than in the Transvaal, sent a deputation to India to ask us to agree to the repatriation, at the end of their term of engagement, of the labourers we had sent to them. We were willing to make this great concession to them—a concession somewhat unpopular with the coolies themselves—provided we
  668
  could make terms to secure a sensible relaxation of the hardships and disabilities under which the free and unindentured Indian population of Natal then laboured. We found not much difficulty in coming to terms with the deputation, but the Natal Government declined to accept our proposals.
  Then there came the question of the Transvaal. Your Lordships are all aware of the cruel and disabling restrictions that were placed upon the Indian population in that country. They were one of the contributory causes of the war. As soon as the war was over we felt it our duty, as the trustees of the Indian people in India, to address the then Secretary of the State upon the subject. We put, I think, a very strong plea before him. A little later, Lord Milner came to us with a request that we would provide him with a number of coolies—he first asked for 10,000 and afterwards for 20,000—to inaugurate railway labour in the new possessions of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. I have sometimes seen it stated that we declined this request. That was not the case. We agreed to find the men, and once again we used the position to endeavour to get better terms for the free Indians in the Transvaal. I am sorry to say that again we failed.
  Since then matters have come to a head, and they have culminated in the crisis which has only just been dispelled during the past few days. I desire to join with my noble friend who has made such a powerful statement of the case and with Lord Roberts in their congratulations upon the compromise that has been reached. It is one that seems to me to be honourable to both parties. At the same time, the Blue-book which was circulated to us last week, and of which I have made such study as I could in the interval, strikes me as rather un-pleasant reading. It leaves a rather disagreeable taste in the mouth. There seems to have been some lack of consideration exhibited by the Government of the Transvaal. In the first place, they rushed through their anti-Indian legislation with uncompromising and unnecessary and, as it seems to me, almost indecent speed. Secondly, there was a failure or apparent failure on the

  669
  part of General Botha to act up to the terms of the undertaking which he gave to the noble Earl a year ago, to endeavour to find some method of identification superior to that of finger impressions and less liable to the objections that were raised against that system by Indians.
  Further, as regards the finger-print system itself, as the noble Lord who has just spoken has pointed out, the analogy which was attempted to be drawn between it and the Indian practice was an unfair analogy, or at any rate it was unfairly used by the Boer Government, while the system and method of finger impressions that were proposed in the Transvaal were undoubtedly humiliating and wounding to the susceptibilities of our Indian fellow-subjects in that country. Then I think there was a failure on the part of the Transvaal Government to distinguish, at any rate up to the latest stage, between the Indians of good social status and refined education and the Indians of lower class and occupation—petty traders and artisans, whose competition really had to be feared. That is the charge—I do not state it in stronger terms—which we are justified in bringing against the authorities in the Transvaal.
  Next, as regards the Government, I confess I think that the noble Lord (Lord Elgin) did listen a little too readily to the pleas which were advanced to him by the Boer Government. I think he showed an excessive deference to their presentation of the case, that his protest in favour of our own fellow-subjects might have been couched in a rather more heroic vein; and that, considering the great experience that the noble Lord had in India himself, where he left such an excellent reputation as an administrator and friend of the Indian peoples, he might have foreseen lather more clearly in the early stage the dimensions which this problem would assume in India and the intense feeling which would arise there. The fact is, if I may put it in a sentence, that there was a strange lack of imagination on both sides in this controversy, both in the Transvaal and here; and without imagination
  670
  it is my experience that any Oriental policy is certain to break down.
  Well, we have now arrived at a settlement of the question; but I imagine that his Majesty's Government will be the last to argue that this temporary settlement is a final solution of the entire problem. I am sure that your Lordships realise that this question is in reality about the most momentous and the most far-reaching which could possibly confront any body of British statesmen, since it raises the entire question of the moral and political basis of our Empire and of the rights which the members of that Empire in different parts of it may justly claim.
  Let me from my residence and service in India state to your Lordships, if you will permit me, what I conceive to be the Indian point of view. It may be stated in a narrower and in a wider aspect. In the first place, as regards South Africa itself, the Indian coolie, or, at any rate, the educated man who is behind the Indian coolie and who has conducted this agitation, says that the coolie or the artisan is invited and even encouraged by our Government to emigrate from India. We send him to a colony which he enriches by his labour, and then society there appears to turn round upon him and treat him as if he were a pariah dog. He is penalised there, not for his vices, but for his virtues. It is because he is a sober, industrious, frugal, and saving man that he is such a formidable economic danger in the situation. Furthermore, the Indian remembers that, at any rate in a large number of cases, he has fought for the British Empire in South Africa, and that it was largely owing to his efforts that Natal was saved. I do not know if your Lordships have seen in this Blue-book a petition which emanates from a number of Indian soldiers who served the Empire, not only in India, but in South Africa, and who complain there in language of great pathos and almost of bitterness of the treatment which they were about to receive. That is an appeal which, I venture to say, no man in this House can read without compunction and even without a certain sense of remorse.

  671
  Now, let me, if I may, follow the Indian on to the wader field of argument. He claims the full rights of citizenship of the British Empire. I do not think it is for us to blame him for that. We have taught it him. We have inspired him with these ideas. They are the result of our speeches, our writings, our textbooks, which he studies in India, our principles of administration and of education. A feeling has been growing up in India in recent years, and it arises from the value which is attached by the educated Indian to the principles of freedom and equality which he has been taught to regard as the birthright of the British citizen. That is a very valuable, and, in my judgment, a very sacred, feeling. I do not think we ought to say anything or do anything to depreciate or to deride it in the smallest degree; because it is, after all, the only basis upon which you can expect the loyalty of an Asiatic population to an alien rule to be permanently developed or maintained. So much for the Indian point of view, in so far as I know it.
  But no one can possibly give an opinion upon this question who looks at it merely from one side or the other. The Indian point of view is so opposite and, if one may say so, so irreconcilable I to the Colonial point of view, that I should be the last to contend that this question should be regarded exclusively through Indian spectacles or decided in Indian interests. The Colonial point of view is entirely different. I, perhaps, have more sympathy with the Indian aspect myself, but, still, I endeavour to understand the Colonial point of view. I realise that it is a natural one, and that, in a way, it is quite unanswerable. Yon cannot expect the colonist to be an altruist in these matters. He is if you like so to describe him, selfish; but if he is selfish it is only in the pursuit of a principle which is the guiding law of all life, and even of all civilisation, and; that is the instinct of self-preservation. He desires to keep for the white man the Colonies which the white man has won and in which the white man can live.
  I do not believe, from a careful study of the evidence, that the English colonist in South Africa or elsewhere is in the
  672
  least degree inspired by a feeling of racial superiority or class antagonism. He says to himself: "That which has been won by British money and British blood let the British keep." He declines to acquiesce in any system which would mean a sensible and permanent lowering of the standard of life, and he feels, perhaps more than anything else, the danger, being already confronted with an enormous black problem, which hangs like a cloud on the horizon of his existence, of having superadded to that problem the danger and menace of a great brown problem as well. If this be a fair diagnosis of the case, it appears then that you have two forces, both of great potency and of great vitality, pulling in opposite directions within the framework of the same Empire. If that be so, we may well realise that it is one of the most difficult problems with which any Government can be confronted.
  In these circumstances what is the duty of the Government? I do not mean of this Government in particular, but of any Government. No rough and ready solution of this problem is possible. No laws can be laid down, no principles devised by His Majesty's Ministers or anyone else, which will finally solve this question. But what they can do is this. They can endeavour to reconcile these opposing factors and principles, and so to work that there shall be, as far as possible, no clash or collision between them. And the methods by which they can proceed in that direction are, I think, these. In the first place they can see, or their representatives in India, as far as India is concerned, can see, that fair terms are invariably secured for the labourer or the emigrant when he goes out, both for his labour and for his residence in the country to which he goes, and, should his return be desired, for his return when it is to come about. It is for the Government to see that a good bargain is made for its own subjects in all our Colonies, and perhaps still more, the bargain once made, to see that the terms are not hastily or rashly altered at a later date to the detriment of the man who has staked his all in his acceptance of the terms which he understood his Government to offer him.

  673
  Then I think that the Government ought to see that the restrictions imposed upon Asiatics are made as little vexatious as possible, as little injurious as may be to religious and social susceptibilities which we may, perhaps, not fully understand, but which, as the noble and gallant Field Marshal who spoke just now pointed out, are embedded almost as if they were sacred principles in the groundwork of the Indian nature. Further, they ought to see that nowhere shall occur the painful situation of Indian gentlemen or native gentlemen, from wherever they may come, of character, respectability, and education, being treated as if they were common coolies and labourers, and herded together, so to speak, in a pen with men of very much lower status and occupation than themselves. In fact, it ought to be the object of the Government to show to Colonial Governments that just treatment of our Colonial fellow-subjects is quite compatible with the best interests of the colony itself.
  There is another suggestion which has been made, namely, that the Government should try to discover and to open, perhaps in some other part of Africa or of the world, some other field of emigration to which our Indian fellow-subjects may proceed, free from the disabilities and restrictions to which I have alluded. I will not pursue that suggestion this evening, although, for my own part, it is one which I do not look upon with quite so much favour as some of the authorities who have taken it up. In any case I hope that the recent proceedings which have culminated in a victory on the whole for our Indian fellow-subjects, which I think they have deserved by their dignity and their patience, may read a lesson, not, perhaps, altogether unneeded, both to the Government of the colony and to the Government which sits upon that bench—a lesson to the Government of the colony that it cannot afford to treat without the utmost consideration the rights of these immigrants, its British fellow-subjects, in any part of the Empire; a lesson to His Majesty's Government that they owe a duty just as great to the dusky millions of India as they owe to the white people
  674
  of their own race in any colony of the British Crown.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord who has just sat down will doubt that I am as sensible as he is of our responsibilities to the dusky millions of India. Although I welcome and am grateful for the congratulations tendered by the noble Lords, I think the debate at this particular moment is not well timed or so considerate as the action taken in another place where an Amendment to the Address which would have raised this subject was withdrawn. But as this debate has taken place, may I say that I concur with what was said by the noble Lord who last spoke, and also by the noble Lord who initiated the discussion, that on the whole this settlement may be accepted as one which is satisfactory to both sides; and I rejoice exceedingly that in a matter where feeling has become so acute as in this case a settlement has been arrived at which can be so described.
  It is my duty to the Transvaal Government, which, if I may venture to say so to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Curzon), is not "the Boer Government," to acknowledge the readiness which they have shown to listen to any suggestions which we have sent from here to them, and to consider any proposals which have been laid before them. The noble Lord spoke of a conversation—for it was a conversation only—which I had with General Botha, and the undertaking General Botha then gave to consider how far it was possible to abandon proposals to take digit impressions. I believe, in fact I am sure, that that was a promise most carefully carried out—that full consideration was given to that question. If the noble Lord will turn to the second of the telegrams which have been published to complete the series, he will find that the Transvaal Ministers said that they never expected any objection to finger-prints seeing that 100,000 Indians had given ten finger-prints in Natal without raising any objection. I quote that, not to show that they were right in that deduction, but only to show that, as I am sure is the case, the Transvaal

  675
  Ministers did have every wish to deal with this matter in a reasonable and sympathetic spirit.
  The noble Lord who opened the discussion seems, however, to think that there had been too much delay in coming to a settlement. I do not know how anyone took any action to delay that settlement; but, if anybody did wilfully interfere to prevent a settlement, I should entirely agree with him in condemning that action. All that I can say for myself—and this goes back to the objections I have taken to the initiation of this debate to-night—is that we really cannot discuss this matter until we receive further information. It is a very difficult thing to say when persistence in an opinion firmly entertained becomes obstructive and unjustifiable; and in this case, where all we have at present of the concluding stages of the story is by telegraph, I do not think it is a profitable occupation for this House to weigh the different sides of this question; and I venture to hope that, when we are able to speak with full acquaintance with the evidence, we may find it to be quite unnecessary to discuss the respective responsibility of the various parties to the controversy. As I understand it, the noble Lord opposite admits the right of a colony to exclude even British subjects.
  LORD AMPTHILL: To restrict immigration.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: Very well, if he puts it in that way. I was not quite certain whether the noble Lord who spoke last did go so far as that.
  LORD CURZON: Oh, yes.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: I say at once that that is a very large question which, if it were to be discussed in detail, would require a great deal more consideration than we are able to give it this evening. But we have given self-government to these Colonies in various parts of the world, and self-government means a devolution of responsibility and especially the responsibility for law and order.
  I think the noble Lord who spoke last said that one influence with the Colonies was the view that what was won by the
  676
  whites should be kept for the whites. But if I may put it in this way, I should like to ask how small white communities can undertake to perform the duties that fall upon them in virtue of undertaking self-government if they are not allowed to have within their bounds an adequate number of white inhabitants. If that is conceded to me, I proceed to say that in the competition between the East and West the economic forces would inevitably turn the scale in favour of the East and thereby prevent free competition; and therefore it is that we find the British Indians excluded from our Colonies, not, as the noble Lord said, because of any bad qualities, but because of the possession by them of good qualities. It is their patient industry, their frugal and temperate habits, that make them such formidable competitors to the white man. The noble Lord said, in arguing as to the allowance one ought to make for our Indian fellow-subjects (and I only mention this in order to rectify what I am sure was a slip), that we ought to remember that Indians had fought in the South African war.
  LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am well aware that the expedition I myself sent out to South Africa was not an Indian expedition, but attached to it were a number of Indians who, in smaller capacities, comported themselves with infinite gallantry in the field.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: But not in the fighting line?
  LORD CURZON: Oh, no.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: I thought it better to make it quite clear what the noble Lord really meant. Surely it will be evident that if there was an influx of Asiatics, that would, on account of the economic forces to which I have alluded, tend to destroy the political equilibrium which is necessary for the development of the Colonies themselves.
  But to return to the dispute happily now closed, I would point out that it was not in any way connected with the restriction of immigration. This policy of the restriction of immigration has been in unbroken existence for something like

  677
  twenty years. It was approved originally by Lord Derby in 1885. It was strongly professed by Lord Milner; and Lord Selborne introduced into the Crown Colony Government the same Bill, or practically the same Bill, which was introduced afterwards by the new Government, and which has passed into law. If noble Lords ask for reasonings on this subject they may look up the despatch of 21st May, 1906, where they will find that Lord Selborne gave very full reasons for his advocacy of this policy; and if they wish to see the position I took up they may look up my reply of 25th November, in the same year. They will see the reasons why at that time I thought it desirable to postpone assent to that Bill. Shortly speaking, it was that there were certain alterations which I thought desirable in the measure, and they could not have been introduced before the initiation of the new form of government. In these circumstances I thought it better simply not to sanction the Bill and to let it then be introduced again, if it were so advised, in the new Parliament. It was introduced in the new Parliament and passed immediately, as the first measure in its existence, by an absolutely unanimous vote in both Houses.
  I really do not quite see how the noble Lord can blame me for non-interference in a matter of that kind. The noble Lord seemed to think I did not consult the India Office in this matter. I gave it the most careful consideration, and, after consultation with my colleagues, I came to the conclusion that it was my duty to advise His Majesty not to disallow the Bill. There are two points on which the noble Lord spoke with some feeling and on which I should like to say a word or two. In the first place, I wish to say that I do not think it has ever been the intention of the present Government of the Transvaal to attempt or to wish to degrade or to humilate, or impose fresh restrictions upon the British Indians within their boundaries. In the second place, I have to say that I believe it to be a fact that every one of the disqualifications which were the subject of specific exception by the British Government before the war have ceased to operate. I may tell the noble Lord, as he shakes his head, that I make that
  678
  statement on the authority of a letter which, curiously enough, I received only yesterday from the Governor and High Commissioner, who, writing of course while this dispute was in progress, was good enough to go through the whole matter and inform me upon these and other points. Perhaps I ought to add, in order that there may be no misunderstanding, that there are other disqualifications still in existence, disqualifications in regard to the tenure of land, the franchise, and mining. But these disqualifications, I am informed, were never taken exception to in the same manner as the others.
  It comes really to this, that what raised this contest was the method of registration, because in the first place it was compulsory and because in the second place it was by digit impressions. For myself, I do not think it is necessary or desirable to enter into these differences, which now, fortunately, have come to an end. I would only say, with reference to the remarks made by the noble and gallant Earl, the Field' Marshal, that I shall be only too glad to take note of, and to do anything I can to forward, the suggestions he made with regard to special classes of British Indians, especially with regard to ex-soldiers and the mention of the female relatives. Perhaps I may say one word about digit impressions. It so happens that Sir Edward Henry, who is now Chief of the Police in this Metropolis, was chief of the Bengal Police when I was in India, and was working this system, of which I saw something then, and I feel inclined to deprecate the association of criminality in any form or kind with this valuable manner of identification. My own feeling is that the impression of the thumb by itself would in this case have been sufficient, because all that was required was ordinary identification, and ordinary identification would have been secured, in my opinion, by thumb impression. But impressions of the fingers have really nothing criminal about them. They were introducted into the system simply for the purpose of classification; and though, of course, they apply more readily and more usefully to criminals, still I do not think they should be altogether set aside for that reason. On

  679
  the other hand, it has to be borne in mind that it is not the case that the thumb alone is used in India except in the case of criminals. I think the noble Lord mentioned that the left thumb and four fingers were used in the Indian Army. At any rate, we had information from the India Office to that effect, and if the noble Lord will do me the justice of looking at this Paper he will find that we did send that information to the Transvaal Government as soon as we obtained it.
  LORD AMPTHILL: When?
  THE EARL OP ELGIN: I admit it was late, but we sent it as soon as it reached us.
  LORD AMPTHILL: That is the point.
  THE EAEL OF ELGIN: But I cannot send on a thing until I get it. Really I do not know that I can usefully say more than this. This settlement has been accepted, I believe, as an honourable settlement by both sides, and therefore I think it gives hope for renewed and continued good feeling between them. If so, good indeed will have come out of evil; and I rejoice if, in place of being subjected to disabilities which, no doubt, were irksome, the Indian colony in the Transvaal—though, of course, it must be limited in numbers—will in future be maintained in a definite and honourable position.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my two noble friends who have already spoken have dealt so completely with this subject that I have very little to add to what has been said by them. May I, in passing, express the satisfaction, which, I feel sure, is not confined to this side of the House, with which we have listened to the noble Lord now sitting behind me (Lord Curzon), who addressed us for the first time? The noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies suggested in his speech that there was something inopportune in the action of my noble friend behind me in bringing forward this subject to-night. What is the position? Let me say that if His Majesty's Government had told my noble friend that it was detrimental to public
  680
  interests that there should be a discussion on this question, my noble friend, I have little doubt, would have yielded to pressure. But is there really any reason for which attention should not be called to this matter? We learn from the Secretary of State that this satisfactory settlement has not only been arrived at, but has been accepted by all concerned, and the Papers are laid upon the Table for our consideration. It seems to me that, in those circumstances, it would be a little hard that we should be denied the right of commenting upon them if we desire to do so. And may I further ask whether, in the comments of either of my two noble friends, there was anything at all unreasonable, or of what might be described as an incendiary character? I must say I thought not. I thought both my noble friends were careful to show that they were fully alive to the fact that there are two sides to this question—an Indian side and a Colonial side. I am quite sure that the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary and the noble Marquess who sits by him, Lord Ripon, both of whom have had experience of Colonial and Indian administration, must realise as fully as we do that both sides of the case deserve to be taken into careful consideration.
  There are several admissions which, I think, we are all ready to make in the consideration of this question of the treatment of British Indians in the Transvaal. In the first place, I admit unreservedly the right of a self-governing Colony to decide whether its territory shall in future be the home of a British or of an Asiatic race. There is no difference of opinion as to that. If you concede that, you must also concede to the colony effectual means of excluding the entrance of persons belonging to Asiatic races; and, if there is to be effectual exclusion, there must be some effective means of registering those Asiatics who are already in the country. These three propositions seem to me quite incontrovertible.
  I go further. I think that in the case of the Transvaal particular weight is due to these considerations for this reason, that the colonists of the Transvaal have a native question of their

  681
  own, and a very serious one, already on their hands, and it is entirely reasonable of them to ask that they should not have a second native question further complicating the situation. And not only that, but, considering the geographical position of the Transvaal, we must all of us realise that owing to its proximity to Natal, where a large Asiatic population is already established, it is very necessary that there should be effectual means of preventing a gradual influx of Asiatics across the frontier. Yet while yielding these propositions, we may feel, as I certainly do feel, that we have a right to demand that these Asiatic British subjects who have already acquired a status in the colony should be treated with the utmost fairness and consideration. The question we really have to ask is whether they have been treated with that fairness and consideration. I am bound to say that my study of the Blue-book leads me to a different conclusion. I was very much interested in the statement of the Secretary of State to the effect that the whole of the disabilities of which the British Indians complained had ceased to operate.
  THE EARL OP ELGIN: I said, "of which the British Government had complained before the war."
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am much obliged for the correction. What are the grievances? We have heard of the finger-prints. I am not going to lose myself in the details of that intricate question. But it is evident from the papers that the system of fingerprint identification resorted to by the Transvaal Government was one which was repugnant to those concerned. If it were not so, why was it that they were ready to go to prison rather than to submit to it? The Secretary of State admitted that in his opinion the thumb mark alone would have been a sufficient means of identification. If so, it is a pity that that view was not pressed very strongly on the Transvaal Government. But there is also the question of requiring those persons who had already been registered, and who had received assurances—I think from Lord Milner himself—that their registration was sufficient,
  682
  to undergo a second registration. Then there is another grievance which seems to me to be a very genuine one indeed. I understand that those British Indians are not allowed to own property, even within the limits of what are known as the Indian locations.
  THE EARL OP ELGIN: I believe they cannot own land.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That, to my mind, is a tremendous disability to put upon British subjects.
  THE EARL OP ELGIN: I mentioned that, but made the reservation that that requirement was one which was not taken exception to by the British Government.
  THE MARQUESS OP LANSDOWNE: I do not know how that was, but I do remember that one of the main grounds of complaint against President Kruger's Government was that those British Indians were herded together and compelled to live in a very insanitary and out-of-the-way part of the towns where they resided, and that they were denied proper opportunities of doing their business. It seems to me that closely connected with that is the question whether they should be absolutely denied the right of owning a single acre of ground in a British colony of which they are citizens.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: There was a disability to trade outside the locations which was a great grievance; that is removed. But the disability in regard to the holding of land was not mentioned by the British Government at the time and has not been removed.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not know whether it has been raised, but it seems to me a genuine grievance, and as long as it is not removed, these people have a natural cause for complaint. Then there is the question of passes. Is it not the case that these Indians, no matter what their position is, are compelled even at the bidding of a native policeman to show their passes? That seems to me to be a slight upon an Indian of good position. There still remains the power of arbitrary expulsion under which an Indian even of good

  683
  position may receive short shrift if the local authorities desire to drive him out of the country. I do not in the least complain of the Colonial Government for taking stringent measures to relieve themselves of the presence of undesirable Asiatics, but what I do venture to suggest to the House is that in dealing with these people it is necessary above all to discriminate between one class and another. There is no country in the world where class distinctions count for so much as they do in India; and, when you render a respectable merchant, domiciled in the country as a man of business, liable to treatment in no way differing from that which can be accorded to a common coolie, you do create a grievance which is felt not only amongst the British Indians in South Africa, but amongst his Majesty's Indian subjects in all parts of the Empire. All these things have really been admitted by His Majesty's Government themselves. We find in the Blue-book a very vigorous protest from the Secretary of State for India against the proposed treatment of the British Indians; we find similar protests from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the noble Earl himself. What we desire to draw attention to, and what we regret, is that this illustrious triumvirate should not have had a little more courage, and, having raised their objection, should not have stood to it a little more manfully. What exactly happened was that they raised their objection, and then allowed themselves to be put off by assurances, not of very great importance, in regard to the treatment of distinguished Asiatic visitors when they arrived in South Africa, and by a rather vague promise of future legislation.
  I cannot help thinking that His Majesty's Government might have taken advantage of the series of opportunities which were offered to them for bargaining and making better terms for these people. It seems to me that they knew what it was desirable to do, but that they missed the opportunity of doing it. Now we have a satisfactory compromise, and let us hope that it will afford a solution of the difficulty. But what has happened in the meantime has been of the gravest importance. There has been great
  684
  excitement in India at a time when it was not at all desirable that there should be public excitement. There have been meetings attended by native gentlemen and chiefs of the highest position, and the whole country has been stirred by these events. In our view these are events which need never have occurred if earlier in the day His Majesty's Government had had the courage of their opinions, and pressed rather more strongly the very sound views which we know they all held.
  One word more. The noble Earl took exception to Lord Curzon's observation that there were British Indians in the Transvaal who had been under fire with our troops. I think his statement was absolutely correct. I find in the document numbered 53 in the Blue-book the petition of more than 100 Indian ex-soldiers, who recite that they are British subjects and were most of them brought to the colony in connection with the Transvaal Corps raised at the time of the late war—
  "When your petitioners came to South Africa they were told by their officers that it would be possible for them at the end of the war to settle in any part of South Africa and to receive honourable employment."
  Those men would naturally feel a sense of very rankling injustice when they were treated in the manner I have described. I do not think this discussion can have done any harm, and I earnestly hope it may be of some use in calling attention to what is, after all, a very momentous question, the necessity of doing what we can to secure for the King's subjects, no matter of what race or colour, just and considerate treatment in whatever part of the British Empire they may happen to find themselves.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, this is a subject on which I feel very strongly, for, having been connected for four years with the administration of India, I acquired a deep interest in all that concerns the people of that country and the most earnest desire to advance whatever would be to their good; and certainly I do not think it would be easy to find a question more painful in certain respects than this question is to me at this time. But I cannot forget

  685
  that I am not only an ex-Viceroy. Being a member of the Government I am bound to consider the question in all its aspects, not only as it relates to the natives of India, but also in relation to the general principles of colonial government. And when I look at the question from that point of view I am encountered by this difficulty. Not only do I believe that, as a general principle, our self-governing Colonies ought to be left to manage their own internal affairs, but I think also that it is impossible to take any other course. I do not, I am sorry to say, think that it is in the power of any Secretary of State or any British Government effectually to control the management of the internal affairs of Colonies of this description.
  A discussion arose, I believe, in 1899 which afforded me a peg on which to hang some remarks on that question; and I then ventured to point out that the Government at home could not and ought not to be held responsible for the management of native questions within the borders of self-governing Colonies, because they had no means of enforcing their views, and that to attempt to do so beyond the expression of opinion and the proffering of advice was both a useless and an unwise proceeding. When you enter into negotiations with a person over whom you have no means of ultimate control, it is impossible to enforce your views beyond a certain point. My noble friend has made it perfectly clear that an arrangement has now been accepted by both sides. My only fear is, knowing how little our proceedings in Parliament are really understood in India, or very often in the self-governing Colonies, that this discussion may tend, though I hope it will not, to shake the arrangement which has been arrived at, and possibly to make those who have accepted it on both sides discontented with the conclusion to which they had agreed.
  I listened with the deepest interest to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Curzon, and I heartily join with the noble Marquess, if Lord Curzon will allow me to do so, in expressing my great satisfaction that he should have had this opportunity of giving us his views. I do not differ much if at all, from the
  686
  points on which, towards the end of his speech, he said he would like to insist. I do not think they were unreasonable, but I do say that you must remember the conditions under which you are acting, and that when you desire to approach, not the Transvaal Government only, but any self-governing colony, you must do so with the feeling that you cannot force your opinions upon them, and that you only weaken your authority if you attempt to go beyond a certain point. My noble friend who has just sat down referred to the meetings which have taken place, and to the discussions in the public Press, and said there had been much dissatisfaction caused in India. It is earnestly to be hoped that nothing will now tend to weaken the arrangement which has been arrived at, or to render its ultimate success less probable. It is very natural that there should be an objection on the part of the white population of any colony when there has been a great influx of persons of a totally different race and habits into their colony. I can remember when I was Secretary of State for the Colonies that Natal raised a difficulty in consequence of the great influx of Asiatics into that colony, and there was then actually a probability of their getting a majority for electoral purposes. That was a thing you could not expect that any British colony would be willing to agree to. I do not think the noble Marquess quite succeeded in defending the exact words that were used by Lord Curzon about the natives who had taken part in the war in South Africa. My noble friend will remember that from beginning to the end of the Transvaal war it was a principle that natives and persons of another race should not be allowed to take part, and Asiatics and natives were not allowed to take any part in the active operations of the war.
  LORD CURZON: I was responsible for sending from India from 10,000 to 20,000 men. They acted as transport corps, ambulance carriers, and in other capacities, and they were under fire on most battlefields of the campaign.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: They were not active soldiers.
  LORD CURZON: Many of them were killed.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I trust very earnestly, now that this discussion is over and a settlement reached at which we can rejoice, that no misunderstanding will arise. I do not blame Lord Ampthill nor Lord Curzon for the part they have taken in the matter, nor for defending the natives of India against the unfair treatment to which at one time it was intended to subject them; but I hope nothing will now be said to weaken the settlement, and that the question may be considered as closed,
  LORD AMPTHILL: I have no intention of detaining your Lordships by making anything in the nature of a reply, but there is one thing I must say. My Motion was for Papers, and the noble Earl has not given me an Answer on that point. Possibly he has no further Papers to lay, but if that is so there is, at any rate, one document which I presume he will give—namely, the letter from the Governor of the Transvaal to which he referred in his speech. That letter makes an interesting distinction between disabilities and disqualifications—a distinction which I did not understand myself, but which is of vital importance to the comprehension of the present situation. There were other Questions which I put to the noble Earl and which I will not presume to repeat, but I wish to say that he has not answered any of them. I therefore consider it open to me to raise them again on some future occasion. It is possible that they were rendered inaudible by the conversation which was going on on the Government Benches, a circumstance which was in strange contrast to that of last night, when we on this side listened to a personal explanation by a noble Lord on that side of the House in absolute silence. Yet when I was endeavouring to-night to explain to the best of my poor ability a question of Imperial importance there was a noise on the Government side of the House which made it difficult for me to make myself audible. I trust that the noble Earl can tell us whether there are any Papers which he can lay
  688
  on the Table, and, in any case, whether we shall see the important letter to which he referred in his speech.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: I did not quote any letter. I said I had received a letter, and I gave a fact in my own language out of the letter. I certainly am not going to publish the letter. It is a private one from the Governor. As to Papers, so far as I know I have published all the Papers up to date; but if there are any more I will have them published.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.