reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills, That the parties opposing the Gas Light and Coke, Commercial Gas, and South Metropolitan Gas Companies Bill had stated that the evidence of Professor Vivian Lewes was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the inter- vention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Professor Vivian Lewes, of 18, Lower Whitecross Street, London, do attend the said Committee To-day, at Three of the clock.

reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday, the 2nd May, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state the grounds on which it has been decided to remove General Cronje and a number of Boer prisoners to St. Helena; what is the legal sanction for keeping these men in custody in St. Helena: and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any correspondence which has passed between Mr. Schreiner and the High Commissioner, or with Her Majesty's Government, on this subject.

The grounds for the removal of the prisoners were based on the question of safe custody. I am not aware that any special legal sanction is required in removing them to St. Helena. No correspondence between Mr. Schreiner and the High Commissioner has as yet reached this country.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state the number of cases of illness amongst the Boer prisoners in Simons Town, and the number of deaths; whether any inspection of the prisoners and their quarters has been made by independent medical men; and, if so, whether he will lay their reports upon the Table of the House; and why the Boer prisoners have been kept on board ship instead of being kept under conditions similar to those enjoyed by the British prisoners in the Transvaal.

The information asked for in the first paragraph was given in full detail by my hon. friend the Under Secretary yesterday.^* We have no information about the second paragraph, but I may state to the House—what I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of already—that no distinction is drawn between Boer and Briton in the matter of medical treatment.

Is there an abundance of pure spring water at Simons Town?

I have no reason to doubt that there is.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can give the number

^* See page 1254 of this volume.

The total of Transvaal and Orange Free State prisoners on the 23rd March was 5,000. The total of British prisoners cannot be accurately ascertained, but the total of missing and prisoners up to the 31st March was 3,466. It is not considered that the time has come for raising the question of an exchange of prisoners.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any instructions have been, or are to be, sent to the military authorities at Simons Town as to any change of treatment of the Boer prisoners which may become necessary owing to the outbreak of fever among the prisoners; and whether a portion or the whole of them can be transferred to quarters on the mainland; and what arrangements are being made at St. Helena for adequate medical treatment in case of further serious extension of fever among the prisoners to be transferred to St. Helena.

The Boer prisoners who are suffering from enteric fever have been transferred from the ships to quarters on shore. Every arrangement has been made for adequate medical treatment at St. Helena.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what, if any, is the official relationship between the Durban Naval Volunteers and the Royal Navy; and whether this force has any recognised status under the Admiralty; and, if so, why the names of the officers of this force do not appear in the Navy List. I beg also to ask the First Lord whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that while General Buller's despatch, dated 17th December last, relating to the action fought the previous day, makes special mention of the admirable manner in which the naval guns were served by the Naval Brigade and Durban Naval Volunteers, under Captain E. P. Jones, Royal Navy, this officer in his despatch to the Admiral reporting in detail and at length proceedings on that occasion omits any mention of the Durban Naval Volunteers; and what is the explanation of this omission.

The Volunteers in question, though called naval, are, it appears, trained as garrison artillery, and are practically for military rather than naval defence. They do not form part of the naval defences, and thus do not appear in the Navy List. I was glad to notice the paragraph in General Buller's despatch in which he refers to the good services rendered by these Volunteers, who were serving under the orders of the General Commanding in the Field. I cannot undertake to say why Captain Jones omitted any mention of these Volunteers in the Report alluded to. In a later Report he has referred to them as having been attached to 4·7-in. guns, and to the officers as being efficient.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the terms of the Proclamation which Lord Roberts is understood to have issued under the instructions of Her Majesty's Government against wanton destruction of property in the South African Republic and the Orange Free State.

The following are the terms of the Proclamation issued by Lord Roberts on 26th March:—"Whereas it is necessary that all State and private property in the South African Republic and Orange Free State shall be protected from wanton destruction and damage. Now therefore I hereby give notice that all persons who within the territories of the South African Republic or Orange Free State shall authorise or be guilty of the wanton destruction or damage, or the counselling, aiding, or assisting in the wanton destruction or damage of public or private property, such destruction or damage not being justified by the usages and customs of civilised warfare, will be held responsible in their persons and property for all such wanton destruction and damage."

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with regard to soldiers dying in South Africa in the course of the present campaign, who, if they had survived, would have been entitled to a medal, whether it is the custom of the War Office to forward such medals to the soldiers' next of kin; and whether this course of procedure will be adopted in the case of Volunteers and Colonial troops, and whether this custom is optional or is laid down in any of the Regulations for the Army.

Yes, Sir. The reply to both questions is in the affirmative. There are, however, considerable difficulties in tracing the relatives of colonial soldiers. The custom has always been followed, but has not hitherto been embodied in any Regulation. The new Queen's Regulations will contain directions on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the questions in the examination of officers of the Army Veterinary Department for promotion to the rank of veterinary lieutenant-colonel are both framed and also looked over by the Director General; and whether this is the only branch of the service in which an independent board is not assembled for the purpose of examination.

No, Sir. The examinations are carried out by a board of veterinary officers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Director General, Army Veterinary Department, forwards his recommendations for promotion to the War Office on the result of the examination; and whether he is aware that, at the last examination, no questions were asked on subjects connected with administrative duties, although it is laid down in the veterinary regulations that the questions should be chiefly based on administrative duties.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. As regards the last examination, my hon. and gallant friend has been misinformed; some of the questions dealt with important administrative subjects.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to recent statements as to the loss of horses in South Africa owing to the insufficient number of Army veterinary surgeons employed, and that these officers are everywhere overworked and not able to attend to more than a small proportion of the cases of sickness; and whether any retired officers of the Department, who are still available for service through not having reached the age limit, have been employed either at home or in South Africa; if so, could he state the numbers employed at home and abroad, and also how many civilian veterinary surgeons are employed.

We have no information confirming the statement referred to in the first paragraph. In regard to the second paragraph, twelve retired veterinary officers are being employed. There are forty-six officers of the Army Veterinary Department in South Africa, five abroad assisting in the purchasing of animals, and thirteen at home. There are eighty-nine civilian veterinary surgeons in South Africa and nine abroad assisting in the purchase of animals. Twenty-one Yeomanry and Volunteer veterinary officers are also in South Africa.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the losses which have recently taken place in the animals of the transport service in South Africa, the War Office are providing any of the modern forms of steam or mechanical haulage engines, so as to test whether they can supplement or supersede animal haulage for military transport service.

The importance of mechanical haulage has not been lost sight of, and there are more than twenty traction engines now successfully employed on transport purposes in South Africa. Lord Roberts will consider to what extent additional means of traction of this character can be usefully adopted, regard being had to the nature of the country.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to state the result of his inquiries as to the camp followers in the late Indian frontier campaign having been deprived at the close of the campaign of the warm clothing issued to them; and whether, inasmuch as this clothing was sold for small sums, these men, many of whom are now serving in South Africa, will be allowed in future to retain it.

The Government of India have reported that, under the rules in force during the frontier campaign of 1897–8, followers who served until the end of the campaign were allowed to retain their field service clothing, except leather belts, haversacks, water-bottles, and waterproof sheets. But for the future the Government of India have decided that they shall be allowed to retain their clothing, with the exception of leather belts and waterproof sheets only.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty will he explain why the Royal Marine Artillery serving in Naval Brigades in South Africa are employed as infantry escorts to naval guns, for the service of which they have been specially trained.

The responsibility for the distribution and allocation of the duties to be performed by the several sections of the forces in South Africa must rest with the officers, whether naval or military, who have to conduct the operations, and the Admiralty are not prepared to interfere with the arrangements made on the spot to meet the conditions of the moment.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing the importance of training troops for home defence upon enclosed and difficult country, the Government purpose taking immediate steps to obtain suitable ground for the training of small bodies of troops during the proposed manœuvres for the present year.

This question is now receiving careful consideration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, having reference to Army Order 29, of 1900, paragraphs 14 and 15, men of Volunteer "waiting companies," who have been passed to the Reserve, are supernumerary to the establishment of their Volunteer battalions during the period prior to calling up for service and departure from England, or whether during such period they are to be included in such establishment; whether, with reference to paragraph 12a of the said Army Order, arms are to be issued to men of waiting companies when in waiting or only when called up for service; whether it is intended that Volunteer commanding officers should clothe and equip the men of waiting companies when called up for service; and whether it is intended that men of waiting companies should drill with the battalions until called up for service.

The waiting companies are not supernumerary to the establishment until actually called up. Like other Reservists, they will not have arms issued to them until called up; arms are lent to Reservists to do their drill or training. When called up they will be equipped in the same way as the service companies. As regards drill, they may be considered as Volunteers for all purposes and may drill with their battalions, but they incur the ordinary liabilities of a Reservist.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether arrangements can be made whereby the special grant of two guineas will be allowed to any Volunteer battalion, one-half of the total strength of which are present in the camp at Aldershot or on Salisbury Plain for fourteen days by separate composite companies of over eighty rank and file each, attached for training with Regular troops; and whether, if this cannot be done, any special grant will be allowed per man; and whether, in any event, the actual cost of travelling to and from the camp of training will be allowed.

In view of the necessity of giving the Volunteers a training in battalions, and not in detached companies, the rules laid down in the Army Order must be adhered to. If there is anything in the circumstances of any particular corps to justify special treatment, application should be made by the commanding officer, through the general officer commanding the district, to the adjutant general.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the concessions granted to civil servants volunteering for the front in the way of granting them the difference between their pay and the cost of providing a substitute and handing it over to their dependent relatives at home, will also be extended to unmarried Army Reserve men called from the Postal service to rejoin their old regiments for active service.

The concession applies to the unmarried Army Reservists as well as to the Militia and Volunteers.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether those civil servants who, being Volunteers, respond to the invitation of the War Office and spend three or four weeks in camp will be obliged to count the whole period as part of their ordinary annual leave; or whether under the special circumstances they may be allowed not to deduct from their leave more than the usual period of seven to ten days during which Volunteer regiments are normally encamped.

Subject to the discretion of the heads of Departments, special leave will be given for the whole period that a Volunteer may spend in camp. Those spending a full month in camp will receive civil pay for half the time, and military pay for the remaining half. Those who spend less than a month will receive military pay only. Volunteers who prefer to take the whole or part of their ordinary leave in camp will receive full civil and military pay for the period corresponding to such ordinary leave, and for the remainder of the time spent in camp will receive half civil and half military pay if they spend a full month in camp, but military pay only if the period is less than a month.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that excellent rifle ranges exist at Leominster and Ross, in the county of Hereford; and whether any regiments of Regulars or Militia are to be sent to either of the above-mentioned places for training during the coming spring and summer.

The Secretary of State is aware that there are excellent ranges there, but no regiments will be sent there this year, as the intention is to assemble the troops in large camps.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the remains of the late Field Marshal Sir Donald Stewart were transported in one of Her Majesty's ships from Algiers, where he died, to Gibraltar, for the purpose of being brought to England; and whether the coffin was disembarked at Gibraltar; and, if so, where was it deposited; and whether arrangements have been made for one of Her Majesty's ships to bring the body of the deceased Field Marshal to England.

Yes; the remains of the late Field Marshal Sir Donald Stewart were carried by Her Majesty's ship "Juno" from Algiers to Gibraltar for the purpose of their conveyance to England by mail steamer. No information has reached the Admiralty with regard to the arrangements carried out by the military authorities in the reception and custody of the coffin. It was not considered advantageous for the public service to specially detach one of the ships of the Squadron to convey the body of the late Field Marshal to England, a question of a public funeral having, so far as I am aware, not been mooted.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps, if any, are being taken with reference to submarine torpedo boats, seeing that other maritime countries are devoting increased attention to this question, and that America, after long experiment, is said to have an efficient boat of this type in the "Holland."

Close attention has been given by the Admiralty to the subject of submarine boats. The submarine boat, even if the practical difficulties attending its use can be overcome, would seem, so far as the immediate future is concerned, to be essentially a weapon for maritime Powers on the defensive, and it is natural that those nations which anticipate holding that position should endeavour to develop it. The question of the best way of meeting its attack is receiving much consideration, and it is in this direction that practical suggestions would be valuable. It seems certain that the reply to this weapon must be looked for in other directions than in building submarine boats ourselves, for it is clear that one submarine boat cannot fight another.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty is there any lecturer on naval history at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich; and, if so, what salary or fee does he receive: and how many lectures on naval history have been given at the College in each of the last ten years, and does he propose to make any alteration in the arrangements for these lectures.

Professor Laughton has been engaged to deliver eight lectures on naval history in the course of the present session, for which he will receive fees at the rate of £5 a lecture. No such lectures were given between 1889 and 1899.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is in contemplation to extend the concessions recently granted to Engineer officers to the Accountant branch of the Royal Navy.

I am unable at present to answer the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies by whom and under what restrictions and conditions bank notes are issued in British Guiana, and whether those conditions have been complied with in all cases; and, if not, whether he will take steps to have them immediately enforced.

Bank notes are at present issued in British Guiana by the Colonial Bank (under Imperial Charter and Imperial Acts of Parliamant) and by the British Guiana Bank under certain local ordinances. The Colonial Bank may issue notes in British Guiana and the West Indies up to £500,000, or, if the Bill now before Parliament receives Her Majesty's assent, up to £600,000, and is required within six months from date of Act to deposit as security a sum in coin or securities equal to 25 per cent. of its note issue and to pledge its uncalled capital as further security. The British Guiana Bank under existing ordinances may issue notes to three times the value of its paid-up capital, without further restrictions. I have no reason to believe that these conditions have been infringed. A new ordinance for the British Guiana Bank is now under consideration.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer will he explain on what grounds the offer to lay an all-British cable from England to Cape Town by Gibraltar and Sierra Leone for a subsidy of £20,000 a year, to connect with the Cape Town-Australia cable, to be laid without subsidy, has been refused by the Government, with the result of the cable now being taken by a route passing through two Portuguese stations; whether the company which made the offer was requested by the Government to lay, maintain, and work a strategic spur cable between Ascension and Sierra Leone at an estimated cost of £150,000, in consideration only of the Treasury finding it unnecessary to oppose the grant of landing rights in Cornwall at a spot where other cables of the same company are already landed with Board of Trade permission; and what precedent there is for refusing landing rights in the United Kingdom to British cable companies.

I cannot give a full answer to the first paragraph (which does not, I think, state the position quite accurately) without going into the history of negotiations, extending over several years and involving other questions besides this, between the Governments of the United Kingdom, the Cape, and Australia and the cable company. But I may say that one reason for refusing the subsidy of £20,000 a year was that another company had applied for landing rights for a cable to be laid by the all-British route without a subsidy. I think there is now ground for supposing that an all-British communication with the Cape will be obtained in another way. The statement in the second paragraph is correct. So far as I know, no steps have hitherto been taken by Government in this country to obtain any return from telegraph companies seeking landing rights; but the Cape Government have recently obtained substantial concessions as the price of landing rights for this new cable, and it seemed to me that the grant of new landing rights in this country was a valuable concession, for which it was my duty, in the public interest, to try and obtain in this and other instances some return in such a form as the circumstances might indicate to be most desirable.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the total revenue of the year ending the 31st March, returned at £119,839,905, includes all the receipts of the last week of the year, or whether several items have been taken at the same amount as shown for the weeks up to and ending the 24th March; and whether the total revenue included for the week ending 31st March was only £1,626,000 against £4,124,000 in the week ending 24th March; and, if so, how he accounts for this difference.

The total of £119,839,905 includes all the receipts of the last week of the financial year just closed. Two consecutive weeks are not in the least comparable with one another. The receipts of the week ended 24th March included a payment into the Exchequer by the Post Office of 1¼ million, while in the following week there was no payment on that account. The receipts for the week ended 31st March, 1900, are more than the receipts of the corresponding week of the previous year, which were £1,217,000.

Was there any payment whatever made through the Post Office or Telegraph service in the last week? Is it not true the last week is generally the largest week for payments?

No, Sir; it is not true.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the chief officer of the steamship "Daniel" (which stranded at Mosquito Grove, Nova Scotia, on 1st November last), whose certificate was suspended by the Court of Inquiry for three months from 7th December, which three months expired on 7th March last, has been and still is unable to obtain the restoration of this certificate; whether the officer in question was entitled to have this certificate restored to him on 7th March; whether he has considered the hardship inflicted on this officer by the delay in returning his certificate, the effect of which is that, in addition to the enforced three months idleness caused by the sentence of the Court, he has been since 7th March and still is deprived through the want of his certificate from obtaining employment; whether the failure of the Board of Trade to return the certificate on the 7th March has arisen through delay arising in Canada, or through other causes beyond the control of the Board of Trade; if so, whether he will at once issue to this officer either a duplicate certificate or a provisional certificate such as will enable him to resume his calling; and whether he will consider what provision can be made for dealing with cases of a similar nature that may arise in future.

The facts of the case are as stated in the question, except that the certificate was suspended for three months from the commencement of the inquiry—namely, 27th November last. Although application was made to, and a promise given by, the Canadian authorities that the certificate should be sent to this country, it has not yet been received. In the meantime, in order to avoid any possible inconvenience, the Board of Trade issued instructions that the officer in question might be allowed to sign articles without producing his certificate. There is some objection to issuing duplicate or provisional certificates except in cases of great urgency; but, in all the circumstances of this case, I have given instructions for one to be at once issued to Mr. Milne, and I will consider whether any steps can be taken to avoid in future the delay that has arisen in Canada in this instance.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Royal Commission on Salmon Fishery is finally appointed; and, if not, whether he would consider the advisability of appointing on that Commission a water engineer.

The Commission has been appointed and has already met.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a working man named Aries, who had taken into his house a dog which had been run over in the street and had its leg broken, and who after curing the dog in five weeks found a home for it, but was fined 10s. and 2s. costs for not having a licence by the magistrate, who remarked that Aries should have turned the dog out; and whether he can see his way to recommend a modification of this sentence.

The Secretary of State is informed by the magistrate that the defendant stated that he had taken the dog in with a broken leg and had refused to take out a licence because he thought it hard on him to be required to do so, and that on being pressed to take out a licence he got rid of the dog, which gave rise to the remark of the magistrate that he should have got rid of it before. The humane intention of the defendant is not disputed, but the penalty was the smallest that could reasonably be imposed, and it does not seem to be a case for advising the remission of the penalty.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why, in the recent appointment of six inspectors of telegraph messengers at Liverpool, no fewer than fifty men, well qualified and of good character, in the postmen's department, were passed over.

It is in contemplation to create six appointments to the class of inspectors of telegraph messengers at Liverpool. The duties are being performed temporarily by six postmen who have been selected as best qualified for them. As the appointments do not yet exist, the question of filling them by promotion has not arisen.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, having regard to the great and increasing expense entailed upon Members of the House of Commons in replying through the post to communications on political affairs, he can see his way to letters in envelopes embossed with the badge of the House of Commons, addressed and signed in the left lower corner in the handwriting of a Member, and handed in by him at the post office in the Lobby, whilst the House is sitting, being stamped "Official Paid," as in public offices, and thus passing post free throughout the United Kingdom.

My hon. and gallant friend's suggestion goes a good deal beyond the practice of the public offices which he quotes. Letters sent out from the public Departments only pass free when they refer to the public business of the Department. The privilege of franking which Members of both Houses had previously enjoyed was expressly abolished by Act of Parliament in 1840. There is nothing in my hon. friend's suggestion which would obviate the undoubted abuses to which such a system is necessarily liable.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to a memorial, dated 16th February, 1900, and signed by Messrs. Lickford, Ray, Nevill, and Smith, officially docketed Mem. 1/6/288, in which it was intimated to these officers that the Postmaster General declined to receive them on the grounds that they did not appear to be directly interested in the matter on which they desired to be recived as a deputation; whether the Postmaster General was aware that these officers are now in the service, and were representatives of the Sorters' Trade Union (the Fawcett Association), duly elected for the purpose of the interview in question; and whether such refusal is not at variance with the assurance given by the Postmaster General in the official document known as Registered No. 234,768/99, which states that in future he would receive delegates of Postal Trade Unions, provided they were in the service of the Post Office.

The course adopted was strictly in accordance with the recent assurance given by the Postmaster General. Deputations must consist only of those who are themselves affected by the question at issue.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education when the Report of the Departmental Committee regarding the work of the Board of Education will be presented to Parliament.

I am sorry I cannot answer the question to-day, as my noble friend the President of the Council is in attendance on the Queen.

May I take it that the Report will be presented?

I cannot say without consulting my noble friend.

Has the final Report yet been finished?

Yes, it has.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, has the tender of a suitable site for the erection of the proposed new post office in Monaghan been received by the Department; and, if so, will it be accepted; and when may the erection of the new building be expected to commence.

Several offers of sites have been received and are under consideration; but it cannot yet be said whether any of them are suitable.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why a telegraphist in the Belfast office named Manturin has been stopped at the efficiency barrier, and why, seeing that on his appeal to the secretary it was decided that he should have opportunities for attaining proficiency in several duties which had previously been denied him, the local authorities have since made a practice of placing him upon the hardest instrument duties in the Belfast office; and whether the Postmaster General will investigate the circumstances of this case.

The reason why Mr. Manturin could not pass the efficiency bar was that he was unable to perform the highest duties of his class—a condition specially prescribed by the Tweed-mouth Committee. No further report has been received concerning him, and the question of his ability to pass the bar would not—under the regulations—be again considered until twelve months from the previous report—namely, in August next.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether it is in the discretion of the Treasury to compensate policemen who may be injured when on duty; and, if so, why are Irish ratepayers saddled with a burden in this respect which is not cast upon English ratepayers.

Every policeman injured in the discharge of his duty is entitled, irrespective of the length of his service, to a pension, the amount of which is determined by the Treasury according to the character and degree of the injury, in conformity with the scale prescribed by the Act 46 and 47 Vict., cap. 14. As regards the second part of the question, the reason why Irish ratepayers are liable to pay compensation in such cases is that an Act of Parliament, sixty-four years old, expressly re-enacted in the year 1898, and extended at the suggestion of several Nationalist Members to Belfast and Dublin, makes them so liable.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, as representing the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that much excitement has been caused in the parish of Errigal Truagh by the alleged renting by the Protestant rector of that parish, as a site for a national school, of a portion of an evicted farm; and whether application has been made to the Commissioners of National Education, or any of them, for the customary grant and sanction for the erection and maintenance of this proposed school, and are the Commissioners aware that the site chosen is on an evicted farm; and, if so, what reply have they given to the application.

The police report that Lord Rathdonnell has given to the Protestant rector of this parish a free site on an evicted farm for the erection of a Protestant national school. This has caused some irritation not amongst the Protestants, but apparently amongst those who have either entered into an illegal or possibly criminal conspiracy to boycott this evicted farm, or who approve of the action of such a conspiracy, and is, it would seem, due to the apprehension that the rector and Commissioners will act in such a way as to defeat to some extent the object of the conspiracy. The Commissioners report that the usual application has been made, but they have no information as to whether the farm is boycotted or not. They have not yet replied, but it is to be presumed that they will take such action as becomes public officials of the State in such circumstances.

What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to satisfy himself that this is a criminal conspiracy?

I take it from the police report that it is a conspiracy to prevent by intimidation the exercise of a legal right.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, as representing the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware that the medical officer of health under the poor law guardians of Belfast Union is an alderman of the Belfast County Borough, and in the latter capacity is also a member of the board having control over the asylum management; and is it consistent with the rules of the Local Government Board that officers of the ratepayers in any capacity in receipt of salary should be permitted to act as honorary representatives of the same ratepayers, and take an active part in advocating and supporting increase of official salaries.

The facts appear to be correctly stated in the first paragraph. As regards the second paragraph, the gentleman in question being a paid officer of the board of guardians would seem to be disqualified by the terms of the Local Government Board's Order of the 17th January, 1899, but the question is one to be decided in a court of law upon the validity and construction of the Order, and is not a matter for the decision of the Executive.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what will be the business before the House during the first few days after Easter. Perhaps I may ask a further question with regard to one of the motions standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman. I presume that when he refers to the "Proceedings on the Agricultural Holdings Bill" he meant the proceedings on Monday only. The motion does not say so.

The right hon. Gentleman is correct in supposing that the notice refers to what we do on Monday. We propose before separating for the Easter recess to take the Second Beading of that Bill, and to refer it to the Grand Committee. With regard to the question on the Paper, I may say we hope to be able on Thursday, the 26th, to take the Votes in Class 3, and on Friday, the 27th, the Revenue Department Votes. In the unavoidable absence of the Home Secretary I cannot give a definite pledge as to Class 3.

And as to the following Monday?

I can say nothing as to that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will ask again on Monday next.

Will the Revenue Department Votes include the Post Office?

Yes, Sir.

I presume the right hon. Gentleman will not take the Irish Estimates without due notice to the Irish Members, and that at any rate during the first few days after the holidays he will not take either of the two Bills—the Tithes Bill and the Charitable Loans Bill—in which the hon. Member for East Mayo takes interest.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also undertake not to put down the Undersized Fish Bill?

I believe that Bill has wholly disappeared, and that in its place we have another Bill, called the Sea Fisheries Bill. I am afraid I cannot enter into the pledge asked for by my hon. friend, for there is a limit to the number of pledges I am able to give. In reply to the hon. Member for Waterford, I may say I shall certainly desire to consult the convenience of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland with regard to the day on which Irish Estimates are to be taken. The two Bills to which he referred will certainly not be put down until the Monday after the holidays.

Will the right hon. Gentleman extend the same consideration to Scotch Members with regard to the Votes in Class 3?

I am always glad to consult the convenience of Members from both Ireland and Scotland, and if hon. Members object to the Scottish Votes being taken immediately after the holidays, I will accede to their wish.

The motion just moved by my right hon. friend covers an unusually long period of time, for the House is about to separate under circumstances of a very serious and even unprecedented character. It appears to me, therefore, that the time is not unfitting to enter into a discussion, which may be conducted without exciting heat or feeling or party passion, on the situation in South Africa, and on the possible conditions under which the war may be brought to a close. ["Oh!"] I am quite aware, from the sounds that are being emitted around me, that there are dangers attending such a discussion. I should not have proposed to enter upon it without very grave consideration, and I hope I shall conduct it in a manner not to prejudice any of the interests of the country, and not to excite any feeling derogatory to the traditions and character of the House. I am well aware of the perils of the subject. I should have thought that in the present situation anyone who is conscious of the dignity and responsibilities of Parliament and his own position as a Member of Parliament would not have thought it unbecoming to have entered on a discussion such as that which I have described. But I find I am debarred from entering on the main purpose of the speech which I had contemplated delivering to the House. An hon. Member in the exercise of his privileges has put down a motion for an Address to the Crown praying that no conditions of peace shall be agreed upon which do not satisfy certain conditions set forth in the notice. The notice was given for an early but indefinite day, and probably I am not very far wrong in thinking the hon. Member was not very eager to bring it on. At any rate, the result is that even the House itself, if it desires by a majority beyond computation to enter on the discussion of this subject, which must be admitted to be one of paramount importance, is absolutely debarred from considering the question. The notice of motion prevents attention being called to the subject on any day of this session, and this deprives hon. Members of an opportunity of fulfilling the duty they are sent here to perform. It is especially unfortunate that this should happen at the present time, when this House is regarded as the single refuge where free speech can be possibly relied upon. The press is in great measure closed—["No!"]—the fact cannot be denied—to the minority, in some places a considerable minority, who hold views which are opposed to those of the majority. The power of assembly in public halls even for private discussion after notice given is practically interfered with and taken away in many parts of the country. It becomes of all the greater importance, therefore, that in this House the privilege of free speech should be maintained—that the House should not be debarred from the possibility of expressing its opinion on the most important question of the day. I have nothing to do but to submit; but I am not sorry that attention should thus be called to what has frequently been described by the right hon. Member for Thanet as "an injurious exercise of the irresponsible power of a single Member." There are, however, two matters of subsidiary importance on which I will crave leave to speak for a few minutes. One has been the subject of a question and answer to-day, and I will say at the outset I was rejoiced to hear the answer given by the Under Secretary for War with respect to the treatment of sick Boer prisoners. I am sure nobody wishes to add to the horrors of the war which is being waged in South Africa by any unnecessary infliction of sickness on the unfortunate prisoners who have fallen into our hands. It is not surprising they should develop a great amount of fever, especially enteric fever. Those who have realised the horrible pit in which Cronje and his men were placed before they were driven at last to surrender, and who understand the conditions of life to which they are accustomed, cannot be surprised to find that a large number of the prisoners who were brought down to Cape Town are suffering from fever. But they have been dying of late at a rate which will become serious if the present conditions are permitted to be maintained. I am, therefore, glad to hear from the Under Secretary that steps have been taken to prevent the further development of the sickness. So far as I know, no sickness has arisen among our own prisoners at Pretoria or elsewhere, though comparisons have been made between the treatment of colonial prisoners and the treatment of prisoners belonging to the Regular Army. Those comparisons do not seem to me of great importance1, but they have been made. But there has been no suggestion whatever as to neglect being in any way found in the treatment of our prisoners. On the contrary, there is very considerable evidence to show that care and kind attention has been paid to their wants. My hon. friend has treated the cases among the Boers as cases of enteric fever only, but everyone knows how easy it is for fevers which are infections to be confounded with those which are not. I assume that the greatest precautions have been taken to prevent any such confusion, and I hope that before the prisoners are landed care will be taken to see that no other infectious disease is developing itself. The other subject to which I wish to call attention is one in which, perhaps, there is not the same spontaneous interest which has been developed in the case of the sick prisoners; I refer to what has been done in the northern portion of Cape Colony and the colony of Natal in the way of the proclamation of martial law and the action there under. Very little is known as to what martial law is. One of the highest authorities, the late Lord Chief Justice, in a celebrated charge, practically declared that there was no such thing, that it was a negation of the law, which cannot be recognised as law at all. Of course, I am not prepared to deny that necessity might arise for action which might be roughly described as putting martial law in force, but I would suggest with reference to what is taking place in South Africa that the zone within which it should have force should be very largely decreased. It surely cannot be necessary for the assistance of the army in the field that martial law shall be carried down to Durban. The extension of the zone of martial law, an extension into which it is easy for an Administration to lapse, ought to be watched with the greatest jealousy. There is some reason to fear that the steps taken under martial law have not always been carefully instituted. There is the case in which three farmers were arrested in a district near the seat of war. They were taken to Cape Town, and there application was made to the court on their behalf, and after that application had been made they were moved back into the district into which they were arrested and in which martial law had been proclaimed, so as to escape from the jurisdiction of the civil court. The farmers have since been released, but I must say that the spirit which animated the military authorities in taking these men from Cape Town to the seat of war after an inquiry had been ordered by the High Court must be condemned. These men were in custody for a considerable period, and in the end they were discharged, because there was no evidence against them. And that case does not stand alone. A gentleman in Kimberley was kept in custody for three months and then discharged because there was no evidence against him. We all have experience of the way in which prisoners get lost sight of. The late Mr. Roebuck once drew attention to the case of a man who had been in custody in Ireland for years, and whose case had been lost sight of. It requires great attention to prevent such abuses. In some cases, too, the punishment inflicted seems to have been excessive, the evidence against the prisoners being unsubstantial in character and resting entirely on two or three native servants, who produce nothing which would be admissible in a court of law. If the records are true, this is a matter which requires serious attention. I would suggest that care be taken that no one shall be detained under martial law beyond a short time without his case being inquired into, and that no sentence extending beyond a certain period shall be inflicted by a court constituted under martial law without its being subject automatically to revision by a court of civil jurisdiction. Some such safeguards as these would, I believe, be acceptable to the officers administering martial law, as likely to prevent the risk of injustice, to which they themselves would be the first to acknowledge they are liable. Now I come to another question. As everyone knows, there is a censorship established at the Cape. I have heard of perfectly innocent communications being stopped by the censor. A resolution arrived at by a committee here in Westminster was communicated to a gentleman in Cape Town. A committee with which I am not myself associated passed a resolution of sympathy with the Dutch in South Africa. It was sent out to Cape Town. Large sums were paid for the cost of transmission, and a fortnight afterwards the telegraph company returned the message to the person who sent it. [An HON. MEMBER: A good thing, too.] It is the hon. Member's opinion that it is a good thing to prevent people in Westminster telling people in Cape Town that they have their sympathy. But is it a good thing that a message to a gentleman in Cape Town which involves no conceivable danger to the public interest should be stopped by the censor, the irresponsible censor? For to whom is the censor responsible? I have said all I have to say. I could have spoken at greater length if I had had the freedom I desired, but, under the operation of the rule to which I have referred, I have been stopped from pursuing a course which I believe I could have pursued without injury to the public interest.

Upon a point of order I desire to say that the notice of motion to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin has referred stands on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for West Cumberland. In view of the fact, which is now notorious, that the hon. and gallant Member sailed from England more than a week ago for South Africa to engage in service at the front, I wish to know whether this notice of motion placed on the Paper by the hon. and gallant Member precludes this House from discussing certain phases of the war until he comes back. Suppose he never comes back at all. I assume that I am correct in saying that the House has power to order the discharge of a Bill, and I wish to ask if there is a similar power to order the discharge of a motion from the Order Book which is plainly there for blocking discussion and for a mischievous purpose, and which cannot be moved. The notice on the Paper is in the following terms—

"That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty not to make terms of peace with the Presidents of the South African Republics on any terms which do not provide for the annexation of the two Republics to Her Majesty's dominions."

I wish to ask whether it is not an ancient rule of this House that hon. Members who leave this country for a lengthened period have to obtain the leave of this House; and whether, on such leave being obtained, all the motions in their name do not necessarily lapse.

I do not know of any such rule as that to which the hon. Member has just referred. It might, or it might not, be a reasonable course, but there is no rule to that effect. As regards the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny, I cannot take any notice of whether an hon. Member who has set down a notice of motion is in South Africa, or Scotland, or England. Then as regards the question which he asked me as to whether there is power in this House to discharge a notice of motion, I can only speak from precedent, and I am not aware that such power in a case like this has ever been exercised. I do not know whether the hon. Member can show me any precedent. As to the extent to which a debate is limited, I can only say that it is impossible for me to give an exhaustive definition beforehand. If an hon. Member trespass upon the ground covered by a notice of motion it is my duty to call him to order.

Will it be open to me, in face of this motion, to argue that the British Government, in case they get the power to do so, ought to give back the independence of these States? Can I go that length?

Certainly not.

I do not propose to enter into the questions which my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin has raised in the latter part of his speech, but I would ask the leave of the House to say a word on the subject which he dealt with at the commencement of his speech—the difficulties placed in the way of the action of this House by the rule, Mr. Speaker, which you have just laid down. I can give an example of the operation of this rule, as it happened when I was responsible for the conduct of the Opposition some years ago. There were then very serious questions affecting the policy of the Government in Crete, and I always, as I think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will acknowledge, abstained from bringing on a motion which might be detrimental to the public interest at that period and on this subject. I came to an understanding with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House that it was expedient and proper that that question should be brought on, by leave, on a motion for adjournment. With the consent of both sides of the House I came down to make that motion, and I found that there was a motion on the Paper, put down by the hon. Member for East Mayo, who wished the motion to come on, and who had no idea that his notice would obstruct it. He desired to withdraw the notice that day, but he was told that it was impossible, and the whole object of both sides of the House was defeated by the operation of this rule in a matter of very great public importance affecting the interests of the country generally. We had a discussion at that time upon the subject.^* I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was as anxious as I was that the matter should come on, and we were absolutely defeated by the operation of a rule which, I venture to say, in the manner in which it operates, makes this House absolutely impotent. It may be that some very great public crisis has arisen, and there may happen to be, accidentally or intentionally, a notice of motion upon the Paper of this House, and though it may be the highest duty of the House to discuss that subject, though the Government desired it and the Opposition desired it, yet you have a rule which reduces you absolutely to impotence. A man may have a Bill introduced in the earliest days of the session without the smallest chance or intention of ever prosecuting it, and if that Bill refers to a subject which may be of the greatest possible importance, by no possibility can a motion be brought on in reference to that subject. Now, Sir, that is a situation which I think the House ought not to allow to continue. It does not depend upon any Standing Order of the House at all. It has grown up quite recently within my own memory. It was originally what may be called an obiter

^* 1st March, 1897 (See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xlvi., page 1,347).

I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite is mistaken in speaking of

^* In May's Parliamentary Practice (Tenth Edition, page 264), references are given to many decisions on this point; but the earliest definite pronouncement under the present Rules of Procedure is not noted. On the 17th February, 1887 (see The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. cccx., page 1,777), Mr. Speaker Peel gave a very distinct ruling, which he expressly founded on a ruling of his predecessor in 1882. The latter is reported in Vol. cclxxv of the Debates, at page 26. Mr. Speaker Brand said: "An hon. Member is debarred from discussing on a Motion for adjournment a Motion which stands on the Order-book of the House." This, apparently, has no specific reference to the (then) new Rules, for Mr. Speaker Brand proceeds:" That is an established and fundamental Rule of Debate."

"Whether it would not be the more convenient course that the House should modify the Standing Order which applies to cases of this kind. Because I would remind my right hon. friend that I, for one, have a perfect right, if I think fit, to put down a notice on all fours with the notice of the hon. Member for Mayo, which would land the House in the same fix as to-day. Therefore, I venture to ask whether it would not be desirable that some modification of this rule should be adopted, whereby if, in the opinion of the Chair, any question arises which he considers of sufficient urgency, it might he brought forward, notwithstanding the interposition of any motion of the kind referred to."

"We have not in practice found that much difficulty arises, for the good sense of Members on both sides of the House has hitherto, in my experience, always prevented any such impasse, or such insuperable difficulty as in theory undoubtedly might arise at present, although in practice it has not arisen."

"I am afraid I cannot associate myself with my right hon. friend's experience as to no inconvenience having occurred in the past. I have known cases of considerable importance—"

"I will then ask a question. Do I understand that my right hon. friend will take steps with a view to the modification of the rule, because, if not, I must consider whether another object lesson should not be forthcoming?"

"The ordinary rule of the House is that when a motion such as that of the hon. Member has been put on the Paper it operates, so far as the question of anticipation goes, until it ceases to appear on the Paper."

It must be a misprint if the report states that I said, "There is a Standing Order." What I said was, "There is no Standing Order."

I assume it must be a misprint. The Speaker then proceeds—

"It is a practice of the House which has been acted upon, and the practice of the House, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, when acted upon for years is as binding upon the House as a Standing Order."

"Of course it is obvious that there are occasions when the practice would operate inconveniently. It is not for me to say whether, on the whole, it operates inconveniently or not. Certainly if the House thinks fit to alter the rule I shall not offer any advice to the contrary."

"What course can the House adopt? Would it be by way of resolution to move a modification, or by Standing Order?"

"Where you want to alter the practice of the House, it would be more convenient to do so by Standing Order. At the same time, the House has sometimes acted upon resolutions. It is a matter for consideration what course should be followed."

"As far as I am personally concerned, having regard to the assurance that the matter shall receive consideration, I shall not take action in the direction of an object lesson."

The debate on the adjournment for the holidays has taken a somewhat unexpected turn owing to the difficulty in which my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin finds himself by being precluded by a motion on the Paper from making a speech he intended to deliver upon the terms of peace, or Lord Salisbury's message to the two Presidents, or some analogous subject. While I always listen to the right hon. Gentleman with the greatest pleasure, I am not sure that this is a very convenient time or a suitable occasion on which to discuss the settlement which will have to be made at the conclusion of the war, which, I am afraid, has some length to run before that happy termination is reached. Without going into the propriety of a discussion such as my right hon. friend wishes to initiate, I suppose the House desires that I should express an opinion on the more abstract and general question which has arisen on the present occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth and my right hon. friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet have, not for the first time, called attention to the inconvenience the House is put under by having its freedom of debate, so to speak, limited by its own rule or, at all events, by its own practice in this matter. I do not feel at all disposed to minimise that inconvenience, but at the same time I do not remember that in fact, during the last few years, it has produced any serious limitation of the power of debate. My right hon. friend has mentioned an instance, the only case apparently that occurs to his memory, in which a debate upon Cretan affairs was prevented from coming on on a certain afternoon. No doubt, at the time, the inconvenience was felt to be considerable, but no one who remembers the events of that session can assert that the affairs of Crete were inadequately discussed during its progress, nor can any Member of the House recall a single case in which any question of public policy interesting to any large section of the House was prevented from coming on by the operation of this practice or rule.

There was the instance, the other day, with reference to the employment of foreign seamen aboard British ships.^*

I do not think there can be a better illustration of what I mean. I do not think that anybody can pretend that that particular subject was not adequately discussed.

The blocking motion was removed.

Yes; the motion was taken off and did not operate to prevent discussion. The statement I ventured to make was that in the recollection of the House no question of public policy had in fact been precluded from discussion by the operation of this practice, and the only case the hon. Member can call to mind proves to be an illustration of the very proposition I am making.

There were several cases during the period when the right

^* See page 680 of this Volume.

My right hon. friend's appetite for discussion must indeed be great if he thinks that the conduct of the Royal Irish Constabulary was not sufficiently discussed at that period. I really think that a less fortunate instance of the gagging of the House could hardly be mentioned than that my right hon. friend has happened to hit upon. I was about to say, when my right hon. friend threw in his pointless interruption, that if Members like the right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet are going about on a kind of piratical expedition to prevent any subject in which the House is interested being discussed, by means of bogus notices of motion, I do not for a moment doubt that serious public inconveniences might arise. Let me point out that the Standing Orders, at all events, provide an outlet—I do not think a sufficient one—even from that serious state of affairs. Nothing can prevent discussion on the Estimates, on the salaries of Ministers, or any relevant point on any Vote; and especially I will venture to say, under the new rules of Supply, any considerable demand for the discussion of a particular matter at a particular time is always agreed to by the Government. I have admitted that there is undoubted difficulty, though it has been accentuated and exaggerated; and let me now only ask the House not to rush too hastily to the conclusion that the whole of that inconvenience can be abolished by a resolution such as has been suggested without danger of some other difficulty, perhaps not so serious, but not to be lightly disposed of, arising in its place. It has been pointed out that it may be impossible to avoid dragging the House into a double discussion, under most inconvenient circumstances, and it has been suggested by my right hon. friend that it should be left to the Speaker to decide whether a matter is of urgent importance. That may be the proper course, but it will be throwing a new burden on the Speaker, who as I understand, has not now to decide whether a matter is one of immediate public importance. That has to be determined by the fact that forty hon. Members rise in their places. [Several HON. MEMBERS: No, no!] My view is that the Speaker judges of the definiteness, but the urgency and importance are decided by the House. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if we know how the matter stands, and on a point of order I would appeal to you, Sir, for a ruling as to how we stand and what are the duties thrown upon the Chair by the Standing Order in relation to motions for adjournment.

The Standing Order presents some difficulty in interpretation. When I came to the Chair I found the practice of the Speaker had been to deal with the question of definiteness himself, but as regards the urgency and public importance of the subject they have practically always been left to the decision of the House by the rising of at least forty Members in their places. I say "practically," for certainly I do not understand that the Speaker is bound to put a question as one of urgency and public importance if it is obviously ridiculous or frivolous, or so obviously unimportant that the Speaker ought not to put it. Subject to that limitation, that the question is obviously one that the Speaker ought not to submit to the House, the practice has been to leave the question of urgency and public importance to the House in the manner proscribed by the Standing Order.

In order to clear our ideas on this matter, let me take a concrete case. Let us suppose there was some very important question of foreign policy about which some Gentleman had put a notice on the Paper, and upon which, by common expectation, a discussion of importance must arise. Suppose that a few days before that some private Member got up, with the assent of forty of his friends, and called the attention of the House to the subject as a matter of definite and urgent public importance. The whole arrangements of the House would be upset by this premature discussion, by the action of a small minority. I am disposed to say that that is not the least of two evils. I only mention this because we ought not to interfere with our practice in these matters without considering the pros and cons of the policy we pursue. We ought not to fly from evils that we know to evils that we know not of. I am not sure it might not be a good plan to refer this matter to the Committee on Procedure, which will have to sit later in the session—soon after Easter—and they may perhaps give the House some counsel in the matter. In the meanwhile, I hope my right hon. friend will abstain from putting down a series of burking resolutions, and will be content to leave this discussion to bear its natural and legitimate fruit in the minds of Members. The case has been put before the House both by the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. friend. I have endeavoured to set forth the pros and cons for the suggested alteration in our practice. If the general opinion of the House is that that alteration should take place, I do not desire to oppose it.

There is one respect in which I think the House has not yet fully sounded the extraordinary depths of this question, and I will endeavour to explain it to the House. The origin of this practice was that, as has already been explained, in old days, which many of us remember, it was in the power of any Member of the House during Question time, or at the end of Question time, to proceed, founding himself possibly upon the reply to a question he had himself put, to deliver an address of any length he chose, and he could always say, "I will put myself in order by concluding with a motion for the adjournment of the House." The result was that in a most irregular and irresponsible way the time of the House was occupied sometimes on the most trivial subjects. It was, I imagine, in order to prevent that abuse that the new rule was established, confining the power of moving the adjournment of the House in this irregular way to cases which had been formally submitted to the Speaker for approval more or less, the Member also showing that he had support from a certain considerable contingent of Members of the House. I think that the object was to regularise that form of procedure. The object of the new rule was to prevent a man, from a good or bad motive, from jealousy or vanity, or from over eagerness or too great a desire to benefit the public, rushing in and taking the water, as it were, of some honest, hard working, thoughtful man of foresight and intelligence who had secured an opportunity some weeks in advance of bringing forward a particular subject. That is an evil which must be guarded against. But let me point out to the House that, while the new arrangement was aimed at those more or less irregular adjournments of the House moved by individual Members, that is not the case with us to-day. My right hon. friend did not rise to move the adjournment of the House. This is one of the stated occasions during the session when it has been by immemorial practice considered the right and privilege of the House to discuss anything connected with the conduct of the Government. And that is why it is made such a formal business that it cannot be moved in an off hand way or at the end of a sitting. Notice has to be given, so that when it is done there shall be full opportunity for debate. The motion for adjournment for the Easter holidays has been made at a time of great public anxiety, and my right hon. friend is prevented from discussing a matter of the very gravest moment by the accident of an hon. Member having put down a motion. I venture to say this is a much more important thing than a mere question of a Member getting up with a few of his friends and throwing the whole of the business of the House into confusion in order to bring forward something in which he and they are interested. The new practice has come to be a direct infringement of the traditional privileges of the House on the motion for adjournment for the holidays to discuss the whole gamut of public policy.

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he seems to think it is the invariable practice to put down the motion for the adjournment for the holidays as the first Order, so that there can be a long discussion. I assure him he is incorrect. It is not absolutely necessary to give notice at all. The motion has constantly been put at the end of the Government Orders of the Day, and not at the beginning, so that if a discussion were to take place at all it would be in the small hours of the morning.

I think the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members generally will agree with me, if they search their memories, that the making of the motion for adjournment for the holidays has always been regarded as an opportunity, not to appropriate the whole sitting, but an opportunity when anything urgent can be dealt with. It is such an opportunity that is being invaded at the present moment. My right hon. friend wished to call attention to a very delicate and difficult question. I have a high opinion of the sagacity of my right hon. friend, but, for my part, I should not have thought that the present is a very opportune moment for any such discussion as he proposed to raise. But that is a matter of personal opinion. I do not complain because I have been shut out from making a speech. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not my motive. But I do think there is more involved than the mere preventing the abuse of an irregular mode of discussing matters by a spontaneous moving of the adjournment of the House. What is involved is an invasion of an ancient privilege, which I think is one deserving of the respect of the House.

The proceedings to-night have taken a very extraordinary and, I think, a very unfortunate turn. We have been deprived of an opportunity which many of us wished to avail ourselves of, to discuss, as we have a right to do, the position in which we find ourselves in regard to the war. And now we discover we are unable to do so on account of a bogus motion put down by an hon. Member on the other side of the House. I do not know whether even yet the Speaker might not exercise his authority. Look at the position. The blocking motion is for an "early day." Now, how is it possible for an hon. Member who is now in South Africa to bring on his motion on an "early day"? Could you, Mr. Speaker, not rule that this is a bogus motion and enable us to go on in the usual way? It is a great pity if we cannot. My right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has said this is not an opportune time to discuss the South African position. I think it is an opportune time always to protest against the injustice and the wrong that is now going on. There is another point. What has become of free speech in this country? We are driven about from pillar to post, unable to get a hearing, and we thought to find refuge in this House; but we are met by a bogus motion even in this House. This question of free speech is becoming rather serious. Some hon. Members may have observed that we managed to have a dinner the other night in a certain place of resort in London. But what do we see to-day? Why, that the man who holds the establishment says that he did not know what our dinner was about, and if he had known he would have swept us out. I point out that as a proof of the difficulty of getting free discussion now. Another incident has happened. My hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is going down next week to address his constituents, and what is the intimation that he has got? He is told by his agent that the speakers at his meeting will not be interfered with except by the missiles which will be thrown at them as they enter and leave the hall. That is a pretty sort of thing: we are to travel out of England before we can obtain the right of free speech. An hon. Gentleman just said to me, "If you want to speak against the war come over to Ireland." Fancy being driven out of the House of Commons, the old home of free speech, and being obliged to go to Ireland for the purpose of making a speech against the war. It is a sad state of things, and all arising out of the spirit of militarism which is becoming predominant in this country, and which, if not checked very shortly, will deprive us of many of the rights and privileges we so highly value.

May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this Conciliation Committee is a little misplaced, and that if he wants to produce any effect with it he should transfer it to the Transvaal, and see if he could get any terms of conciliation from the Boers out there? I am not surprised that the constituents of the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs should promise him a warm reception, because he went down to my constituency to speak against me. Now I want to say a word with regard to the rival claims—the urgent motion for an early day for the discussion of this war, and the motion which is blocked by that motion. My suggestion is that both the urgent motion and this motion should be allowed to go on, and I submit that to the consideration of the First Lord of the Treasury. The settled and considered motion can be debated when its time comes on, and this motion can be debated now. These blocking motions have taken upon themselves a very formidable character. We have thirty-three Members of this House away without leave soldiering in South Africa. [An HON. MEMBER: Ask for a call.] Yes, but the time has gone by for calls of this House, otherwise I, for one, should be very glad to see a call. Now one of those hon. Members before he went put a blocking motion on the Paper, and the subject cannot be debated in his absence. It is an abuse of the privileges of this House to put down such a motion, and it only arises from the fact of right hon. Members on the front bench giving hon. Members leave to serve in South Africa. If hon. Members had to obtain leave of the House before they went, then motions standing in their names would lapse, so that it is entirely in consequence of the irregularity of hon. Members going away without obtaining leave of absence that this unfortunate state of things has arisen. My right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury tells us that there is to be a Committee appointed to consider the procedure of this House. It is not before it is wanted. There are some Standing Orders which most urgently require amending, and I hope those Standing Orders will be referred to that Committee. Am I to understand from my right hon. friend that they will be referred to the Committee?

No; my hon. friend is not to understand anything of the kind. I am not at all sure that there ought not to be a Committee appointed to revise the Standing Orders, but that is a very big order, and I certainly must not be taken to make any proposal on so large a scale.

I think if the right hon. Gentleman would consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would find that there are several which very much require to be amended.

If the hon. Gentleman proposes to take action on this matter, I suggest that he might do so by opposing the adjournment for the holidays, on the ground that we ought not to leave here until we have discussed this motion. If the hon. Gentle- man will do that I will tell with him. I would also venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that there is a way, to a certain extent, of meeting this matter. In olden days when Bills were blocked by a notice, the notice once put down lasted the whole session; that was subsequently modified by the hon. Member who put the notice down being obliged to renew his notice every week. It seems to me that we might meet a motion of this kind by laying it down that a motion does not hold good unless the hon. Gentleman who puts it down is in his place to renew it every week. Then if one hon. Gentleman went away and another hon. Gentleman desired to move a similar motion, we could deal with it. We have to deal with the fact that an hon. Gentleman who has gone abroad has put down a motion, and this prevents us discussing what is best to be done under the circumstances of this war. That cannot be fair or proper, and we want to do something. My right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin asked two or three questions which have not yet been answered. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War is going to answer them or not, and I call attention to the fact that they are questions which demand an answer. One is with regard to the Transvaal prisoners; we have a large number of prisoners, and as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, our prisoners are well treated in the Transvaal, and the Boers are under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the prisoners we have taken are not so well treated. I asked the hon. Gentleman yesterday,^* and he told me that there were some cases of illness, and some deaths. We want thoroughly to understand that something is being done and some care is being taken in order to mitigate and improve the position in which these unfortunate men are placed. There was another question which was pressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin; he asked what the law was, or what was our action with regard to martial law at the Cape. He pointed out that three men who were taken under martial law were sent down to the Cape, and when they arrived at the Cape it was discovered that they

^*See page 1253 of this volume.

The First Lord of the Treasury suggests that the main difficulty occupying us this afternoon would be to some extent met by referring this matter to a Committee of Procedure. Well, of course, even this method of inquiry will take time, and probably will not result in the mitigation of the situation in which we are placed for some time. Therefore, unless some practical step is taken the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury will not relieve the House from the difficulty of dealing with the question at all for a very long time. The question I have to ask the First Lord of the Treasury is whether he will not communicate with his hon. friend who has this motion on the Paper, and take such steps as may be desirable, and communicate also with other Members who may wish to place similar motions on the Paper, so that when reasonable occasion does arise in the course of the present session for dealing with this question the House may be able to discuss it. I think after the discussion we have had to-day we ought to have some assurance from the First Lord of the Treasury that he will make an effort to free the House from the difficulty of discussing a question which up to the present moment may not be ripe for discussion, but which within a few weeks may become eminently ripe for discussion.

I will telegraph.

The hon. Member for Northampton referred to two subjects which were raised in the first place by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin. The hon. Gentleman put the case in such a pointed manner as to require an answer from me with reference to the prisoners of the South African Republic, and also on the subject of the administration of martial law. In regard to the case of the Boer prisoners in our hands and the treatment of the sick and wounded I have given a certain amount of information to the House, and I think all I can add to that information is that no distinction whatever is drawn in South Africa between the wounded and sick of the enemy and the wounded and sick of our own men. A sick or wounded Boer, like a sick or wounded Englishman, is carried into one of our hospitals, field or stationary, and is treated without any kind of discrimination, just in the same way as any person run over in the streets of London would be treated if carried into a hospital. All that can be done to alleviate the necessary horrors and distresses of war is done, and I may say always has been done. I say with confidence that one of the outcomes of war has often been the touching commiseration shown for the victims of war, and that has always been characteristic of the officers who have commanded in the British Army. Now I pass to the question of the procedure under martial law.

What I wanted to know was whether it was consistent with the health of these prisoners that they should all be shut up together in the hulks.

The hon. Member is aware that we have made arrangements for their removal from the hulks, and either confining them on shore at the Cape or sending them to St. Helena. Prisoners who were taken at the earlier stages of the war expressed a preference to go to St. Helena. The question of the safety of the prisoners must be paramount. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin quoted a definition of martial law as no law at all. I think that goes a great deal too far. There is some confusion in the minds of hon. Members as to the difference between martial law and military law. Military law only applies to soldiers and to persons amenable to Army discipline. Martial law is a wholly distinct matter. It is the best substitute which can be contrived by those commanding an army of occupation for the civil law which has been dislocated and impaired by the very fact that warlike operations are being prosecuted, and it is in that spirit that martial law is administered. That general statement, I think, completely answers the criticisms the right hon. Gentleman has offered. The hon. Member for Northampton has asked what is the status of the Free Staters in the portions of the Free State occupied by our Army. The Free Staters have the status that the French had when the army of Germany occupied a portion of France, and that the Turks had when the army of Russia occupied a portion of the Turkish Empire—that is to say, they are persons living in an area occupied by a preponderating military force. The duty of the officer commanding that force is twofold. He must, by the immemorial consent of nations, take all necessary steps for the safety of his force, and he is expected to take all the steps he can to provide a substitute for the civil law which has been destroyed owing to the fact that the army is there. Take the other case referred to by the hon. Member. Take the case of a portion of Cape Colony where martial law has been proclaimed. We have been reading in the newspapers that magistrates have in some cases been prisoners for weeks and months surrounded by rebels in arms. That is an illustration of my point. Civil law has become impossible, and in such a case the military commander is the only one who can supply a substitute. Lately detailed instructions have been issued to guide officers who administer martial law. They are instructed to follow as far as possible the rules of evidence and to model their proceedings on the proceedings of civil tribunals, and their attention has been specially directed to any charges, the presumption of which might not be well founded, urged against persons of Dutch nationality; and in respect of the more serious charges of high treason, which would carry with them the extreme penalty of the law, it has been provided that a judge of the Supreme Court of Cape Colony shall preside over the trials, although conducted under the provisions of martial law. Beyond that I do not think it is possible to go. The best guarantee that we can have in this House is in the character and record of the officer who, in the last resort, administers this law in South Africa—Field Marshal Lord Roberts. As far as I am aware, the only scandals which have occurred under martial law were when the personal character of some commander—I am speaking of centuries ago—was such as to make him negligent of the duties falling upon him. Under such circumstances I am convinced that Lord Roberts, with all the facts before him, is better able to temper justice with mercy than we are, and that he will lose no opportunity of doing so.

The only rule of the House with respect to the point in dispute is that which was announced in 1897. Practically, the House has no option in the matter. If at that time the Speaker misconstrued a rule, and adopted one for which there is no warrant in the Standing Orders, the House has practically no means whatever of disagreeing with that ruling. Therefore it is rather hard to say that the practice of the House has followed that. It is not the practice of the House, but the practice of the Speaker who gave the ruling. I wish to ask as a question of order whether the rule obtains in this House which obtains in courts of law, that every Speaker is bound to follow the ruling of every previous Speaker as to the meaning of any particular Standing Order. If that be the case, it seems to me that the House is absolutely at the mercy of any Speaker who may be in the chair at the moment—that he may give a ruling on a Standing Order which every subsequent Speaker will be bound to follow, as it is practically impossible for the House to rescind it. The only way in which it could be rescinded, so far as private Members are concerned, is by balloting, but according to my experience you may ballot for years and years without success. If you do succeed in gaining a chance it is probably taken away from you. The result is most deplorable. Free debate on the part of private Members has been completely abolished within the last twelve or fifteen years, not by the action of the House, except in a very slight degree, but by rulings from the Chair, over which the House has absolutely no control whatever.

Order, order! The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing the rulings of the Chair. Moreover, he is altogether wrong in saying the House has no remedy. The House can always deal with such rulings by a substantive motion.

I will not proceed any further with the subject. What I meant by saying the House had no remedy was that the private Members have practically no remedy, because it is absolutely useless, unless the Government take the matter up, to endeavour to obtain by ballot any change in the Standing Orders of the House. With regard to the position of the Government, the fact is that no matter who, whether the Conservatives or whether the Liberals, are in power, they are always in favour of the restriction of the rights of private Members, and therefore they will never move in the matter. They can always—and properly—count on the support of the Chair in the carrying on of business, and therefore they never take any steps for the purpose of recovering the lost liberties of the House in respect of debate. I hope that private Members will take this into consideration, and that, irrespective of party—and I may now appeal to the Conservatives—they will put pressure on the Government in order that some of this lost liberty of debate may be recovered. To pass to the other matters which have been discussed, I think the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War has rather misapprehended the complaint in regard to the exercise of martial law. It is not that the ultimate decisions have been unjust. I have been carefully through the newspapers, and I do not find any great complaint of the ultimate decisions. As a rule the cases in which complaints have been made are cases in which persons have been kept under martial law for long periods without examination or trial, or even the formulation of charges against them, and when charges have been formulated they have been proved to be unfounded. Our suspicion is that under martial law private individuals are enabled to wreak their vengeance upon other private individuals in the district. That is an evil which obtains in all countries in times of agitation and especially in times of panic. It was so in France at the time of the 1870 war. At that time it was dangerous for almost any foreigner to travel in France, for fear of being denounced as a spy. I am afraid there is a similar danger now with regard to the state of affairs in South Africa in the districts in which military operations have taken place, especially in Cape Colony, where we find that respectable Dutch people have been incarcerated for weeks, many of them being subjected to the same rules of imprisonment and diet as are imposed upon convicts, and afterwards liberated without conviction. There are not merely one or two, but a large number of these cases, and they lead us to believe that there has been a gross abuse of this power, not in the higher officers who decide these matters, but in the underlings. There certainly ought to be some investigation of this matter, as there is great danger that feelings will be emibittered and the pacification of the districts made more difficult if such injustices are perpetrated. I wish also to refer to the treatment of the Boer prisoners. The complaint is not that the wounded are not properly treated. We know that our medical men are absolutely above any petty revenge of that kind. There has never been the slightest hint or suspicion that they were in the least degree tainted by any partiality in their treatment of the wounded. But there certainly has been some feeling with respect to the treatment of the unwounded prisoners. That has now been recognised, and we are told that they are to be brought ashore. It is humiliating enough for Englishmen to be beaten in the field by our enemies, but it is more humiliating to be beaten by the Boers in magnanimity of conduct towards opponents. We certainly have been beaten in that respect. ["No!"] How have they treated prisoners? They might have sent them to underground mines under the pretence of securing safety, especially as they had the excuse that several prisoners have escaped, and that they have very few men to guard the remainder, practically all the able-bodied men being at the front. But they did nothing of the kind. On the other hand, we have thousands and thousands of men in South Africa who could without difficulty be put in charge of the Boer prisoners on shore, but instead of that the prisoners are being sent to St. Helena. The two newspaper correspondents—Mr. Winston Churchill and another—who have been taken prisoners have been most strongly impressed by the Boer conduct in this respect. It seems that as soon as correspondents come into personal contact with the Boers, their sense of honour, honesty and truth obliges them to give our opponents the highest character. The Boers have also beaten us in magnanimity to helpless men and men crying for quarter. There has not been a single complaint against the Boers of having refused to give quarter when asked. On the contrary, they have gone further than the rules of warfare and the practice of soldiers demanded. On the other hand, we have correspondents and privates writing home after the battles of the Modder, Elandslaagte, and others, priding themselves on the fact that the Boers were falling on their knees praying for mercy, and receiving the reply, "Remember Majuba Hill," and then being bayonetted or shot. I am eager and willing to believe that these stories are somewhat exaggerated, and I cannot believe that there are many men in our Army who have fallen so low; but the fact that these reports were sent home by soldiers and newspaper correspondents shows that among a section of them, at any rate, a depraved state of things exists in respect to this matter. It is not a noble and manly or a soldier-like thing to kill a man who is begging for mercy, and I wish that our commanders would take care that a proper feeling should be cultivated amongst the troops, although I believe that that feeling animates a large majority of our men. We should also see that that feeling extends to this base minority who have not acted according to the rules of war, and have evidently declined to give quarter to the enemy when asked to do so. [Cries of "Divide!"] This is a matter of great importance, and this is the only opportunity we shall have of discussing it, so I do not see why hon. Members should be in such a hurry to divide. I think some trouble should be taken by those in charge of our troops to see that the laws of warfare are not abused by our troops.

I am astonished at the speech of the hon. Member for the Eifion Division. It seems to me that the hon. Member is willing to believe every story against our Army—

I desire to say that—

Order, order! The hon. Member has no right to interrupt unless the hon. Gentleman who is in possession of the House gives way.

It appears to me that the hon. Member is ready to credit every possible story against our own troops, and to give credit to the Boers where no credit whatever is due. I was present at the capitulation at Paardeberg, and I can tell the hon. Member that the treatment of the Boer prisoners by the English soldiers was admirable to see. Our soldiers did everything they could to relieve the distress of the Boers. The hon. Member complains that our men did not give them water. I can assure him that our soldiers went amongst the prisoners, giving them both food and water, not only after the capitulation, but also on their way to the Modder. I had no intention of speaking, but I could not possibly sit and listen to a statement of this kind and not say a word in refutation of it. Something has been said about the treatment of the Boer wounded. I have seen a great many Boer wounded in a great many hospitals in different parts of South Africa, and I can bear testimony to the most undoubted fact which was stated by the Under Secretary for War that no difference whatever has been made in the treatment of the Boer wounded and the English wounded. In the hospital at Wynberg I conversed with many Boer prisoners, and I also spoke to Commandant Pretorius, and I asked him if they had any complaint to make or any suggestion for better treatment. Commandant Pretorius said that nothing could exceed the kindness of our troops and the Army Medical Corps to the Boer prisoners, and gratitude was depicted on the face of every Boer prisoner I saw. I desire to say one word in regard to the admirable work which has been done by the Royal Army Medical Department in Cape Colony, Natal, at the front, at the stationary hospital, and at the base hospital. Nothing could possibly exceed the kindness, the skill, and the zeal with which they have done their work, and one is gratified to know that the recent changes made in the Royal Army Medical Department have not only been a great improvement, but they have given great satisfaction to the officers of the Army itself. I should like to thank Her Majesty's Government for having appointed some of the leading surgeons of the day to proceed to the seat of war, and I also desire to thank those eminent surgeons who have sacrificed their practice and gone out to the front in order to render the best possible service to our troops. The hon. Member opposite and the hon. Member for Northampton have spoken of the treatment of unwounded Boer prisoners. I saw the Boer prisoners at Simons Town, and I saw them in camp myself. Their camp is organised on exactly the same principles as the camp of a British regiment. The prisoners are divided into battalions, they are fed in the same way, and are tended and camped in exactly the same way as our own men. When, scarcely four weeks ago, I was in the Boer prisoners' camp at Simons Town, it was a pleasure to me to see how happy and merry the Boer prisoners were, playing football and other games, and to see what sources of recreation were [provided for them. I think I should add a word or two about the administration of martial law. I have been in Natal, as also in frontier provinces, and from no source have I been able to obtain any evidence that martial law is administered in a rigorous or harsh way. On the contrary, in Durban, for example, under the administration of martial law by Captain Percy Scott, many of the inhabitants said to me that they had never seen the town so quiet and so well ordered, or so much peace and liberty prevailing. The only other matter I desire to allude to is as to Lord Roberts. My hon. friend the Under Secretary of State for War stated that he was quite sure that it was the desire of Lord Roberts to do everything that was possible to minimise the racial feeling which, unfortunately, undoubtedly exists in South Africa. It is impossible to exaggerate the extraordinary tact with which Lord Roberts has acted throughout this campaign, not alone concerning our own Army, but concerning the administration of the occupied districts. There are many people who, without knowledge of the facts, think that Lord Roberts may have gone too far in his desire to extend sympathy to those who have now been placed in an unfortunate position in the occupied districts. I was present when Lord Roberts received General Cronje, and I was cognisant of all the arrangements he made for the conveyance of the prisoners to Simons Town, and I can say that there is no single Dutchman in Cape Colony, or in Natal, or in the occupied districts, or in any district in which martial law prevails, who does not realise that the Commander-in-Chief of the British troops in South Africa is not only doing all that he possibly can to bring the campaign to a successful conclusion, but he is also doing all he can to minimise those horrors of war which are absolutely inevitable from its pursuit. I will not detain the House further, but I could not remain seated and hear the statements made by the hon. Member for the Eifion Division, which are calculated to do great harm to Her Majesty's forces, who are doing their very best in South Africa for their Queen and country. Such a statement cannot fail to cause pain to honourable and gallant officers, who are doing their utmost to administer the law and the responsibilities confided to them in the most humane and admirable manner.

I only wish to say one word on this subject in regard to the rule which has hampered the House. No doubt there is a great deal to be said from the standpoint of inconvenience; but, I think, we ought to remember also that this much-abused rule has its advantages. This rule has prevented to-day a debate which I consider would have done a good deal of harm in South Africa, because any remarks made by the hon. Member for the Eifion Division would have been telegraphed over to South Africa and they would have done a great deal of mischief. Therefore, this rule has tended to save us from having a debate upon the arrangement of the terms of peace, upon which question the expression of the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin and others would have done immense mischief at the present time. In altering this rule we must remember that there is a good side to it, and no stronger instance of its utility can be found than the proceedings of this afternoon, whereby this rule has prevented a most mischievous and dangerous discussion, and one which, if it had taken place, would have done immense harm in this country. In regard to this war the time seems to have come when a certain number of hon. Members of this House do not mind what they say or how they abuse our own men. Not only this, but they seem to delight in believing everything that is said against us whether it is true or not. The hon. Member said with regard to one of the statements he made that he did not think it was true, and that it was mere hearsay, and yet he has repeated it in this House, and no doubt it will be telegraphed to South Africa, where it may do incalculable mischief. I saw instances of this when I was in South Africa at the beginning of the War. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite do not restrain themselves, and are inclined to think that the only nation in the world that is criminal to the root is our own country. I think it is a grand thing that this rule has prevented a very mischievous debate from taking place.

I desire to make a protest against the hon. Member for Central Sheffield coming here and accusing my hon. friend of saying things which he never said. If the hon. Member had been present during the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for the Eifion Division he would not have made those remarks.

I was here the whole of the time.

It is not fair to accuse my hon. friend of things which he did not say. The whole statement made by my hon. friend was with reference to the prisoners on board ship, and if the hon. Member thinks he disputes that complaint by speaking of the camp, he is very much mistaken. Then the hon. Member for North Islington repeated similar slanders.

I rise to order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Member in order in using such language?

No; the hon. Member should withdraw that expression.

I beg leave to withdraw those words.

I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what he intends to do in view of the Return which has just been issued in regard to the sea fisheries of the United Kingdom, which shows a falling off in the fishing population of Scotland of 25 per cent. This is a very serious matter, for there is no such falling off either in England, Wales, or in Ireland. In the year 1894 the number of persons employed in the fishing industry in Scotland was 50,589, but in 1898 it had fallen to 38,508, or a decrease of 12,081. I wish to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government propose to take any steps to inquire into this matter. I have repeatedly brought the question of illegal trawling under the notice of the Lord Advocate. I have no doubt illegal trawling is largely responsible for this state of things, and is simply ruining the line fishing. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen stated the other night, fishermen are being driven from the fishing villages into the large towns. The First Lord of the Admiralty knows what a fine body of men these Scotch fishermen are, and we are fast losing a very valuable class from which the Naval and Marine services may be recruited. The Lord Advocate has treated this matter very lightly, and he has not the courtesy to come and take his seat while the subject is being discussed. The registered number of fishing boats in Scotland in 1894 was 11,217, but in 1898 it had fallen to 10,485, or a fall of 732. There is no such fall in England, Wales, or in Ireland, where the number of fishermen are increasing, and it is only in Scotland that there is this tremendous diminution, which I attribute to illegal trawling. This subject does not receive the attention of the Government, and I would urge the First Lord of the Admiralty to see if he cannot send down some of the cruisers which are now lying idle to do police duty, so that this great Scottish industry may be protected, and not allowed to go to ruin. With regard to the unsatisfactory harbours we may be told that they were good enough fifty years ago, but they are unsuitable now owing to the increased size of fishing boats; moreover, no fund is provided for their upkeep and extension. I should be glad to have the attention of the First Lord of the Treasury to these matters, seeing that they are treated with such indifference by the Lord Advocate. The First Lord of the Treasury claims to be a Scotsman, and I think he might show a little sympathy to those of his countrymen who are now in such a plight in regard to the fishing industry. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give his attention to this subject, and not allow this terrible depopulation of the fishing villages in Scotland to go on. I am sorry to have to occupy the time of the House on such an occasion; but it is a matter of very serious importance to the Scottish people, and I deplore the want of courtesy shown by the Lord Advocate in failing to be in his place when such questions are laid before the House.