, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said he hoped hon. Members would bear with him while he endeavoured to convince them that this was not a measure which ought to receive the sanction of Parliament, and that it was one that was utterly opposed to public policy inasmuch as it increased a monopoly which had already grown to a too serious extent, in addition to which it might be described as a bold attempt to set aside a well considered discussion of the House of Commons. He trusted that hon. Members would come to the conclusion that it was nothing more or less than an insidious attempt to get round a deliberate decision of Parliament and to adopt a course which was in the highest degree injurious to the public interest. He would not enter into details as to the evil existing from the present railway monopoly. What he proposed to do was to attempt to show that this measure amounted to a breach of faith with Parliament and the public, and that moreover it was being promoted solely in the interests of the monopolists and was contrary to public policy. The new railway proposed to be constructed under the Bill was a junction connecting the Kingscourt and Armagh. Railway with the Great Northern Railway at Castleblaney. It was proposed to abandon a line, the construction of which had been authorised, between Kingscourt and Castleblaney, where it would join the Midland Great Western Railway. The line it was proposed to abandon was really a competitive and alternative route from Dublin to Armagh and other great towns in the North of Ireland. One of the striking advantages of the original scheme was that it would open up an entirely new district and would afford competition. That scheme received the sanction of a Committee of the House of Commons, whilst a scheme practically identical with that of the present Bill, which was also brought before the House by the Great Northern Railway of Ireland, was rejected by the Committee. Personally he was in no way financially interested in these railway undertakings, but he was interested as a matter of public convenience, because he looked at the advantages which would accrue from the adoption of a Bill which would enable a competitive route to be opened up. He was of opinion that that competitive line would be very useful to the district. Twenty-five witnesses who were called before the Committee to give evidence in support of the Kingscourt scheme, almost all of whom, having business connections with the district, were unanimous upon the matter. Those gentlemen were farmers, merchants, manufacturers, and others who knew the real requirements of the people and the locality, and they were unanimously in favour of an independent and competitive line. He opposed this Bill because it would create a monopoly which would cause the greatest possible inconvenience to the people of the localities concerned. It would, in fact, be a breach of faith to the people, a flagrant breach of faith with Parliament, and might be described as a gross breach of faith on the part of some of the Kingscourt directors with their colleagues. In his opinion the passing of this Bill would mean defeating of the legitimate expectations of the people of Armagh, Cavan, Monaghan, Fermanagh, Meath, and the adjacent counties. The Bill asked the permission of Parliament for an arrangement that would, as he had before said, constitute a breach of faith with the House itself. The Committee last year recognised the advantages attached to an alternative and competitive route between Dublin and the North—advantages which were insisted upon by a large number of influential witnesses who described the crippling effects upon agriculture and manufactures, of the excessive rates at present charged by the Great Northern Railway Company, and Parliament having sanctioned the alternative route and rejected the Great Northern Company's blocking scheme he was surprised that the House should now be asked to deliberately reverse its decision by what he could only describe as a trick on the part of some of the directors of the company. So confident were the Midland and Great Western Railway Company in the success of an independent loop line that they expressed their intention of investing large sums of money in the concern, and the Committee sanctioned the Bill because they were induced to believe in the bona fides of the venture. But shortly after the passage of the Bill of last year arrangements were made by three of the Kingscourt directors, without the knowledge of the Chairman of the Board, practically to hand the line over to the Great Northern Company, and if the scheme were allowed to pass the monopoly of that company in the part of Ireland concerned would be established and confirmed. He moved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

, in seconding the motion, said that every public board and every man, whether Nationalist or Conservative, in the northwest portion of Ireland affected by this scheme was against the Bill. The proposal was really in direct contravention of an agreement between the promoters of the Kingscourt Bill and a Committee of the House. The Great Northern Railway had a splendid service between Dublin and Belfast, but it starved other districts. If the present Bill was allowed to pass it would prevent the inhabitants of the district affected having any competing line with the Great Northern Railway, which had a greater monopoly than any line in the country.

thought it his duty, as Chairman of the Committee which passed the Kingscourt Bill last year, to point out that the line was originally intended to be an alternative route between Dublin and Belfast, passing through a district which would help to feed the line independently of any traffic from the two ends. The present Bill proposed to do away entirely with the work of that Committee, as it would throw back the whole country into the hands of the Great Northern Company. In view of the necessity for an alternative through route opening up a completely new district, and one which would be beneficial to the public at large, the Committee accepted the evidence placed before them as to the bona fides of the promoters, and passed the Bill. As he understood, the promoters of the present measure had gone behind the back of the Chairman of the Board, and were endeavouring to undo the work of last year. With this statement he would leave the matter in the hands of the House to settle.

said there could be no question that the original scheme was a great deal better in the interests of Ireland than the proposal now before the House. He, however, had received resolutions from the County Council of Louth, the Dundalk Urban District Council, the Dundalk Rural District Council, the Dundalk Board of Guardians, and the Dundalk Harbour Commissioners—all in his constituency—asking him to support the Bill, and in deference to the wishes of his constituents he should reluctantly do so. The hon. Member for Mid Armagh had issued a statement that the Midland and Great Western Railway Company of Ireland were prepared, if the present Bill were defeated, to enter into an agreement by which the Kingscourt Railway, as authorised by the Act of 1900, would probably be constructed, and its competitive character restored and established. The House should remember, however, that during the last forty or fifty years not a single extension of line had been carried out in Ireland except by an existing railway company or by help from the British Government in the shape of a public guarantee. If this Bill was rejected no part of the line would be made. He therefore suggested that the Bill should be sent to a Committee; the statement with regard to the Midland Company could then be inquired into, the people concerned cross-examined, and their guarantees to construct the line taken. A clause could also be inserted in the Bill suspending its operation for one or two years, in order to give the Midland Company a chance to carry out the original scheme.

admitted there was a great amount of difference of opinion on matters of detail as to what had been and might be done, but to discuss those matters on the Second Reading of the Bill was almost absurd. Members had been reminded that there were a large number of questions at issue between the Great Northern and Midland Companies, but was the House of Commons a fit tribunal to sit upon those questions? The proper course was to send the Bill to a Committee upstairs. The prevailing opinion in Belfast was that the Bill should be so dealt with, for this reason. They had the promise of the Midland Railway Company that the railway would be made by them in its entirety, and if the Bill went to a Committee the value of that promise could be tested. He, therefore, suggested that the ordinary course should be followed, so that the Bill could be discussed before a quasi- judicial tribunal.

urged that the promoters of the scheme had never given the public a chance to find the necessary capital. The ink was hardly dry on the Act of Parliament before these gentlemen were negotiating with the Great Northern Railway Company. It was unreasonable that matters should be allowed to remain as they were for another year by the Bill being sent to a Committee. Such a step would be giving approval to a course of conduct of which it was the business of the House to mark its disapproval. The real question was whether there had been a breach of faith with a Parliamentary Committee as well as with the public. The charge against the promoters was that by certain designs and representations they induced the people to believe that if they supported the Bill a measure would be granted by which an alter native route would be provided between Armagh and Dublin. His constituent were deceived as well. They requested him to give evidence, but, as he sail before, throughout the whole length and breadth of Ireland not a single local body could be found to recommend the scheme to the House of Commons He submitted, with all respect, that he had established that these gentlemen had humbugged a Committee of the House of Commons, and it was the bounden duty of the House to mark its disapproval of such conduct. He wished to press on the attention of the House what was stated by Mr. Balfour Browne, who opened the case last yea before the Committee for the promoters He said—

"Now I propose, with your permission, to tell you something about the Kingscourt, Keady, and Armagh Railway. I appear with my learned friends, Mr. Pollock, Mr. Bushe, avid Mr. Rowlands, for the promoters, and the Bill is for power to incorporate a company to construct a railway from Kings court, through Carrickmacross, through Castleblaney, and through Keady, to join the Great Northern Railway at Armagh, I believe the total length of the railway is about thirty-six miles. It has one very important feature that will be obvious to you on the cartoon—it connects the system of the Great Northern of Ireland with the system of the Midland Great Western of Ireland, the Great Northern lines on that cartoon being indicated by green, the Midland Great Western being indicated in blue. It will make a new route between the North of Ireland and Dublin, and that is one of the most important features of the scheme, and I believe that you will have tables of distances put before you that it will be a route taking Armagh as a common point, five miles shorter between Armagh and Dublin, than by the present existing Great Northern route via Newry and Dundalk. That of itself is a very important matter, and it is a matter which was entirely overlooked, I think, by the Committee which sat upon this Bill, and determined the pre amble was not proved last year."

Later on in his statement Mr. Bailout Browne said—

"A railway company has no vested right in its traffic. It is there providing a road for the public to use, and if the public wants two roads the public ought to have them unless there are some countervailing disadvantages which would make you respect it. Here, Sir, there is not a word to be said against our line from beginning to end except by the Great Northern Railway, There is not a landowner opposing. Every one of the local authorities—every one of the county councils—every body in the district, has petitioned or passed resolutions or is in support of our line, and there is no one here to say that this line should not be made except a company that is dividing 6¾ per cent.—I do not complain of that—but a rich company that wants to maintain its monopoly in the north-east of Ireland. Sir, I do not think that is a ground for rejecting a Bill. I hope it will not be made a ground in this case. Is it necessary that this line should be made?"

The hon. Member wished the House to understand that the necessity for this line was recognised so long ago as 1837, but matters progressed so slowly in Ireland, especially in industrial development, that here sixty-four years afterwards they were discussing whether the line was to be made at all. Mr. Balfour Browne referred to the fact that in 1837 a Royal Commission on Irish railways recommended that a railway running up from Navan to Armagh should be made, and the learned counsel continued—

"That is a long time ago, but ever since the people in this district have been urging the Great Northern or somebody to make a line; and in the year 1894 the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland promoted a line running over practically one route from Kingscourt, where they are just now to join the Great Northern at Armagh. The Midland Great Western thought it was necessary. I have an opportunity, from the circular they sent to their shareholders, of giving you the opinion of the directors of that railway company as to the utility of this line. What Happened? When that line was promoted the Great Northern, in order to maintain its monopoly, went and canvassed the shareholders of the rival railway company—of the Midland Company—canvassed them to vote against this line; and so many did vote against the line that the Midland Railway Company did not get the requisite majority—they got a majority, but they did not get the requisite majority, so they had to withdraw that line which they themselves said was necessary in the interests of the public."

He would not trouble the House with any further quotations from the speech of the counsel for the promoters. He should like, however, to quote a few words from the evidence of the promoters themselves. Mr. Worthington, who was the principal promoter of this railway, was examined by Mr. Balfour Browne as follows—

"It was said last year that it was your intention to sell the railway it Parliament gave you the power to construct it? There was not the slightest ground for such a statement. We had no intention whatever, and I believe it was said after we had called our evidence, when we had no opportunity of contradicting it, but you want to emphatically contradict it now?—Yes.

"Your object as one of the promoters is to have this railway made?—Yes.

"With your experience of Irish railways—I will not go over the evidence we have had—do you think, first of all, that the district requires a railway?—Clearly it does.

"Do you think also that a through rate from Armagh to Dublin will be an advantage to both those great centres?—Undoubtedly.

"Knowing Ireland well, do you think the district is so good as many others in which railways have been made?—It is a great deal better than many districts in which I have made railways.

"Besides that, will it develop traffic that does not exist at the present time?—It will no doubt."

[Cries of "Divide."] He had a great deal more evidence he should like to have the opportunity of reading, but in deference to the wish of the House he would not pursue that course. His apology for troubling the House with these quotations—it was rather curious to have to offer an apology—was that this was a matter that concerned his constituency and the constituency of his hon. friend the Member for Mid Armagh, which almost adjoined each other. They knew the interest the public took in having a competitive and alternative route. Up to the 9th of April the rates on the Great Northern Railway were excessively and prohibitively high, but from a paper he had received from his constituency it appeared that within the last ten days the company had taken a step of the most extraordinary character, which he thought gave an insight into their style of management. There was in the town of Newry an important grass-seed industry. A large warehouse was established there, where seed was prepared for the market. It was not thriving, but it was not quite defunct. He believed that the last regulation of the Great Northern Railway Company was quite likely to destroy it. The rate for grass-seed from Belfast to Dublin was 8s. per ton, and from Newry, which was little more than half the way—he thought the distance was 70 miles against 112—the rate was 9s. 2d. per ton. The rate for potatoes was now raised from 5s. to 7s. 6d.

said these matters were not relevant to the question before the House.

said he quite accepted the ruling. He concluded by reading a letter be bad received from a Member of the Committee that sat upstairs on the Bill supporting the views be bad put before the House.

said he understood that his hon. friend the Member for Newry opposed the Bill, though he thought his speech would more incline one to believe that the best way to get out of the tangle would be to send the Bill upstairs to a Committee. The right hon. and gallant Member had signed a whip in opposition to this Bill, because he was not impressed when he signed that whip that the Midland Railway were ready to plank down the money in order that this railway should be made. He was in favour of the railway being made at all hazards, because he thought it would be of advantage to a considerable part of Ireland. He should be very glad at the same time to see the competitive element brought into the railway scheme. But if the railway was not to be made, and the Midland Railway Company did not mean to plank down the money and defeat the object of the Great Northern, then he thought the best thing they could do was to send the Bill to a Committee upstairs. He ventured to say that next year, if the Committee found that either company had been acting unfairly and had no intention of carrying out a railway which would be beneficial to the country, the House would carry some scheme which would nave the effect of giving to that part of Ireland the railway accommodation it required. Personally he hoped that the result of the deliberations of the Committee would be that the railway, when made, would be made on the competitive principle.

I do not rise in order to express my opinion on the merits of the Bill, for that, indeed, is not the question before the House. The question is whether we shall or shall not this afternoon depart from the usual practice of sending such measures up to a Committee. That question has been very keenly argued. A somewhat strong case has been made out by the Member for Mid Armagh, who was reinforced by the Member for the Knutsford Division. On the face of it, and on the argument they put forward, it looks as if there has been a breach of faith on the part of the promoters, and that they secured the assent of the Committee to their scheme on promises which have since been broken. If that argument stood alone, and if we were able to accept that argument altogether, then I think a case would have been made out for taking the unusual course of rejecting the Bill on the Second Reading; but after listening to two or three speeches I should hesitate to pronounce definitely upon an intricate case of that kind, and should like to hear witnesses examined before I would dare to say that the promoters are not acting in good faith. It would be a serious matter if this House were to reject the Bill on the Second Reading after listening to two or three speeches without offering the promoters an opportunity of showing that they are acting in good faith. The only other argument to which I shall refer is this. A suggestion has been made that the Midland Company gave some encouragement to the promoters of the Bill of last year, and that they are not making good that encouragement. If this through line cannot be made without the assistance of the Midland Company, and the Midland Company have given no sufficient evidence of the fact that they intend to give that assistance—what a difficult question that is to resolve in this House! Surely that is a question on which we should need to hear evidence and assure ourselves whether the Midland Company do or do not mean to assist in making the through route. But when we have to decide upon the relative probability of each, and upon the value of one by comparison with another, then I must say for my part I could not come to a decision without the assistance usually given by a Committee upstairs.

said he took great interest in the railway affairs of Ireland. He remembered reading long ago that one of the most eminent railway experts said: "If the State does not govern the railways, the railways will soon govern the State." It appeared to him that they had arrived at that stage. They had the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Secretary to the, Admiralty, the ex Chief Secretary, and present President of the Board of Trade making the suggestion that what was determined by the House of Commons last session should be thrown altogether overboard, and that they should give the Great Northern Company an opportunity to so manipulate affairs that they would be able to gain the end they had in view. Where were they now? They had the Government and several interested Members on one side, and they had public utility and the Members representing the district on the other. He had some experience of what railway monopoly in Ireland meant. Practically the carrying companies claimed to detain stock as long as they liked, and to deliver it in what condition they chose. He gave the Chief Secretary credit for doing the best he could, but he had as much knowledge of this subject as any Member on the Ministerial Bench, fie was for nearly six monthson the Select Committee appointed to inquire into railway and canal rates and charges, and as the result of his experience he came to the conclusion that the object of railway managers and railway witnesses was to befog the Committee. The end of it was to make confusion worse confounded. There were in Ireland at present four or five railway companies, and they were absolutely kings and lords of the districts in which the lines ran. They had and exercised the power of assessing the residents through rates and charges, and of unduly favouring certain centres at the expense of other districts. Except on the great main arteries between Dublin and Belfast, the autocrats of the Great Northern treated the public in whatever way they thought proper. He trusted the Government would not actively interfere in this matter. If they sent this Bill to a Committee of the House, and if it came back recommended by the Committee, hon. Members would argue that they could not go against the recommendation of the Committee. The, scheme of last year was the proper one to adopt. The House was getting almost tired of railway Bills, and the railway managers ought to be a little more considerate in taking up the time of this House. A Grand Committee should take up this question, and lay down definite principles, in order to prevent the time of the House being wasted by private railway Bills of this character. The great element of an alternative way, which would make this railway useful as a competing route from Dublin with the Great Northern Railway, had been absolutely left out of this Bill. He believed that the common sense and the commercial instincts of hon. Members of this House would defeat this Bill. They should not allow it to be read a second time, because the element of public utility, which ought to be the basis of all legislation, was absent. He trusted therefore that the House would reject the Bill, as the entire management of the Irish railway system called for immediate and drastic changes.

said the chief question before the House was whether there had been a breach of faith with the Committee of the House. They had to ask themselves whether a reasonable prima facie case had been made out in favour of this Bill going to a Committee. They were now in a position to investigate the statements which had been made pro and con, and the question was whether it was not the duty of this House, after having heard conflicting statements, to send this Bill to a Committee of the House, which, presumably, would take evidence without bias, and would report to this House the result. It was more than clear that among five members of the Kingscourt Railway board there was some conflict of opinion, and if there was a difference of opinion between those five members, surely that was not a question which this House could arrange, and it was a matter that should be brought forward fairly and squarely before a Committee of the House. It had been suggested that there would be a breach of faith if this Bill was adopted, but one of the clauses in the Bill passed last year actually opened the door for this Bill. There were certain running powers in connection with the Midland Railway. Sub-section 7 of Clause 51 says—

"Provided that the running powers over the railway of the Midland Company granted by this section shall cease in the event of the undertaking being sold or of the railways being worked by the Great Northern Railway."

That was the very thing that was being done or contemplated by the Act which the House were now asked to send to the Committee. Surely if there were any means of interpreting plain language it was clear that, inferentially, such a scheme was contemplated. Evidence was taken upon that point, and the result was that this clause was added to the Bill. They had been told that this railway could not be made without a subsidy, and up to the present, so far as they knew, not one solitary farthing of capital had been planked down. They had had a great many hazy statements brought before them, and a great many had also been reported in the press. A Bill was now brought forward to make a railway through a paying part of the line where the manufacturing districts in Ireland required it. Tho representatives of every leading manufacture in the districts between Armagh and Keady were unanimous in favour of this Bill. [Cries of "No, no."] Yes they were, for he had gone into the matter with them. He thought this difference of opinion showed the necessity for having this Bill referred to a Committee. The argument in favour of referring this Bill to a Committee was irresistible. When the Midland Railway were approached by the other company they declined to carry out their verbal agreement, and now the line was being auctioned between two companies, and bandied about as in a game of battledore and shuttlecock. They would rather not have any Bill at all than not have the whole Bill. He thought it might be very fairly claimed that, under the circumstances, this Bill should be sent to a Committee where witnesses could be examined on oath. He earnestly asked the House to pass the Second Reading of this Bill, and let the measure go to a Committee in order to sift the evidence and find out what were the real wants and necessities of the district.

said that out of the thirty-six miles of railway dealt with by this Bill twenty miles passed through his constituency. He desired to point out to the House that there was not a public body in all Monaghan, from the county council downwards, which was not opposed to this Bill, and in favour of the Bill passed last year. The Bill before the House prevented Dublin having the benefit of any competition, and gave a monopoly to Belfast. He was very sorry that the Member for one of the divisions of Belfast, who was a member of the Government, had interfered in this matter. If this Bill was passed it would prevent for all time the establishment of a competitive line of railway with the Great Northern line, which was so much needed in Ireland. Was the House of Commons going to be a party to allowing two railway companies to divide Ireland between themselves, in order that those monopolies might extract all the money they could out of the unfortunate traders who were obliged to send their goods along those railways? In Ireland they were quite differently situated to England and Scotland, because in those countries the people were able to consume nearly all their own produce. In Ireland, however, most of the produce had to be sent to England and Scotland for consumption, and the Great Northern Railway Company were practically squeezing the life-blood out of the people of the constituency which he represented by charging such high rates. It cost them more at the present time to send one hundredweight of oats to Dublin than to Liverpool. By the line sanctioned last year the people living in the north-east portion of Ireland would be provided with a competitive line, by which they could send their goods to the capital of Ireland and to Belfast. If the Bill before the House was passed, who was going to fight it upstairs? If it was sent upstairs the whole energy of the Northern Railway Company would be used in favour of the Bill, and he hoped that it would be rejected at the present stage.

said that as a Member of the Committee which adopted the Bill of last year, he wished to place before the House his recollection of what took place before the Committee. They inquired very carefully into the needs of the district, and they found that for the general benefit of that district it was necessary that there should be a competing line. They came clearly to the conclusion that the rates charged by the Great Northern Railway were high, and that if it was allowed to have a monopoly it would be detrimental to that district. They were very careful to ascertain that it was the intention of the company not to sell it to the Great Northern Railway for a certain number of years. It was on the understanding that the line would not be sold to the Great Northern Railway that the preamble of the Bill was passed. If Parliament were now to go back upon the decision arrived at last year he believed that they would be doing great harm to the district concerned.

said he wished to corroborate most emphatically what had been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Taunton, and also what had been stated by other hon. Members, that if this Bill was passed there would never be any competitive route established at all. He entirely endorsed what had been said by his colleagues on the Committee in regard to this Bill.

I should like to say a word upon this question with reference to the attitude which the House is bound to assume towards its own Committee, and the carrying out of an honourable understanding and pledge given to that Committee. The Chief Secretary for Ireland has stated that there was a conflict of evidence as to the transactions which took place at the Committee, which ought to be examined by a fresh Committee. After hearing the evidence of hon. Members who have spoken, of the Chairman of the Committee, and also the letter from another member of the Committee, I venture to say that such a reason as that given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland falls to the ground. We have heard the evidence of four of the members of the Committee which passed the Bill of last year, to the effect that there was a distinct and honourable understanding given with reference to future action in respect of this railway, and if the House now allows a wealthy railway company to endeavour to upset the bargain made in the Committee upstairs it will strike a fatal blow at the carrying on of private Bill business in an honourable manner. I think the reasons given by hon. Members from Ireland with reference to the needs of the district and the necessity for a competitive line in that district have not been answered, and are unanswerable. But apart altogether from this, I say that this House ought to uphold the decisions and bargains entered into by its Committees, and I shall certainly vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.

said that there was no doubt whatever that the present Bill would destroy the arrangement made by the Bill of last year, but the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that there was serious danger that if the Bill before the House were not allowed to go to a Committee, not necessarily to be passed, the result would be that neither the scheme of the Bill nor the scheme of last year had any chance of being carried out. There was considerable evidence to show that there was an understanding on the part of the promoters, rightly or wrongly, last year, that they would be assisted in the construction of the railway by the Midland Company, and if there was any such understanding—he did not wish to express a definite opinion regarding it—the Midland Company had now withdrawn from it, with the consequence that there was no prospect of raising capital for the construction of the line. That brought a new chapter into the matter, and it appeared to him that the House would be well advised to allow the Bill to go to a Committee in the usual way. The Committee could examine as to whether there was anything which deserved the title of a breach of faith, and if there were, the course that would be adopted was clear enough. But if there was not a breach of faith, and it was thought desirable that the question should be considered afresh, then it would be possible for the Midland Company to come forward and make a definite offer as to what they were prepared to do. [Sir H. FOWLER: Who is to pay the costs?] There was something besides costs to be considered, and that was the public interest. Having listened most carefully and in an impartial spirit to the discussion, he did not think that it would be to the public interest that the House should decide the question itself.

said he would have preferred to give a silent vote on the question but for some of the observations made in the course of the debate. His hon. friend had stated that there had been certain corrupt influences at work to promote the Bill, but as far as he was concerned he wished it to be distinctly understood that he had not been approached by anyone in favour of the Bill. On the other hand, he had been very strongly urged to oppose the Bill. It had been stated that local opinion was opposed to the Bill, but he held in his hand a resolution passed by the county council of Louth in favour of it. With regard to the statement of his hon. friend the Member for Newry that Dundalk had been subsidised by the Great Northern Company, he wished to say publicly that he knew two of the gentlemen concerned, one of whom was a friend of thirty years standing, and that there were not two more honourable or upright men in Europe. He had

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will lay upon the Table a Return giving the total estimated cost of the South African War, and showing the way in which the cost has been, or is to be, met from additional taxation; from the application of realised surplus on ordinary expenditure and suspension of Sinking Fund; and by loan, Exchequer issues, or in other ways.

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Special Army Order, issued on 11th April, announcing that any officer or soldier who, when in the presence of the enemy, displays a white flag or other token of surrender, will be tried by general court-martial, is retrospective and applies to the cases of the surrenders at Nicholson's Nek, Reddersburg, Koorn Spruit, and Lindley: and whether he will now give the names of the irresponsible persons who raised the white flag at Lindley, or state his reasons for withholding their names.

I beg at the same time to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state to what regiment or command did the person belong who raised the white flag at Lindley; and, if it is alleged that he was one of any Irish company, will a court-martial or inquiry be ordered.

The order will not be retrospective, though in certain cases of surrender inquiries or courts-martial have been ordered. In reply to the second paragraph and to a similar question put by the hon. Member for North Louth, the persons responsible for raising the white flag at Lindley were Lieutenant Robins and Corporal Jacques, of the 47th Company Imperial Yeomanry, Duke of Cambridge's Own. Lieutenant Robins was severely wounded and could not attend the court of inquiry. Lord Roberts is making a further inquiry respecting his case. Corporal Jacques had been invalided and discharged before the inquiry was held.

Neither of these gentlemen, I am happy to say, is Irish.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman said whether the names of the persons responsible at Nicholson's Nek and Reddersburg would be given too.

No; Nicholson's Nek took place in November or October, 1899, and is too far back.

You do not know them, I suppose?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the ailment from which Lord Methuen was suffering which rendered it necessary for him to go to hospital, from which, according to the list of British casualties published on 11th April, he was discharged on 7th April: how long was Lord Methuen in hospital; by whom were the duties of his command discharged in his absence; when did the news of Lord Methuen's illness reach the War Office: and what explanation, if any, is there that the fact of his illness was not communicated to the public.

The only notification as to Lord Methuen's illness which has reached the War Office was the notice that he was discharged to duty on 7th April, and this was duly published. It has not been thought necessary to inform the War Office when generals in South Africa go on the sick list, unless the illness is serious.

How did the Government get the information that General De Wet was mad?

May I ask whether the Government will consider the desirability of allowing Lord Methuen to come home for a rest?

Lord Methuen has recently carried out a variety of operations to the entire satisfaction of Lord Kitchener and the Government.

What about Magersfontein?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any objection to state the exact terms of the verbal message received by General Louis Botha from Lord Kitchener, which is referred to in a published letter of General Botha dated 13th February 1901.

We do not know the terms if the verbal message alluded to; but we assume it was only a statement by Lord Kitchener that if General Botha desired to meet him he was ready to arrange a meeting.

I have to ask the House to allow me to make a personal explanation in reference to a statement which has appeared in the public press in regard to a reply I gave to the hon. Member for North-West Lanark. The hon. Member, speaking in Scotland, alluded to an answer I had made in the House of Commons to a question from himself, and in commenting upon it said my statement was false, and that it was a very serious matter for a Member of the House of Commons to find that a truthful answer was not given to a plain question by a Minister. The question put to me was† whether I would publish a particular report sent by General Colvile to the Commander-in-Chief respecting the battle of Paardeberg. I replied to that that reports were furnished by officers commanding divisions only to the senior officer present, and did not accompany his despatch to the Commander-in-Chief. I said in consequence General Colvile's despatch or report was sent to General Kelly-Kenny, who was in immediate command, and was not sent to Lord Roberts. Search had been made in Lord Roberts's papers and the report could not at the moment be traced. Since the hon. Member used the expressions in Scotland to which I have referred I asked Lord Roberts to make further search among his papers, and this morning the report was found in a box among a good many other papers of a similar kind, where they had been placed after an abstract of the recommendations in them had been made for the Commander-in-Chief's use. I need hardly say how much I regret to have been the channel of giving any inaccurate information to the House, but the House will realise that, amid so many hundreds and thousands of papers passing officially at a period of active service and removed on many occasions, it is not always possible to find a particular paper of that kind at the moment when it may he required. Although it is not the rule to lay papers of this description on the Table, I have not the slightest objection, as it is asked for, to lay this paper on the Table. But I ought to add, to avoid any misapprehension, that the report in question has reference to the battle of Paardeberg, and not in any way to incidents in the subsequent career of General Colvile which formed the subject of debate a few nights ago.

After the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made, perhaps the House will bear with me for a few minutes while I make a personal explanation. I think it is evident from the tone of the right hon. Gentleman in his remarks that he has somewhat misunderstood what I said. He seemed to have supposed that some observations of mine were a reflection on his private character. My observations

† See preceding volume, page 60.

were only intended to apply to the answers themselves and their substance. I exceedingly regret that, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that no such intention or thought was in my mind, and such an intention I wish to disclaim as publicly as I made the statement in question. But perhaps the House will consider with me that the state of, matters appeared somewhat anomalous and serious. A question was asked whether a despatch had been addressed to Lord Roberts or not, and it was said in reply it had not been so addressed. In the course of the debate on General Colvile's case I communicated to the right hon. Gentleman across the floor of the House that the despatch was in existence, that it had been addressed to Lord Roberts, and I offered the right hon. Gentleman a copy of it. Three days afterwards the hon. Member for the Stroud Division asked the right hon. Gentleman whether that was the case or not, and the statement was contradicted without any reference to what had passed during the debate. I thought this a matter of so much importance that, being questioned in my I constituency, I could not allow it to rest where it was. I exceedingly regret that I should have been betrayed into any statement that could be supposed to be a reflection on the personal honour of the right hon. Gentleman, and hope he null regard the explanation I have made as satisfactory as the statement he has made is to me.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed by the Buluwayo Chamber of Mines affirming the principle of the introduction of Chinese labour, but under Government restrictions with regard to the return of the labourers to China; and whether His Majesty's Government will exert its influence to prevent the introduction of Chinese cheap labour into any part of His Majesty's dominions.

I have seen a statement to this effect in the newspapers. I am not prepared to give any pledge, as Chinese labour is already employed in several of I His Majesty's colonies.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very heavy poll tax has been placed upon Chinese labourers in many of our colonies, and will the right hon. Gentleman countenance such a tax in Rhodesia?

No. I am not aware of that.

Is not a high sum demanded for every China man landed in New South Wales?

That does not arise out of the question.

I will give notice of the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mr. Andries Weasel, who is described as a peace envoy, and who was reported to have been shot at Klip fontein in January last by order of General De Wet, was an accredited agent from Lord Kitchener, or any other British general, to General De Wet, or any other Boer general; whether he is aware that it is now reported from Craddock that Mr. Wessel is alive; and can he inform the House what are the true facts; and whether, if the former report be false, any steps will be taken to trace its source, and to prevent similar false-hoods being telegraphed to this country.

I have no information of this matter beyond that Mr. Wessel was reported to have been shot. I will, however, make inquiries.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the military authorities in South Africa have decided to slaughter for food all captured cattle, and whether, if such action is or has been taken, consideration has been given to the importance of keeping a stock of acclimatised cattle in that country, and the cost and loss that would be entailed by restocking with cattle not acclimatised to the country.

The local authorities are alive to the importance of the question, and Government stock farms have been established.

But have the military authorities decided that the cattle should be slaughtered?

I anticipate that if they are required for food they are slaughtered. I cannot say more.

Will the noble Lord get the information by Monday?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether British soldiers, who are not commanding officers, and who are captured by the enemy, are permitted to give their parole or to take an oath not to take any further part in the war; and whether, if such parole is given or oath taken by a soldier, he is, on being liberated by the Boers, permitted by our military authorities to observe parole or oath.

According to custom of war, officers other than commanding officers are not permitted to give parole either for themselves or their men, and soldiers are not allowed to do so. A State has no power to force its subjects to act contrary to parole.

May I ask whether, if parole is given or oath taken by a soldier, he is, on being liberated by the Boers, permitted by our military authorities to observe his parole or oath.

If they are not allowed to give parole at all, no parole can be given.

When it is given, and they are liberated, are they forced to fight or not?

Certainly.

Does the same rule apply to the Boer army?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the civilian orderlies and other employees of the various field and stationary private hospitals who served in South Africa are to receive the war gratuity authorised by the Special Army Order, dated 8th December, 1900; and, if not, whether he will state the reason for making a distinction between these men and the orderlies of the Royal Army Medical Corps, who performed exactly similar work.

As I have previously explained to the House, the war gratuity is not applicable to civilians employed on specific terms during the war.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War on whose advice and on whose responsibility, having regard to the statement of Sir Alfred Milner that the last half-year of the South African War has been a period of retrogression, were troops sent home in September and October last.

I understand this statement of Sir Alfred Milner's to have been made on a review of the whole situation, which could not be foreseen in September and October last. The troops were sent home by Lord Roberts with the full concurrence of the Government.

Was the war then over?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the repeated requests for mounted troops for South Africa, whether he can explain why were the Household Brigade, a cavalry corps, sent home, and infantry volunteers kept at the front.

At the time when the Household Cavalry were sent home the want of mounted troops in South Africa was not felt—cavalry drafts had been suspended. Great difficulty was also experienced in finding remounts for such heavy men. Some infantry Volunteers were sent home at the time, but subsequent events postponed the return of the remainder or of any other troops.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain why the Imperial Yeomanry Order has been issued before the House of Commons has had the opportunity of considering the effect of the proposal upon the Volunteer Force and the possibility of getting recruits for the Yeomanry under the new conditions, and in what way commanding officers of Volunteer corps are to be compensated for having at the invitation of the War Office raised within the past few months, at great expense and trouble, companies of mounted infantry, and supplying them with uniform and accoutrements in consideration of a certain number of years service under them; and whether the Government have power compulsorily to transfer men who have joined particular regiments of the Volunteer force, and bound themselves to serve for four or five years, to another regiment and to another branch of the Army, serving under entirely different conditions.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Order relating to the Yeomanry published on Thursday forms part of the scheme formulated in the resolution of which he has given notice for a future day; and, if so, why he has proceeded to put in execution a policy which has not yet received the approval of the House.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that an Amendment to the motion of the Secretary of State for War (Army Organisation) to retain the Yeomanry as at present, and to increase the Mounted Infantry to 25,000, instead of the 35,000 Yeomanry as proposed, was put on the Notice Paper before the recess, and whether he will suspend the Army Order issued yesterday until the House has had the opportunity of discussing this question.

I will reply at the same time to the questions of the hon. Member for Dundee and of my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Taunton. It has been necessary to issue an Army Order affecting the Yeomanry because the training of the force for the year begins in May, and the Commander-in-Chief has strongly recommended that the training and equipment of the force should be altered. The change in the status of the Yeomanry undoubtedly forms part of the general army reform now in progress, but the resolution of which I have given notice deals merely with the establishment of the Yeomanry. The present establishment will not be raised until the resolution is passed by Parliament, but it would be impossible to allow the training of the Yeomanry to proceed or the recruits to be raised under the old system which has been definitely abandoned. The question of establishment and the points raised by the Member for Taunton are open to debate and decision, as they were before the issue of the Order, which cannot be suspended. In reference to the question of the Member for Central Sheffield, there is nothing in the Yeomanry Warrant which forces a transfer of Volunteer Mounted Infantry to Yeomanry, but the military authorities are not prepared to continue the isolated companies of mounted troops hitherto raised, and if commanding officers can prove a pecuniary loss to their corps, they will be safe guarded against this result. I may add that from all parts of the country, and from many Members of the House, I have received urgent appeals that, on the ground of expense as well as convenience, the new system of training and equipment of the Yeomanry should be at once made public.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state what is the salary of the new Commander-in-Chief Lord Roberts, and whether it is larger than the salary paid to Lord Wolseley, the late Commander-in-Chief; if so, can he say the reason of such increase?

The salary of the new Commander-in-Chief is £5,000. It is £500 more than that of the late Commander-in-Chief, as it was considered desirable to make provision for house allowance.

Had not the late Commander-in-Chief a house?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what Militia regiments, if any, will be embodied this year; and whether the regiments not so embodied will be called out for annual training.

I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject at present. We desire to avoid calling on the Militia as far as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of the Government to establish in Irish counties regiments of the Imperial Yeomanry.

No decision to this effect has been arrived at.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the omission of the title Imperial from that part of his resolution that relates to the Yeomanry was intentional or a printer's error; and whether he is aware that that omission has led many to believe that it was intended to reserve the title Imperial for those troops, whether raised at home or in any other part of the Empire, that will be available for Imperial purposes.

The omission was intentional. I am not aware that it had the effect referred to in the second part of the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state when the Annual Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting will be circulated.

It is hoped that it will be in the hands of Members on Tuesday.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the terms of the new contracts for the supply of meat to the Army will exclude foreign meat; and whether these conditions will apply to contracts for the supply of meat to the troops stationed in Ireland.

Foreign meat is excluded, and the conditions will apply to Ireland.

What precaution will be taken to prevent the evasion of the terms of the contract?

Every precaution possible.

May I ask whether the contractors who import foreign meat for other purposes will be permitted to tender for these contracts?

Certainly, so long as they fulfil the conditions of our tender.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether new regulation drab serge clothing and a head-dress for drill and manœuvre purposes for the Regular and Auxiliary forces have been sealed; and, if not, whether a decision may be arrived at at once, as there are several Volunteer corps which have to be reclothed before their annual camp this year, and which, unless the orders are placed in the hands of contractors at once, will be without uniform.

The patterns of the articles forming the proposed service dress of the regular forces are at present under consideration. These changes in pattern will not affect Volunteer corps, unless so desired by the corps.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state on what day the Return of Fleets will be circulated to Members.

I hope to-morrow.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will be prepared to consider the question of exempting from the export duty on coal contracts already entered into, in view of the fact that such duty, if persisted in, must necessarily fall on the exporter, and cannot be recovered in the price to be paid by the buyer abroad.

Yes, Sir. I am at present considering this matter with the members of the Board of Customs, and I hope to have the advantage of some communications on the subject this evening from the hon. Member and those who are associated with him.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Ex- chequer whether, having regard to the provisions of Section 20 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1900, the seller will, in cases in which sales of coal or sugar have been effected without express provision to the contrary, be at liberty to add to the contract price an amount equivalent to the duty to be imposed under the Budget resolutions.

The answer, generally speaking, appears to be in the affirmative, as regards any sugar not cleared prior to the incidence of the duty, though of Course it will depend in each case on the actual terms of the contract. The section would not apply to coal, but I propose to insert a clause in the Finance Bill which would have a similar effect.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that business at Cardiff is practically at a standstill owing to the uncertainty as to the incidence of the new coal duty, and if in view of the suffering that will follow a paralysis of the trade of the district and the consequent cessation of work at the mines, he will take immediate steps to make known to the shippers of coal and merchants at Cardiff the precise liability of buyers and sellers of coal for export under existing contracts and future sales.

I think the hon. Member is confusing two matters—the liability for the duty in the first instance, and the ultimate incidence of that duty. The payment in the first instance is clear, and the question of exemptions so far as existing contracts are concerned is a matter which, as I have explained, I have under consideration, and I hope shortly to make an announcement to the House. Meanwhile, so far as I can see, there is no reason why the duty should not be paid in Cardiff as elsewhere.

The confusion, if any, has not arisen in my mind, but in that of the merchants of Cardiff.

I bear to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office caused to be published in the newspapers on 8th April an announcement that all claims of British subjects against the Chinese Government must be notified to His Majesty's Minister at Peking by 1st May; and, if so, whether he will inform the House by what route letters posted in England on 9th April could reach Peking by 1st May.

Yes, but it was stated in a previous notice issued in March that claims should be forwarded to the Foreign Office, when necessary. Such claims have been, and will be, transmitted to His Majesty's Minister by telegraph.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what flag flies over the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs House at Niu-chwang; by whom the customs receipts are collected, and what is their destination.

The Russian flag was hoisted over the Maritime Customs buildings on 4th August, when the Russian force occupied the town. The work is being carried on by the Chinese Customs staff, and the receipts are being collected by them under Russian supervision, and are held in trust by the Russian authorities subject to a future settlement.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state when he will lay upon the Table further Papers on China, and whether he will include in the next Papers presented those concerned with the Manchurian Convention down to the date of the refusal of China to sign the Convention, and those concerned with the recent dispute between the Russians and English at Tientsin.

Papers containing the correspondence down to the end of December are nearly ready, and will be presented very shortly. Further Papers will be presented in due course, but I am unable to give any pledge at present as to the subjects which will be included.

Why does the Government only include correspondence down to the end of December in the next batch of Chinese Papers?

I think the hon. Member will recognise that the preparation of these Blue-books requires a very great deal of care, and the Foreign Office has had such a tremendous amount of work lately that it really has not been able to get through it in sufficient time. But I quite feel that Papers ought to be presented soon, and I will do my best.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Return relating to the export of coal from each port in the United Kingdom to various foreign countries, and ordered to be printed on 2nd April, will be issued to Members.

I am informed by His Majesty's Stationery Office that the Return will be issued next Tuesday.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is proposed to permit school boards to spend school board rates upon maintaining schools recognised under the higher elementary minute which forms part of the Education Code for 1901.

The Board of Education are advised that higher elementary schools may be established and maintained by school boards out of the school fund. But if this right were disputed, the question would have to be decided, not by the Board of Education, but in the first instance by the Local Government Board auditor, and ultimately by the courts of law.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction has been approached by the County Live Stock Committee of the County Westmeath for leave to grant premiums for this year for thoroughbred bulls three and four years old exhibited at the County Westmeath or other shows, on the grounds that it will be impossible to obtain the necessary number of younger bulls owing to restrictions on importation! consequent on the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in England, and seeing that otherwise small farmers will be obliged to breed from indifferently bred bulls, and that half of the grant for premiums is contributed by the ratepayers, can he state whether the Department is entitled to ignore the views of their committee, and will he take steps to give effect to them.

Cattle-breeding schemes approved by the Department must be voluntarily accepted by a county council before any charge can fall on the rates, hence there is no danger of local views being ignored. As the main object of the scheme is to promote the introduction of young bulls, preferably yearlings, the Department was not able to consent to the exception proposed by the Westmeath Committee. I am inquiring whether the difficulties due to restriction on importations from England were fully considered before the decision was arrived at.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in many Irish parliamentary divisions hundreds of qualified voters have been annually disfranchised through the neglect of agents, landlords, or others failing to fill in and return the requisition forms; whether he can explain why no prosecutions were instituted against such offenders in accordance with the provisions of The Representation of the People Act, 1884; and whether he will, in future, take measures to have the law on this point carried into effect in Ireland.

The duty of prosecuting is imposed by statute on the local authorities, and without communicating with these authorities the Local Government Board is not aware that it is the case, as alleged, that no prosecutions have been instituted against persons who have failed to comply with the provisions of the Act of 1884.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the German State Railways have realised a profit of £23,200,000 last year, and that this sum was utilised by the Government for revenue purposes; and whether he will appoint a commission to inquire into and report upon Irish railways with a view to their acquisition by the Stale and the reduction of taxation in Ireland.

I have no information on the first paragraph. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has considered the advisability of providing day industrial schools in Ireland; and, if so, whether he can state what steps he proposes to take.

Legislation would be necessary for the purpose; and I am unable to give any undertaking on the subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman further consider this question?

I will consider any matter brought before me, but I cannot promise to introduce legislation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 17th inst. the Inspector of Constabulary for Limerick county came over from Ireland to Great Britain in company with several sergeants and constables of that force in connection with some manœuvres or drill practice; whether he will say where those manœuvres are being held, and whether they are of a military character; and who will be obliged to defray the expenses thus incurred.

Yes, Sir; these officers proceeded to England to undergo instruction in musketry at Hythe. The same course has been adopted in previous years. The expenses will be defrayed from the Constabulary Vote.

Will the Government send these men and their rifles to South Africa?

With what object do the constables undergo this training?

To perfect their markmanship.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, seeing that it has been the practice to introduce a Land Tax Commissioners Names Bill in the course of each Parliament, and that (except in the case of the last Parliament) it has been the practice to introduce the Bill during the first session of Parliament, whether a Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill will be introduced during the present session.

I understand the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that it has been the practice to pass this Bill in the first session of a new Parliament, and I am told that it is not necessary.

To introduce it?

I see no object in introducing the Bill if it is not to pass.

A great deal of interest is taken in this question, and I have received several communications on it within the last few days.

No evidence has come before me showing that there is great interest.