To ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the Deer Forest Commissioners state at page 10 of their Report, dated 19th March 1895, that any scheme that would result in affording cottars the opportunity of obtaining crofts would operate a substantial relief both to the cottars themselves and to the neighbouring crofters, will he say whether the proprietor of the Island of Lewis has recently been approached with a view to the acquisition of land requisite for putting into effect in the island a scheme such as that suggested; and, if not, will he state when the proprietor was last communicated with on the subject, the nature of the proposal made to him, and the reply thereto. (Answer.) I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that they have been in communication with Major Matheson on the subject of crofts for cottars, but at present he has none to give them. In the meantime, at Major Matheson's request, the Congested Districts Board have re-opened the question of feuing land near Stornoway for fishermen's dwellings.—(Scottish Office).

To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state when the work of erecting a beacon on Tannasgeir Loch, Carloway, Island of Lewis, will be finished. (Answer.) I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that the erection of this beacon is not an easy job, as it is difficult to land cither men or material on the rocks, which are only dry at certain states of the tide, and that the Government engineer cannot give any assurance as to when it will be possible to finish the work.—(Scottish Office.)

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of an accident which occurred to a railway guard at Parkhead, on the North British Railway, on the 3rd December last, who sustained injuries through falling from Coach Road railway bridge into the roadway below, he will ascertain whether the railway company have yet erected efficient railings on each side of the bridge, so as to prevent the recurrence of similar accidents. (Answer.) I am informed by the railway company that instructions were given to their engineer on the 25th of April to provide the necessary railings on the bridge in question.—(Board of Trade.)

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the officials in attendance at the quarantine office at Port Saidare unacquainted with either English, French, German, or Italian: And, in view of the fact that the majority of passengers passing through Port Said are British subjects, will arrangements be made for the regular attendance of an English-speaking official. (Answer.) There are at Port Said at present four doctors, of whom one is a lady. All of them speak French and Italian, and one speaks English. The rest of the staff are seven in number; one is English, and five speak French and Italian; one of these also speaks English.—(Foreign Office.)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the conditions of application for appointment required from candidates for the West Riding of Yorkshire Constabulary: Whether he is aware that it is stated therein that an applicant is to serve and reside in whatever part of the Riding he may be stationed, suitable houses being provided at low rents for married men where rents are high: And, seeing that, in parts, houses are not provided for married constables where rents are high, and that dissatisfaction exists amongst the constabulary in this regard, whether he will call the attention of the Standing Joint Committee and the Chief Constable to the matter, with a view to the fulfilment of the inducements held out to constables. (Answer.) The conditions, of which I have seen a copy, state that constables are to serve and reside in whatever part of the Riding they are sent, suitable houses being liberally provided at low rents for married men where rents are high. The authorised strength of the force is 1,232; of these 190 are unmarried and live in lodgings; for the remainder 510 houses are provided, accommodating about 50 per cent. of the number. I am informed that where rents are high applications for houses are almost invariably granted by the Standing Joint Committee if the sanitary and other conditions are found to be satisfactory, but that in many cases, when sergeants or constables have large families, they prefer to reside in localities where suitable employment can be obtained for their children, even if they have to pay their own rents, rather than in houses rented for them elsewhere. Under these circumstances I do not think that any interference on my part is called for.—(Home Office.)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state when the Fruit Preserving Order will come into operative force in the various places where the trade is carried on. (Answer.) Under The Rules Publication Act, 1893, the Order in question has to be published in draft for forty days. That period expires on the 14th instant, and if no questions arise rendering necessary any considerable modification of the Order I shallmake it at once, and direct that it shall come into operation on or about the 23rd instant. The Order has to be laid before Parliament for forty days, but it will be in force from the date fixed unless and until annulled by Parliament.—(Home Office.)

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state to what extent the Supply and Transport service of the Indian Army in the commissioned ranks is short of its proper establishment, and give the total number of commissioned officers sanctioned for that establishment, the number on leave, and the actual number on duty; what number of Officers have volunteered for the Supply and Transport Service during the past twelve months; and, should volunteers not come forward in sufficient numbers, how he proposes to fill the vacancies, and in the meantime how the work of the Department is carried on. (Answer.) A large increase of the establishment of the Supply and Transport Corps has lately been sanctioned, and important measures have been sanctioned for increasing the popularity of the service; but there has not been time for this to take effect fully; and the number of commissioned officers is at present about 25 per cent. below its established strength, as lately increased. Meanwhile regimental officers are temporarily employed in the corps. I am unable to answer the other portions of the hon. Member's Question.—(India Office.)

To ask the hon. Member for the Ton bridge Division of Kent, as a Charity Commissioner, if he will state, with respect to the Cornwallis's Charity for the parish of Llansadwrn, Carmarthenshire, whether the old trustees are to be re-appointed, whether the new scheme is to have the sanction of the Parish Council of Llansadwrn, and whether the bequests under this charity will be devoted to the objects intended by the donor. (Answer.) The proposals of the Commissioners with regard to the provisions of the scheme are still the subject of communication and consideration between the Commissioners on the one hand and the Patron and Trustees on the other, and, under these circumstances, no definite announcement as to the details of those proposals can usefully or properly be made at present. But the scheme will be duly published, in order that before it is established objections or suggestions may be made respecting its provisions by all persons and bodies interested. And, when it is published, a copy will be sent to the Parish Council of Llansadwrn, and any observations they may make upon it will be carefully considered by the Commissioners before the scheme is finally settled.—(Charity Commission.)

To ask the hon. Member for the Tonbridge Division of Kent, as a Charity Commissioner, if he will state with respect to the Cornwallis's Charity for the parish of Llansadwrn, Carmarthenshire, how much capital and how much accumulated income there were found to be in existence by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Mr. Marchant Williams, after his recent investigation, and the objects for which they were to be used; and, further, will he say if there were reported to be any deficiencies, and, if so, to what extent; and whether he has received any further official information as to the amounts. (Answer.) The Commissioners do not think they can at the present stage of the proceedings in this case do more in reply to this question than to refer to pages 287 and 288 of the Report of the Assistant Commissioner. (Charity Commission.)

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state when the Return of Merchant Ships as Armed Cruisers will be presented which was ordered by the House on the 1st May. (Answer.) The Return is in the hands of the printers, and will be presented at an early date. If the hon. Member desires to have (at once) any of the information called for in the Return, I shall be happy to furnish him with it. (Admiralty.)

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the Channel Squadron is occasionally at sea for a week at a time, and the men on board are liable to accidents, he will place the Roman Catholic sailors on equality with their Protestant comrades by attaching a Roman Catholic chaplain to this squadron. (Answer.) It is not proposed to make any change in the existing arrangements with regard to the embarkation of chaplains on His Majesty's ships, and I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 28th May.† (Admiralty.)

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that bluejackets have been employed in discharging live stock from vessels belonging to firms in Gibraltar whose workmen are at present locked out; and what action he proposes to take in the matter. (Answer.) Nothing is known by the Admiralty of the circumstances referred to in the hon. Member's question.—(Admiralty.)

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the attention of his department has been drawn to the practice of beagling as carried on by the cadets of H.M.S. "Britannia"; and whether, in future, the grant; of money out of which this sport is maintained will be made conditional upon the practice being discontinued and the drag hunt substituted. (Answer.) The suggestion made by the hon. Member to the effect that the pack of beagles which is kept for the recreation of cadets on board H.M.S. "Britannia" should be discontinued has already been brought before the Board of Admiralty, but no sufficient reason is seen for suppressing the pack, and the answer to the hon. Member's Question is, therefore, in the negative.—(Admiralty.)

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to a memorial from the inhabitants of Rathcormac praying for a day delivery of letters to their village, distant some three miles from Fermoy; and, considering that a second delivery is already enjoyed by four villages situated respectively three, four, five, and ten miles from Fermoy, and having regard to the amount of the cost involved by a day delivery to Rathcormac, and that it is not a fixed rule of the Post Office that every portion of the system should be remunerative at first, whether he will take such memorial into favourable consideration. (Answer.) As stated in a letter sent to the hon. Member by the Post Office on the 12th of last month, the question of establishing a second post to Rathcormac has been recently considered, but it was found that the cost of the existing service is so high in proportion to the amount of correspondence that the expense of affording a second post would not be warranted. The Postmaster General regrets that he is unable to depart from the decision already communicated to the hon. Member.—(Post Office.)

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the postal arrangements throughout Connemara, in consequence of which letters in many places are not delivered until eleven or twelve o'clock on week days, and on Sundays not at all; and whether he will consider the desirability of utilising the railway for the carriage of the mails instead of by car from Galway. (Answer.) The question of substituting a service by train for the existing mail car service between Galway and Clifden was considered some time ago, but it was thought that the cost could not be justified. The Postmaster General will have the matter looked into again, with the view of ascertaining whether it is now possible to make any change in the present arrangements, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as possible.—(Post Office.)

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes to take any action, by legislation, by general Order, or otherwise, to bring about the separation in workhouses of the epileptics of both sexes, who for the greater part of the time are sane and well behaved, from the hopeless and permanent imbeciles. (Answer.) Section 24 of The Lunacy Act, 1890, requires that a person shall not be allowed to remain in a workhouse as a lunatic unless the medical officer certifies that the accommodation in the workhouse is sufficient for his proper care and treatment separate from the inmates of the workhouse who are not lunatics, except where his condition is such that it is not necessary for his convenience or that of the other inmates that he should be kept separate. It follows that any sane epileptic is required to he kept separate from the imbeciles unless the condition of the latter is such that their separation from other inmates is not necessary. It does not, at present, appear to me that fresh legislation on this subject is requisite. If it should be shown that further regulations are needed I should be ready to consider the matter.—(Local Government Board.)

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will state what is the population of the Mountmellick police district, the number of townlands to be patrolled, and the number of police barracks and men of all grades allocated to the district. (Answer.) The population is 4,155. The number of townlands patrolled is thirty-six, having an area of about twenty-six square miles. There is one police barrack in the sub-district, with a force of eight men.—(Irish Office.)

To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the dock labourers of Gibraltar have been locked out by the Employers' Federation; and that men of the garrison regiment have on several occasions been used to discharge cargo from ships owned by the president and other prominent members of the Employers' Federation; and whether he will require that, in future, soldiers shall not be engaged in work of this kind. (Answer.) No information on this matter has reached the War Office.—(War Office.)

To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has any official information showing why Messrs. Saunderson, Brothers, Sheffield, Contractors for the War Office, have demanded a reduction of 25 per cent. in the wages paid to workmen engaged on Government contracts; and whether there has recently been a reduction in the price paid them for the making of bayonets. (Answer.) I am not aware that this firm have demanded a reduction of wages. The price paid for sword bayonets has recently been reduced.—(War Office.)

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed last year to deal with questions affecting Army Schoolmasters have yet made their Report; and have arrangements now been made to provide an adequate supply of teachers in Army schools. (Answer.) The Committee has reported, and arrangements are in progress for the provision of an adequate supply of teachers in Army schools.—(War Office.)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in connection with the lock-out of dock workers at Gibraltar, Moors are being imported by the employers, under contracts endorsed by Sir George White the Governor to take the place of the locked-out labourers; and whether he will advise that the endorsement of such contracts be in future withheld. (Answer.) I sent a despatch to the Governor on the 27th ultimo asking for information as to the introduction of Moorish labourers into Gibraltar, and expect to receive a reply shortly.—(Colonial Office.)

To ask the President of the Local Government Board, in view of this recent Order in relation to levying a Coronation Rate, what power, if any, exists for the enforcement of such a rate. (Answer.) The effect of the Order referred to will only be to prevent the disallowance by a district auditor of certain reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the celebration of the Coronation by any local authority to whom the Order applies. As was stated in the circular accompanying the Order, it will not legalise any expenses in this matter. I have no authority to determine questions as to any rate which includes a sum to meet expenditure of this kind. The mode of raising objection to any rate is by appeal to quarter sessions.—(Local Government Board.)

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is aware that of the deaths which occurred in the Highland Crofting counties last year no less than 1,479 were uncertified; and, will he consider the expediency of introducing legislation on the subject. (Answer.) The Government are aware of the facts mentioned in the question, but no pledge can be given at the present time to introduce the necessary legislation.—(Treasury.)

Sir, in conformity with His Majesty's gracious Message, I now rise to propose to the Committee of the House the grant of a sum of money to the distinguished General to whose skill have been entrusted the safety and honour of the Empire during the last two years and more in South Africa It is given to few great public servants, in so short a time to compass so much work for their country as it has been given to Lord Kitchener to do. It is six years since he was a colonel in the British Army. He has now the highest military rank under that of Field-Marshal; he has been made Baron, Viscount. After what I hope will be done by the House this afternoon, he will twice have been voted sums of money out of the public exchequer for his services. He is the Commander-in-Chief designate of our Indian Empire. These are great rewards, and yet I do not think anybody who looks back at Lord Kitchener's career will say that he is overpaid for the services which he has rendered to us. I do not propose to go in detail over even that part of Lord Kitchener's military career which he spent in South Africa. It will be in the recollection of all that he went there first as the Chief of the Staff of Lord Roberts at a time when the duties of the Chief of the Staff', always onerous and always responsible, were especially onerous and especially responsible in consequence of the disorganisation, or, perhaps I should say, the dislocation, of Her Majesty's forces, consequent upon the ill-success which had attended our arms in the earlier phases of the campaign. That difficult and responsible duty Lord Kitchener executed with admirable energy and with admirable skill; but it was not, I suppose, until the third period of the war, after Lord Roberts had left South Africa, that the special claims of Lord Kitchener to the gratitude of his countrymen reached their present magnitude. Lord: Roberts, in the second phase of the war, had carried out a most brilliant strategical and tactical movement, by which the enemy, regarded as an organised single tactical unit, had been practically shattered. Had we been fighting a highly-organised industrial community, such as a European community, there is no doubt that with Lord Roberts's success the war would have come to an end. This is not the time to discuss whether the Boer leaders on whom the responsibility falls for the continuance of the war were right or wrong. Everybody, at all events, even those who think they were wrong, and I am among them, would at once admit that a man who was fighting for his country must, even if you differed from him, be judged by the most lenient canons. The difficulties thrown upon Lord Roberts's successor were of a novel and a most formidable character. When I say they were novel, I, of course, do not mean that guerilla warfare has not been a well-known incident in the military history of many nations. On the contrary, some of the greatest military Powers have felt their resources strained to the utmost in times past in dealing with such difficulties as we have been happy enough to surmount. Some great nations have succumbed in the attempt to deal with those difficulties. The character of those difficulties will be understood at once when I remind the House that Lord Kitchener had to deal at the same time with no less than ninety small mobile columns scattered over an area greater than that of large European States, and these columns were themselves not hampered by the military necessities of defending great commercial or national interests. Their one object—from their point of view a most legitimate object—was to harass the enemy; but they were not limited in their movements by the necessities which necessarily attach to forces engaged in very distant theatres of operations. There is one further difference which greatly added to Lord Kitchener's difficulties, and which, so far as I know, is absolutely new in the history even of guerilla warfare, and that is that we were, while fighting our enemies, supporting their whole civil population. I think it would be out of place to attempt any detailed account of the methods by which Lord Kitchener attempted to deal with these novel and in some respects unique difficulties. But it may interest the House to be reminded that in the course of his operations against this mobile foe he created no less than 4,000 miles of lines defended by blockhouses—a distance greater than the whole distance which separates the Atlantic from the Pacific in North America, a distance greater than that which separates Khartoum from Cape Town in South Africa. This gigantic task shows a fertile brain. The success with which this was carried out shows boundless courage, boundless energy, and boundless resource; and it is to those great qualities that we owe the fortunate termination of the war in South Africa. From the nature of the case, it must happen that when great military operations of this character are carried on, there is no room for great dramatic incidents, great battles in which opposite forces are marshalled one against the other, and in which the issue of a day decides the issue of the campaign. There were gallant feats of arms, gallant feats on both sides, feats creditable to both the parties engaged. But there were not, and there could not be, any incidents such as those which marked the advance of Lord Roberts, for example, to Pretoria, and, even on a greater scale, European campaigns in which we and other nations have been engaged. Yet I am not sure that, in spite of this deficiency in the dramatic element of warfare, the task which Lord Kitchener had thrust upon him was not, perhaps, as difficult as any which has been carried out under more dramatic circumstances. Certainly the strain could not have been less. Certainly the constant demand made upon his vigilance, upon his military eye, surveying the huge theatre of warfare, cannot have been less. Those qualities have been called into requisition by the circumstances in which Lord Kitchener found himself as much as they have ever been called into requisition in any campaign of which we have a record. Sir, I think, therefore, that the House will not for one instant grudge this new and further mark of our sense of the services which he has done the Empire. In the brilliant roll of English Generals, few indeed have had greater difficulties to contend with, few have come out of those difficulties in a more absolutely triumphant manner. It is, therefore, with the utmost confidence that I now move the Resolution standing on the Paper in my name.

I rise for the purpose of supporting briefly, but most cordially, this recognition of the great services rendered by Lord Kitchener. I do not propose to enlarge upon the distinguished career of Lord Kitchener. From the early days of patient work in the exploration of Palestine, and of the duties, irksome at times, which he undertook on the Red Sea littoral, in the execution of which he displayed a singular aptitude for winning the confidence of men of other races than his own, and of conciliating them, through those laborious years of service in Egypt, culminating in the brilliant Soudan campaign, down to the day when, as Chief of the Staff, he set his foot in South Africa—those passages in his history are a prelude to the past events which now are in the minds of us all. Mr. Speaker, Lord Kitchener went to South Africa with the confidence of his fellow-countrymen. He has earned their admiration and their gratitude. With our partial and imperfect knowledge of the details of military operations, and with our ignorance—our necessary ignorance—of the intimate distribution of duties among those who conducted those operations, it is impossible for us at this moment to disentangle the course of events and to apportion to each of those who were engaged his proper share of credit. But we see enough to be aware of the supreme part that was played by that silent, modest, simple, almost stern figure of the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa. And, therefore, this vote does not convey merely, though it does so convey, a conventional compliment to the military staff' in South Africa through its head. It also, in an unusual degree, means an appreciation of his individual character and service. Lord Kitchener has shown himself a great soldier, but he has shown himself to be more than that—he has shown himself to be a great administrator, a master of the art of organisation, a tactful negotiator, and a largo-minded man. He is of the very best type of character which, with our pardonable partiality, we attribute to the British name. He is strenuous and pertinacious. He is straight and direct in his action, and he thinks of his duty and never thinks of himself. Then, can we hesitate at this moment, when his efforts, both as soldier and negotiator, have been crowned with success, when, as we hope, a stable and secure peace has been wrought out of the jarring elements of war—how can we hesitate to do honour to Lord Kitchener?

on rising to oppose this Vote said that, in his humble judgment, the Irish Party had reason, now that peace had been concluded, to congratulate themselves on the attitude they had maintained throughout the course of this unhappy war. At a time when the Press of this country, including the greatest organs of the Metropolis, were clamouring that the leaders of the Boer armies should be proclaimed as outlaws and shot down or hanged without mercy when captured, the Irish Members had the courage, even in this Assembly, at a time when the view certainly was not popular, and even at the risk of some injury to the cause of their own people, to do justice to the honour and bravery of the men whom even the British nation was now anxious to honour. He confessed it was with a feeling of amusement and gratification that he read the somewhat hysterical proposals which appeared this morning in the columns of one of the leading Jingo journals of London, that a British subscription should be opened to present a sword of honour to General De Wet. He considered that such proposals as that, which showed the great change that had come over British sentiment, were, in one respect at least, a triumphant vindication of the attitude of the Irish Party. With regard to the present grant, he wished at the very outset of the observations he felt it his duty to make, to make one concession, or, at least, one statement that would surprise hon. Members opposite. If he could look at this matter from the point of view of an Englishman who considered the war necessary and just, he would certainly think that Lord Kitchener was somewhat scurvily treated. He opposed this grant on the ground of the methods by which Lord Kitchener had carried on his work, and also on the ground of the small character of the war. Although it had been said that in matters of this kind it was not wise to make comparisons, it was impossible to avoid instituting comparisons, because there must be some rule on which these grants were estimated, and in considering the question of the amount proposed to be given to Lord Kitchener, Members were driven to compare it with the grant to the Commander-in-Chief on the alleged termination of the war. If he were an Englishman, believing in the war as a just and necessary one, he would be inclined to give Lord Kitchener, at least, double what was given to Lord Roberts. After all, when the services of the men were compared, it was Lord Kitchener who had brought about peace, and there was the testimony of Lord Milner himself that for some months before Lord Roberts left South Africa the war was going from bad to worse. There was not the smallest doubt that the prolongation of the war was largely due to the proclamations and the misconduct of the war by Lord Roberts. The Boers had fough, as no othe nation ever fought, for their liberty, for which they were prepared to sacrifice everything. Although there were articles in the terms of peace which he confessed gave to him as a friend of the Boer nation great gratification and satisfaction, and although he believed that if those terms had been offered eighteen months ago when Lord Kitchener thought he had made peace with Louis Botha and was not allowed to offer the terms which had now been given to the Boers after eighteen months of disastrous and cruel war; he confessed that he saw nothing magnanimous in them, inasmuch as they deprived a brave people of that which to every brave nation was the most sacred of their possessions, namely, their liberty and independence, to which these people, true to their race, had proved during the last two and a half years of glorious war that they were as faithful to as were their ancestors who defended their homes in Holland against the armies of Philip. The Irish Members opposed this grant to Lord Kitchener on three separate grounds. First of all, because they were now, as they had been throughout, in opposition to the whole war upon its merits. Every reasonable man would recognise that Lord Kitchener was not responsible for the war, and if Lord Kitchener had been in the position of Lord Milner they would never have had a war at all. The soldiers under him were only doing their duty in the field and obeying orders. They opposed this Vote in the second place on the ground of the conduct of the campaign. They opposed it, because they deplored the wholesale devastation of the country, the burning of the homes of the inhabitants and the bringing of the women and children into the concentration camps. They held that those proceedings were against the laws of war. He had maintained before that the wholesale devastations of the Transvaal and the Orange Territory was against the laws of war. The provisions agreed to by the representatives of the European representatives for the conduct of war were as follows—

"Any compulsion of the population of occupied territory to take part in military operations against its own country is prohibited."

That was violated.

"Family honours and rights, individual lives and private property, as well as religious convictions and liberty, must be respected."

This was violated.

"Private property cannot be confiscated."

"Pillage is formally prohibited."

Both were violated. It was specially prohibited—

"To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war."

He held that it was beyond all question that in the last article, the words, "imperatively demanded by the necessities of war "meant the immediate necessities of a battle or engagement, and could not by any strain of interpretation be distorted into meaning the devastation of an entire country. All those four or five important articles which had only been recently adopted, defining what had been recognised as the usages of civilised warfare, had each and everyone been broken by Lord Kitchener in the conduct of this campaign, and, without going into any further detail, on that ground alone they were opposed to the Vote. Though he was advocating a very unpopular cause, he put it to hon. Members to reflect how far-reaching was the example of a great nation like England, which claimed to hold so prominent a position in all matters of civilisation and humanisation, breaking through the usages of civilised warfare in order to crush out of existence so small and brave a race as the Boers. He wished for a moment to examine the policy of Lord Kitchener, or the policy for which he had accepted the full responsibility. Was there an hon. Member of the Committee who now believed in his heart that the devastation of the Transvaal and the Orange Liver Colony was a step which conduced to the termination of the war? He believed that all military men were convinced that it was an enormous blunder. ["No, no!"] He was speaking now of the judgment of others, for on military matters his own judgment was not worthy of much consideration. [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear! "] He was speaking of the opinions he had gathered from military correspondents and others which had been published, who had declared that the war had been prolonged by the devastation of those two States, and the burning of the Boer farms. That he believed to be the opinion of every man in South Africa. The termination of the war had been hastened, although at enormous cost, by the blockhouse system, but the system was adopted after the devastation. His strong conviction was that this policy was not only to be condemned on the ground of its being a gross and most shocking violation of the usages of civilised warfare recognised by civilised countries in the last century, but also because it was a blunder and did not in any degree promote the object for which it was adopted. Could any man doubt its effect upon the future government of the country? Those who were conducting this war had stated all along what appeared to be a self-evident fact from the first, that in the long run if this nation persevered with the war they must come out on top by the process of wearing down a not very numerous enemy. The government ought to have kept their eyes fixed upon the problem of reconstruction of South Africa from the Zambesi to the Cape on lines which would in the future have been a source of strength to this Empire. He wished to say a word or two about the concentration camps. That was the policy of Lord Kitchener, and they had been told that he had accepted full responsibility for that policy. That policy was a gross violation of the usages of war. [Cries of "No, no!"] What had been the results of that policy in the gross? Many hon. Members would recollect the elaborate statistics by which it was sought to prove to the House of Commons that a death rate of 300 per thousand per annum was about the normal death rate amongst the Boers. [Cries of "Question, question!"] That was the question, and it was on that ground that he was endeavouring to justify his opposition to this vote. It was stated in the last published returns that the death statistics in the camps had been reduced from 300 per thousand to 32 per thousand. They could never get over that fact which was a black record against the generals responsible and he was now endeavouring to fix the responsibility upon the Commander-in-Chief. He wished to take that opportunity of repudiating the charge made against himself and his comrades that they sought to fix charges of brutality on the individual officers and soldiers for they had never done so. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He had always endeavoured to fix the full weight of responsibility upon the man who was well able to bear it, namely, Lord Kitchener. In those camps since the 1st January, 1901, there had been 15,098 deaths amongst children under twelve years of age. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "It's murder!"] During the operation of those camps upwards of 10,000 children had been sent to their death, who, had they been left in their homes, would have been alive today. [Cries of "No, no!"] That was a black record against the conduct of this campaign which no amount of sophistry would ever explain away. He had now mentioned the three grounds on which they opposed this vote. It was impossible to consider the question of a grant to Lord Kitchener, the general charged with the responsibility of conducting this war, without having some regard to the character and the magnitude of the war and the victory in respect of which the money was asked for. He had made a rather interesting calculation in this respect, and he had ascertained that every Boer who by this victory had been added as an unwilling subject to this Empire had cost them £1,000 per head for every man, woman and child, and although there did not live a greater admirer of the Boer race than himself nor a man who valued the Boer race more highly he thought £1,000 per head was rather a high fine to pay for them. There had been great exaggerations about this war which had been spoken of as if it were a war with a great European power. Some people seemed to have forgotten the number of the enemy in the field against them. He maintained that every Boer had cost this country £1,000 per head, and he thought that was a high price to pay for it. There had never been a more extraordinary war than this one. The whole population of the two States who held the force of this Empire at Bay for nearly three years only numbered 250,000, men, women, and children, which was not more than the population of a town like Brighton, and certainly was under the population of Birmingham. He submitted that to call upon the House of Commons to vote £100,000 to the Commander-in-Chief, and £50,000 to the Chief of Staff for concluding a war in which the enemy consisted of only 250,000 men, women, and children, was rather a large order, and on that ground alone, if on no other, he opposed the grant. He now came to the last point. What I had victory done? In his judgment it had presented this country with a I problem which was one of the most difficult it had had to face in the whole course of its eventful history. After what had occurred it seemed doubtful whether it was possible for human statesmanship to solve that problem in the manner desired by the people of this country. To the Irish people, who had had a long and somewhat painful experience of British administrators endeavouring to govern and conciliate unwilling subjects, it seemed abundantly evident that no beginning towards the solution of this problem would be made by the men on the spot at present. Those who had watched the proceedings as critics—and he frankly admitted as biased and unfriendly critics—had found the question most interesting and instructive, and he could not better sum up their impressions than by quoting the opinion of a brilliant and illustrious English writer, who commented on the character of a fellow-countryman in the following words—

"There is nothing so bad or so good that you will not find an Englishman doing it. but you will never find an Englishman in the wrong. He does everything on principle. He fights you on patri tic principles; he robs you on business principles; he enslaves you on Imperial principles; he bullies you on manly principles; he supports his King' on loyal principles; and he cuts off his King's head on Republican principles; his watchword is always duty, and he never forgets that the nation which lets its duty get on the opposite side to its interests is lost."

He would not move his Amendment, but content himself by voting against the Vote.

, as one of a very limited number of those sitting on his side of the House who had been connected with the service, wished to offer his meed of congratulation to the Government upon having so timely recognised the invaluable services which Lord Kitchener had rendered to the country. He might say that, much as he admired his reputation as a general, and the services he had rendered to his country in that respect, he appreciated still more the services which he had rendered from a diplomatic point of view. There were some of them sitting on that side of the House who, anxious as they were to let bygones be bygones, could not help feeling that if Lord Kitchener had received that measure of support to which he was entitled from all quarters, the war might have been brought to a more satisfactory issue quite eighteen months ago. They owed a tremendous debt to Lord Kitchener when they reflected that through his great skill he had won the esteem and admiration of a people who had made, perhaps, the most heroic struggle on record in the history of the world for their country, and they had established themselves as a people who would take their place down the centuries of time side by side with their great ancestors, who, unconquered by the Romans, nevertheless became their most faithful allies. He hoped that no one today would venture to take another leaf from the well-earned laurel of the distinguished general who had done so much for his country, and who had succeeded in gaining, as citizens of this country, the descendants of a race who, as had already been said, were not only unecnquered by the Romans, but who, centuries later, when their country was overrun by the troops of Louis XIV., made patriotic sacrifices which thrilled all Europe.

said that, though the hon. Member for East Mayo professed to speak for the Irish nation, at all events he did not speak for the Irish soldier. As a past soldier of the British Army he did not think it would be right, over a question like this, to allow it to be supposed that the feelings of the Irish soldiers were fairly represented by Irish Members. In his opinion, the very best way they could record their feelings in regard to the Irish soldiers who had fought so gloriously, and died in such large numbers, under the leadership of Lord Kitchener and other British officers, was to ignore with contempt the ill-conditioned talk of Irish politicians.

said that if the Vote before the Committee had been to thank Lord Kitchener he should not have opposed it, but when they were asked to vote £50,000 to Lord Kitchener for his services he declined to support it, on the ground that from the beginning of the war to the present moment he had never voted for a single sixpence towards the cost of the war, or anything arising out of the war. He hoped that he would preserve his consistency to the end of the chapter. He supposed he was precluded by the Rules of the House from proposing that their thanks should be tendered to His Majesty, but he believed they owed a great debt of gratitude to him for this war having been brought to a successful conclusion. He did not suppose a Vote of that kind would be possible in this House, but if it were he was certain that it would be passed without a discordant note, and without one voice being raised against it. Speaking on behalf of what might be, perhaps, a small section of his countrymen, but still a section that had had some little influence in the past, and might have still more influence in the future, he took the opportunity of tendering to His Majesty hearty thanks for the part he had played, and for the tact and judgment he had brought to bear in bringing this horrible war to the satisfactory conclusion to which it had been brought.

said he would only venture to occupy the attention of the House for a moment, because he thought it was necessary that the House should know that there was more than one opinion in Ireland with regard to this question. The hon. Member for East Mayo spoke in the name of a party with which he acted, not as its leader, but as a member of the party whose view he evidently represented. He himself spoke in the name of a very considerable part of the Irish people, and he also spoke in the name of every Irish soldier. The House would remember that when the war was in progress hon. Members opposite devoted their talents and their oratory to trying to induce the Irish people to oppose in every way the action of the Government, and to trying to prevent Irishmen enlisting in the army. The reply was sent back from South Africa by the Dublin Fusiliers and the Enniskillen Fusiliers, which had taught hon. Gentlemen opposite that they at any rate did not speak in the name of the Irish soldiers. There was one thing he thought had come clearly out before the world in the last two and a half years, and that was that the accusation brought by hon. Gentlemen opposite against British rule in Ireland, to the effect that free speech in Ireland was a thing of the past, was an absolutely unfounded accusation. He would like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite what would have happened in Germany, during the Franco-German war, if a German had spoken in Germany to the effect that the war was a crime, and that no Germans should enlist in the army for the German cause. The career of that German would have been very short, and he would have deserved his fate. What would have happened in France, he would like to know—that was a country which had enlisted the affection of hon. Gentlemen opposite—if a Frenchman had proclaimed the justice of the German cause? He would have met with a similar fate. He could not conceive a better punishment for hon. Gentlemen opposite than that they should be consigned to the tender mercies of the Irish Regulars who had fought in South Africa. With regard to this Vote, upon one point he agreed with the hon. Member for East Mayo. He regretted that it was not greater. The opinion of the whole nation was that this had been a great and difficult job, and that it had been well done. He confessed that he was sorry that £50,000 was to represent the estimate at which the nation held Lord Kitchener's worth. To his mind the outcome of debates of this kind, and the course pursued by hon. Gentlemen opposite, must be to open the eyes of their Radical friends as to the true character of Nationalist Members, and, therefore, the more they debated this question, and the more often the House heard their views on questions of this kind, unless the conscience of the Radical party was of a pachydermatous character, that party would hesitate before consigning the care of Ireland in future to men who had avowed open hatred to Great Britain, and disloyalty to the British Grown.

said he agreed with every word that fell from the First Lord of the Treasury and the Leader of the Opposition in praise of Lord Kitchener. He considered that he had done his work well, and he had particular admiration for him, because while making war to the best of his ability he always remembered that the great aim of war was peace, and that the true object of the Commander who had the interests of his country at heart was to convert, so far as he could, foes into friends. But the hon. Member had certain old-fashioned virtues which were at a considerable discount at present in this House of Parliament—he meant principle and consistency. Since he had been in the House he had consistently opposed all those special grants to commanders-in-chief of expeditions abroad. He opposed the Vote to Lord Alcester, two Votes to Lord Wolseley, the Vote to Lord Roberts, and the former Vote to Lord Kitchener. Under those circumstances it seemed to him that, as a matter of principle, and apart from any question as to this man or that, whether the Commander-in-Chief was an able man or not, and whether the war was just or unjust, he should be wanting in consistency if he were not, though he knew that it was unpopular, to oppose the present Vote. Why should he do it? He had never understood why they should vote a large sum of money to a Commander-in-Chief who did his duty, and why they should not vote a sum of money to a Statesman who did more for his country by bringing in some excellent bill and carrying it in this House. It would be said that the thing had been done often and often, but that was not consistent with common sense. After all, it was exalting the military virtues at the expense of the civil virtues. If it were proposed on the other side to vote a large sum of money to, say the Colonial Secretary for the services he had rendered to the country, he could understand their vote to Lord Kitchener for what he had done. But to leave out the Colonial Secretary, whom they honoured and respected, and who had done such signal service to the empire in connection with this war, was a thing which he certainly could not understand. They did not give the Colonial Secretary a farthing, and they gave £50,000 to Lord Kitchener. Even assuming that it was desirable to make a distinction between the civil and military services, he should be against this system of giving large sums to the Commanders-in-Chief. The Committee would remember that when Lord Roberts came back to England a vote was taken for gratuities to the entire army. It was divided into units, and the gratuities were calculated according to the particular grades of the officers and men. He could not understand why they should vote a special grant to the Commander-in-Chief, because he was precisely the military man connected with a campaign of this kind who did not need a special grant. They knew perfectly well that the Commander-in-Chief—and the hon. Member was not complaining of it—received a very large salary, and more than that if he distinguished himself they knew perfectly well that he would receive almost always in future high duties as long as he had any work in him. They were told that Lord Kitchener was to be sent as Commander-in-Chief in India. [An Hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] He said "hear, hear! "too. He was glad that Lord Kitchener was to receive that honour, but he should have preferred that he had been made Commander-in-Chief in England. For his part, he believed that nothing they could do for Lord Kitchener in a monetary way could equal the honour done to him by the confidence shown in his word by the Boers and the manner in which they received him when he went into their camp. Look at the condition of the soldiers. Many of them came back ruined in constitution, many of them were wounded, and some had lost the work which they had before going into campaign. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: You send them to the workhouse!] I; he had to choose between voting a large sum to the Commander-in-Chief, and voting a still larger sum to be distributed among the soldiers, he should be in favour of voting it to the soldiers. If he were a Member on the other side of the House he should agree with his hon. and gallant friend who had just sat down that Lord Kitchener had received too little. When Lord Roberts returned from South Africa he left matters, as he said himself, in a most critical condition. The First Lord of the Treasury had said that Lord Kitchener had a much more difficult task than Lord Roberts. [Cries of "No!"] Anyhow, most Gentlemen in the House would agree that while there was more sensational military work under Lord Roberts, the more difficult task in connection with the war had fallen to Lord Kitchener. Lord Roberts received £100,000 after he had told the country that the war was over. That was evidently an entire mistake. He did not know whether Lord Roberts might not feel that Lord Kitchener should get the same sum as himself, or whether the two noble Lords should put the two sums together and divide the pool. He thought it would be a mean thing on the part of the country not to give Lord Kitchener the same sum as Lord Roberts. He did not entirely agree with his hon. friend that in making these grants to the Commander-in-Chief they should consider whether the war was a just or an unjust war. He did not, in opposing this vote, question the merits of Lord Kitchener as a commander or as a negotiator; but because he was honestly opposed to all those votes.

said he would not have troubled the House with any observations at that stage; but unfortunately, on the previous day, when he desired to register his vote against this grant in its initial stage, he was unable to make the Speaker hear him when he said "No." For that reason he felt that he could not allow this occasion to pass without following the course he had always adopted ever since the war commenced, and explaining why he was opposed to this grant of money. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had referred in very glowing and enthusiastic terms to the services done in South Africa, and to the sacrifices made by many of the Irish troops. He was not at all prepared to deny that the Irish troops in South Africa had done a great deal more than their fair share in the fighting and the suffering, but the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh would probably be surprised to hear that one of the reasons why he was opposed to this grant to Lord Kitchener was that he thought it was a shameful and disgraceful thing that the Commander-in-Chief should receive such large monetary compensation, while the very soldiers which the hon. and gallant Member talked about were allowed, in many cases, to drift into the workhouses, and their wives, children, and relatives had been absolutely neglected by the War Office. He did not know what the experience of the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been on this matter during the war, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not object to his telling him that scarcely a day had passed on which he had not received a large number of letters from the wives, children and relatives of the men at the front—particularly reservists—complaining that no steps had been taken by the War Office to compensate them for the loss of the wages of their husbands, fathers, or sons.

The hon. Gentleman will not be in order in discussing the conduct of the War Office under this Vote.

said he had no desire to traverse beyond the scope of the Vote; he only wanted to show why he opposed this Vote to Lord Kitchener; and to ask why no similar proposal had been made for the provision of relief to the wives and children of the men at the front. In his opinion, the whole of this proceeding was covering the House and country with ridicule. The Government were making the House the laughing stock of the world. They were acting as if they had achieved some great and. mighty feat of arms, and had won a victory which justified them in celebrating it in every extraordinary way. What were the facts? Lord Kitchener with an army infinitely greater than all the men, women, and children in the Transvaal, had only been able to sign the conditions of peace at the end of two and three-quarter years, because the Boers had run short of ammunition and the other means for carrying on the war. Where was the glory in that? Was there anything wonderful in such a so-called feat of arms? He maintained that the whole history of the last two and three-quarter years had covered the name of the English people with eternal disgrace in every portion of the world; and the fact that this large sum of money was to be given to the Commander-in-Chief, while the men in the field and their families were left out in the cold, was simply disgraceful. It was a very easy thing for His Majesty the King or any other gentleman to suggest that this House should hand over £50,000 to Lord Kitchener or any other gentleman; but he thought that His Majesty the King and his counsellors would have been infinitely better advised if, instead of introducing this grant, they had asked the House to make some provision at this time to relieve the terrible distress and poverty of the masses of the people which was evident all round this city and in every part of the country. Lord Kitchener would go down to history as the one British General who had made war on women and children. [Loud and continued cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Divide."]

rose to a point of order. He begged to draw the attention of the Chairman to the persistent attempt of hon. Gentlemen opposite to prevent the hon. Member in possession of the Committee from proceeding with his speech.

The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to proceed.

asked whether it was in order, even for an Irish Member, to insult the British Army? [Loud cries of "Divide," and "Withdraw," from the Government Benches, and of "Police" from the Irish Benches.]

Withdraw what?

The charge the hon. Member made against Lord Kitchener.

As to my reference to Lord Kitchener, I do not propose to withdraw a single word. [Loud and persistent cries of "Divide!"]

I rise again to ask you, Mr. Jeffreys, whether you intend to enforce your decision that the hon. Member should obtain a fair hearing.

The hon. Member is not out of order, but I cannot compel the Committee to listen to him. I hope, however, that the Committee will listen to him.

rose upon a point of order, but was not heard in the Gallery, owing to the uproar in the House.

The hon. Member rose to a point of order, and therefore I call upon him to raise his point of order.

I am anxious to assist, if I can, to put an end to this——

said the hon. Member had made use of an expression that had given a great deal of offence to Members on the Unionist side of the House. He had said that Lord Kitchener had made war upon women and children. If the hon. Gentle man did not withdraw that——

That might have been an unfortunate expression, but it was not out of order.

again rose, but was met with loud cries of "Name, name!"

Name him. If he were an Irish Member he would have been named long ago.

I call upon Mr. Redmond to continue his speech.

rose, but could not make himself heard.

Where are your new Rules?

The hon. Gentleman said——

I beg to move that the hon. Member be no longer heard.

Mr. Jeffreys, will you ask them to be silent while I speak to you?

The hon. Member wishes to explain some question that arose. I hope the House will allow him to do so.

, who spoke amid a great uproar, was understood to say that the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency he did not remember at the moment, had accused him of making what was an offensive observation, and had called upon him to withdraw it. He did not know what that observation was, but if the hon. Member referred to the statement that Lord Kitchener was responsible for the death of 15,000 children in the concentration camps, and that by those camps he had made war on women and children, he could only say that was his absolute conviction; he stated it, and would not withdraw it.

, rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the DEPUTY CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

, on rising to resume his speech, was again met with persistent interruption. He said that if hon. Gentlemen refused to hear him that was the best proof that they were afraid of what he might say. There was such an atmosphere of hypocrisy here that even when one man spoke the truth, hon. Members tried to drown his voice by organised disturbance. The conduct of Lord Kitchener in desecrating the tomb of the Mahdi at Omdurman——

said this was a Vote to Lord Kitchener for his services in South Africa. The hon. Member must not allude to other matters.

said he wished to give an additional reason why the Irish Members objected to this Vote. In Ireland they could not get a farthing for a useful purpose, and money was squandered here on Generals who were well paid for their work. If this grant was to be given, why was Lord Kitchener selected against General Buller? Why was Lord Methuen, who fought as well as any of our soldiers, passed over? Lord Kitchener and Lord Roberts had made more disgraceful conquerors than any Generals in the history of the world. They left the wives and children of the Boers to starve, and now they were made the heroes of a corrupt society. So far as he was concerned, he opposed, this Vote.

Oh! sit down.

On a point of order, Sir, I desire to know whether one hon. Member of this House is entitled to order another to sit down. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] Mr. Jeffreys, I wish to know, Sir, why you. as Chairman, do not appeal to the Committee to give me a hearing. Is it because my opinions are not popular that I am not entitled to be heard?

I have appealed to the Committee to hear the hon. Gentleman. I cannot compel it. [Cries of "Call in the police" from the Irish Benches.]

Order, order! The expressions that I have heard are not out of order.

Well, that is very useful!

Upon a point of order, Sir, may I call your attention to the new Rule whereby, under certain conditions, a sitting may be suspended? And may I ask whether the time has not arrived when that Rule should be put in force.

No, Sir, I do not think the time has arrived. But I would ask the hon. Member to conclude his speech, as it is apparently distasteful to the House. I did not accept the closure, because I thought the hon. Gentleman was nearing the end of his speech. [Further Irish shouts of dissent.]

rose, and attempted to speak, amidst continued uproar. He was understood to say that, as he desired to reply, he appealed to the Deputy Chairman to get him a hearing. He begged to inform him that, owing to the continued interruption, he had been unable to make any progress in the speech he intended to deliver. He could not accept the statement that, because a speech was distasteful to some portion of the House, a Member should not be allowed to make it.

rose in his place, and claimed to move.

, speaking with his hat on, on a point of order wished to know whether in future a Member of this House, when his speech was distasteful, must desist.

That is not a point of order.

I understood that was your ruling.

May I ask you, on a point of order, if it is not true that you told me, because my speech was distasteful, that I should not continue?

When the hon. Gentleman asked me to get him a hearing, I said his speech was evidently distasteful to the Committee, that I was not able to get him a hearing, and that I hoped he would conclude his speech.

Is it not in your recollection that you said, as my speech was distasteful, I should desist?

That was not my intention. My intention was to say that, as the speech was distasteful to the House, I could not get the hon. Member a hearing.