said he had had the advantage of a conference with the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords and the President of the Board of Trade, and they had come to the conclusion that certain of the Bills connected with London traffic ought to be postponed until the result of the Commission dealing with this matter had been reported. The deep-level railways which they thought ought to await the completion of this inquiry wore the Central London Railway (New Lines) Bill; Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton (New Lines and Extensions) Bill; North-West London (Marble Arch to Victoria) Railway Bill; Clapham Junction to Marble Arch Rail-way (Nos. 1 and 2) Bill; Metropolitan District Railway Works Bill. There were certain other Bills which they thought might go to Committees, namely: Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Bail way (Various Powers) Bill; Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Transfer Bill; City and North-East Suburban Electric Railway Bill. There were, besides, certain other railway measures which were doubtful, and these they thought ought to be held over until the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, the President of the Board of Trade, and himself had considered them. These Bills were the City and South London Railway (Angel and Islington) Bill, and the Metropolitan-District Railway (Various Powers) Bill.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is competent for a watch committee to require additional service in the police force before granting a pension to a constable who has rendered twenty-five years service, but who has, during his service, been punished for disciplinary offence by reduction in class. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) It is difficult to answer a general question such as this. But it will be seen from Section 1 of the Police Act of 1890 that it is twenty five years approved service which entitles a constable to a pension: and by Section 4, under which deductions may be made from a constable's service in respect of sickness, misconduct, or neglect of duty, approved service means such service as may, after such deductions, if any, be certified to have been diligent and faithful. It might therefore happen that the actual service of a constable would have to amount to more than twenty-five years before he became entitled to a pension.

To ask the Postmaster General if he can state how many letters were sent from this country to Japan, Shanghai, and Hong Kong, respectively, under the mail contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, with the steamer which left Vancouver in connection with the mail leaving London on 8th January last; the total weight of the mails which left this country by the same mail for Japan, Shanghai, and Hong Kong respectively; and when the mails which left this country on 8th January last are due at Yokohama, Shanghai, and Hong Kong. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am only able to give the required particulars in regard to the mail for Japan made up in London. That mail is estimated to have contained 8,110 letters, and the total weight of it was 4,715 lb. Only a small amount of correspondence for China and Hong Kong is forwarded, by the Vancouver route, and particulars of that despatched on the 8th of January last have not been recorded. The mails sent on that date were due at Yokohama on the 9th of February, at Shanghai on the 14th, and at Hong Kong on the 17th of February.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give instructions to have copies of the Order, dated 4th February, 1903, determining what is sufficient suitable accommodation in the way of sanitary conveniences, printed and distributed to Members, in order that they may forward them to the employers and others interested. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The Order has already been printed as a Statutory Rule, and has been widely published, and I think duplicate printing and publication is hardly necessary. Any Member of the House applying to the Chief Inspector of Factories at the Home Office will be supplied with Copies of the Order and of the Circular explaining its provisions. Copies of the Order can also be obtained from the usual sources at the price of one penny.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to reply to the representations of the Customs boatmen. (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) Proposals affecting the whole Waterguard Department have been made by the Board of Customs and are now under the consideration of the Treasury.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the population grants will be continued; if so, will these grants be paid to the local education authorities, who will be responsible for the maintenance of the schools earning such grants. (Answered by Sir William Anson) The answer to both paragraphs of the Question is in the affirmative.

TO ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the average attendance on which the New Aid Grant will be paid will be calculated on the same basis as that on which the Block Grant is now paid. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The average attendance on which the Block Grant is paid will be taken as the basis for calculation of the New Aid Grant.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, owing to the delay in the payment of the Block Grant by the Board of Education, difficulty will be caused by the shortage of municipal cash at the outset of operations under the Education Act; whether he is aware that this shortage will amount approximately in the residue of the County of Lancashire to £80,000, and in most of the urban districts in that county, which will be autonomous for elementary education, to sums which will vary from £1,000 to £6,000; and whether, in view of the burdens thus cast upon most of the new authorities, the Board of Education can see its way to pay the whole of the Block Grant by quarterly instalments, including grants that will become due after the end of the Government's financial year. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board of Education are aware of the difficulty to which reference is made in the first part of the Question, but they have no exact knowledge of the amounts of shortage in different areas. I do not desire either to dispute or to admit the figures put down by the hon. Member. The Board are unable "to pay the whole of the Block Grant by quarterly instalments, including grants that will become due after the end of the Government's financial year." because their disbursements are restricted to the sums voted by Parliament for the financial year. This provision only covers the payment in the year of Block Grants maturing for payment within the year, and upon these instalments will be paid as far as practicable; but there is no margin for payment of instalments on "Block Grants" maturing in the succeeding year. The Board have already stated what they are prepared to do to assist the new authorities as regards the time of payments of the Aid Grant and Block Grant. For any further assistance the local authorities may apply to the Local Government Board to enable them to spread over a period of years the charge which is necessary in order to provide them with a working balance.

To ask the Lord Advocate if the attention of the Government has been called to the progress of the construction of a causeway over the Ayre, at Loughale, Orkney: and if the necessary steps will be taken to ensure the completion of the said work at an early date. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Congested Districts Board are informed that the roadway at the east end, so far as laid off, has been formed. Steps have been taken to ensure that the District Committee will complete this work as soon as possible.

To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board has taken any method of informing the agriculturists of the United Kingdom that the importations of dairy produce from abroad last year are valued in the Board of Trade Returns at more than £20,500,000 for butter, £6,400,000 for cheese, and £6,399,000 for eggs, while poultry also exceeded £1,000,000; and whether he sees his way to introduce such measures for promoting improved methods of dairy working and co-operation, and such economical transport of produce between the country and towns as will enable British farmers to retain a large portion of the £34,000,000 now sent abroad for foreign produce. (Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) It has been for many years past the practice to publish in the Journal of the Board of Agriculture a special article on the subject of the imports of agricultural produce during the year, and an article dealing with the imports for 1902 will appear in the forthcoming number. We have also from time to time given publicity to descriptions of improved processes of dairying employed in the Colonies and abroad, and of the systems adopted with regard to the production and distribution of dairy produce and eggs in Denmark, Ireland, and other countries. I have myself repeatedly called the attention of representative bodies of agriculturists to the importance of organisation and combination in the directions to which the hon. Member refers. I have been in communication with the Postmaster General on the subject of the collection and forwarding of parcels of agricultural produce; and I also hope that the extended use of motor vans and cars may further assist in the same direction.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he intends to introduce this session a Bill to assimilate the boundaries of Parliamentary Divisions and Metropolitan Municipal Boroughs within the county of London. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Last year I introduced a Bill on this subject, having been assured that it would meet with no opposition. In point of fact, however, the Bill was opposed from both sides of the House, and I did not find it practicable to make progress with it. I am not prepared to deal with the matter in the present session, unless I am satisfied that the Bill would be treated as an unopposed measure.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state when the Return, Local Authorities (Acquisition of Land), granted on 8th July last year, is likely to be issued. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) There is a good deal of difficulty in obtaining the information required for a Return of tins kind, and in the present case it has been necessary to communicate with more than 9,000 authorities. Some of them, have not yet furnished the requisite particulars, although repeated applications have been made to them. The Return is, however, in a forward state, and will be issued at the earliest date practicable.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the cases of interference by the Local Government Board in Ireland with elected representatives; whether he will take this matter into consideration, and provide a remedy by amending the Local Government Act. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) This question has reference to the action of the Local Government Board in the case of Mrs. O'Neill, a midwife, in the service of the Guardians of the Rathdown Union. In view of the importance apparently attached to the case I will briefly set out the facts. Mrs. O'Neill was suspended by the Guardians on the ground that she had left the workhouse without the permission of the master and matron. It was also alleged that, in order to cover her default, Mrs. O'Neill untruthfully stated she had obtained permission from the matron. The Guardians requested the Board to confirm the suspension and authorise her dismissal. In the exercise of her statutory right Mrs. O'Neill appealed to the Board against the decision of the Guardians. The Board thereupon directed a sworn inquiry to be hell for the purpose of eliciting all the facts. It transpired at the inquiry that the midwife endeavoured to see the master to obtain leave of absence, but that having failed to see him she told the matron and understood that she had her permission to go away. Mrs. O'Neill doubtless committed an error of judgment in assuming that she had the permission of the, matron to leave the workhouse. but the Board did not consider that her action, under all the circumstances, justified the extreme penalty of dismissal, and more especially as she was an efficient officer of some standing and had never been admonished on any previous occasion. I have personally examined the facts of the case and am satisfied that the Board could not have arrived at any other conclusion I have reason to believe that the matron, who is a nun, is indisposed to regard what has happened as a cause for a continuance of any unpleasant relations with the midwife, and I should hope that the Guardians, on a reconsideration, will permit the latter to resume duty.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Report of the arbitrator in connection with tin; compulsory acquirement of certain lands at Loughmore and Woodburn by the Belfast Water Commissioners will be made public. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The final award of the arbitrator has already been published in respect of three of the sections into which this work was divided. It will be published in the course of a few days in respect of the fourth section. With regard to the remaining section, which includes Woodburn, the draft award will be published as soon as the spring season permits a proper inspection of the lands.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police at Maryborough requisitioned a horse and ear, the property of a resident of Ballincanty Killurin, King's County, for the conveyance to the lunatic asylum, Maryborough, of an escaped patient from that institution; and will he explain upon what grounds the constabulary authorities have refused to pay the claim of the car owner. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The police did not refuse to pay this claim. They forwarded it to the asylum authorities, by whom it was paid.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when he anticipates receiving the Report of the War Commission now sitting; and whether he will consent to suspend his final decisions regarding the new Army Scheme until the information afforded by that inquiry has reached him.

As my hon. friend will see by referring to the reply given by my right hon. friend on Thursday last† to a Question put by the hon. Member for South Donegal, it is not possible at present to give any definite reply to the first part of the Question. As regards the second part of the Question it is not apparent what final decisions my hon. friend desires to suspend, but no steps are being taken which are not in accordance with the decision of Parliament two years ago.

If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to take advantage of the information elicited by the War Commission can he say what return the nation will get for the money laid out on the Commission?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Colonel H. Cooper, C. M. G., who held the position of Boer Commandant at Cape Town from 1st April, 1900, was present at the dinner given at Mount Nelson Hotel on Christmas Eve, 1901, and was at that time resident in the hotel; and that he did not stop the attack made upon Mr. Stanford in the grounds at the back of the hotel; can he state whether Colonel Cooper took any, and if so what, steps to investigate the matter; did he make any, and if so what, report to Lord Kitchener; why was the report of the legal proceedings, in which a sum of £1,500 damages and £2,000 costs were recovered by Mr. Stanford against ten officers in the High Court of Capo Colony, excluded from the Cape papers by the action of the Military Press Censor; why were not the apologies offered by the ten officers involved allowed to appear in the Cape Press, owing to the action of the Press Censor; and can he now give any explanation of this occurrence, and of the steps he intends to take in the matter.

These matters are at this moment the subject of inquiry; therefore, until the inquiry is concluded, I am sure the hon. Member will understand that I cannot reply to individual questions on the subject.

I desire to give notice that on the Estimates I will go completely into the details of this transaction, and give the names of the officers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement made in the Cape Parliament on 31st October, 1902, by the Attorney General, Mr. Graham, that the Bushmanland Borderers Regiment was raised by the Imperial Government, and to the statement of Mr. Merriman on the same occasion, that the Bushmanland Borderers had committed outrages, and that two of them were in gaol at Malmesbury; and will he state what proportion of this corps were coloured men, and by whose orders they were enlisted and armed.

The Bushmanland Borderers was raised for local service in Cape Colony at the recommendation of the Premier of Cape Colony, their employment being specially restricted to the defence of their own locality and property in case of need, and they were consequently not enrolled for general service. I am not aware of the proportion of coloured men in its ranks. I must point out that the expression "coloured men" is commonly used in South Africa to mean half-castes, not natives, and many of such half-castes are on the electorate roll of Cape Colony.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the amount of money allocated as the result of the recommendations of the Mowatt Committee to the purchase of new guns for Volunteer and Militia Batteries; how much of this money has now been expended; how many Volunteer and Militia Batteries have been re-armed; how many are still armed with obsolete weapons; how many new guns have been procured; and how many Regular Batteries have been created since January, 1899.

The Mowatt Committee did not deal with new guns for the Auxiliary Forces Artillery, 200 of which had been already ordered at a cost of £750,000. All this money has been spent. Forty-four Volunteer Batteries have been or are in process of being re-armed with modern 4· 7 guns and three Militia Field Batteries with field guns. There are eighty-one Volunteer heavy batteries still in possession of old type equipment. Two hundred and twenty heavy guns in all have been procured. The number of Regular Horse and Field Batteries created since January, 1899, is sixty-six.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many provisional regiments of cavalry are at present in existence; what is the cost and strength of these regiments; for what purpose are they now maintained; and what is intended with respect to them in the future.

Six regiments are at present in existence. The average strength is 898, or deducting men on gratuity furlough, 714; and the average number of horses is 370. Those regiments were originally established during the war pressure to provide drafts for cavalry regiments abroad, and are now maintained as the most suitable organisation into which to form the large surplus of men of the cavalry branch now existing. Three of these regiments will before long be absorbed, but the other three will be maintained for the present. The cost can only be very roughly estimated at £50,000 a year per regiment.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the curriculum for the first four years of training for naval officers under the new system has yet been settled; and, if so, whether it will be laid at once upon the Table of the House.

The new curriculum has not yet been settled. Before arriving at a definite conclusion with respect to it, the Admiralty desire to obtain advice from those qualified to form an opinion as to the subjects to be studied, the time to be devoted to each subject, etc. When the curriculum is settled I shall be glad to lay a copy of it on the Table of the House.

Is there any chance of the information being given before the Estimates are taken?

I am afraid not.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that the House was informed last Autumn that the question as to the distribution of the charge in respect of the increased pay of the British soldier in India had been referred to the arbitration of the Lord Chief Justice, will he state whether his Lordship has yet given his award

The case has not yet been presented to the Lord Chief Justice. The charges to which the arbitration refers do not come into course of payment before April, 1904.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the 17th March has been declared a public holiday in British Colonies; and, if so, will he state in what Colonies and in what years.

The information possessed by the Colonial Office is not sufficient to enable me to answer the Question of the hon. Member.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that numerous Irish Premiers in the Colonies have invariably declared the 17th March as a public holiday?

I am not aware of that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into this matter?

Yes. I have only just received the answer from the Colonial Office. I will look into the matter and communicate with the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have taken, or propose to take, step.? towards procuring the co-operation of the principal Signatories to the Berlin General Act in efforts to restrain the abuses which have grown up under the rule of the Congo Free State in violation of the provisions of that Act.

No, Sir. His Majesty's Government are not at present contemplating any steps such as the right hon. Baronet indicates.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are aware that the Crown Colony of British Guiana contributes one-third of the expense of immigration into that colony of Indian coolies for work on sugar plantations, and that His Majesty's Government guarantee to the Indian Government the payment of wages to, and of return passages to India for, such coolies. Does the Sugar Convention, by Art. VII., impose on the Permanent Commission at Brussels the duty of pronouncing whether such contributions or guarantees constitute a direct or indirect bounty on the production or exportation of sugar; does the Convention, in the event of an affirmative decision on the point, bind His Majesty's Government, by Art. I. and Protocol Al and A3, to suppress the payments and guarantee in question; and have His Majesty's Government received any communications on the subject from the authorities of the colony.

The first and fourth Questions of my hon. friend should be put to the representative of the Colonial Office. With regard to the other Questions, the interpretation of any words in an agreement is not usually made the subject of an official statement until the circumstances have arisen which require such a statement.

Is the Foreign Office quite sure that it understands this Question?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has a new regulation been made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the effect that the duration of the appointments of heads of missions at Foreign Courts shall, in future, not be" extended beyond five years; and, if so, on what date was that new regulation, made.

The regulation dealing with the duration of the appointments of heads of missions was made in 1872, and has not been altered since that date.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, before introducing any Bill relating to Savings Banks, he will lay upon the Table of the House a detailed Return of the securities standing, on the 31st of December, 1902, in the names of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund, and the Trustees Savings Bank Fund, such Return to show the nominal amount, and the value on the date aforesaid, of such securities, and the dividend or interest payable thereon.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will, before the introduction of the Savings Banks Bill, grant the Return relative to Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks Funds standing on to-day's Notice Paper.

The information asked for by the hon. Members as regards the assets of the Trustee Savings Banks Fund and their value at the 20th November, 11) 02, was presented to the House on the 20th instant, and has been ordered to be printed. If either of the hon. Members will move for a similar Return of the assets of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund and their value at the 31st December last there is no objection to its being given in anticipation of the information annexed to the Annual Report of the Postmaster General.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to proceed with his Bill until this information has been provided?

I do not know whether it is possible to do that, but if the hon. Member will put down the Motion for the Return the information will be given as soon as possible.

I will put it down.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can say when Parliament provided a specific salary for the holder of his office for services rendered in the Department; and whether he can lay any Papers showing why effect was never given to the Resolution passed by the House on the Motion of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1826, that His Majesty be enabled to grant a salary of £5,000 to the President of the Board of Trade.

The salary of the President of the Board of Trade is sanctioned by the Act "7 George IV., cap. 32." The post was previously held in conjunction with the office of Treasurer of the Navy, the salary of which was £3,000 a year. As regards the Motion passed by the House of Commons on the 6th April, 1826, I fear there are no Papers that I could usefully lay, but a reference to "Plansard" shows that the majority (eleven), by which the Motion of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was carried, was considered too small to justify His Majesty's Government in then proceeding with the proposal that the salary should be £5,000 a year, and £2,000 was accordingly agreed to.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state under which section or sections of Vic. 57 and 58, c. 57, and 59 and CO Vic, c. 15, instructions were in the first instance given to slaughter the goat of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers on his landing at Southampton last month, and a refusal was made to the request of the officers of the regiment to be allowed to retain the head and horns for preservation; whether the conferences between the authorities of the War Office and the Board of Agriculture as to the proper course to be pursued under the circumstances were held on the initiative of the War Office or on that of the Board of Agriculture; whether any other Department was consulted before the decision to set aside the provisions of the Acts of Parliament was come to; whether, in consequence of the action of his Department, he contemplates any legislation; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of relaxing the provisions of the present law in the case of animals kept as pets by regiments.

The answer to the first part' of the Question is Section 1 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896. Exemption is already allowed in the case of regimental pets, but from the reply received from the officer in command of the battalion it appeared that the goat had been purchased in South Africa to replace one which had been presented to the regiment by Her late Majesty and that it would probably not be retained as the regimental pet. On a statement by the Deputy Adjutant General that it was in fact the recognised regimental goat authority for its landing was given. No order for the slaughter of the animal so long as it was not landed was given, and no instructions whatever were issued with regard to the head and horns as suggested in the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign prisoners are now confined in Wormwood Scrubs Prison; what proportion they form of the total number of prisoners; how many of them were convicted of indictable offences; and what is their average sentence.

The information asked for by my hon. friend will be included in the general Return of aliens now in prison, which, as I stated the other day in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield, I am obtaining for the purpose of laying before the Royal Commission.† I think a complete Return is more satisfactory than scattered information as to particular prisons.

Cannot the Return be made to the House of Commons?

Certainly. If it is wished, I will give the information in answer to a Question.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether he will state when he proposes to introduce legislation for the purpose of amending the law relating to fraudulent balance sheets of public companies.

I am anxious to introduce a Bill at the earliest possible date, and I am now in communication with the Lord Chancellor.

Is fresh legislation necessary?

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain the cause of the delay in calling for tenders for the mail service between this country and India, the East, and Australia; and if he will say when the present contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Companies expires.

Notice has been given to the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company and the Orient Steam Navigation Company to terminate their contracts for the mail services between this country and India, the East, and Australia on the 31st of January, 1905. The question of the future requirements of the service is being carefully considered by the several Departments of the Government concerned; and a decision will be arrived at as soon as possible.

Why have the contracts been extended two years? Will Papers be laid before Parliament?

The contract has not been extended. We had to give two years notice, dating from January 31st last, that we wished to terminate the contract, and that is all we did. The notice will not take effect for two years.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been directed to the Parliamentary Return just issued, from which it appears that there was a loss, including interest on telegraph loans, of nearly £1,000,000 on the telegraph business last year; and whether he will now consider the advisability of appointing a Committee of business men to inquire into the cause of this loss on the telegraph service of the country.

The loss to which my hon. friend refers is made up of £651,880, the balance of expenditure over receipts for the year, and £298,860, the interest of the telegraph capital expenditure of £10,867,644. The reasons for the loss are well known, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a Committee of Enquiry.

What are the reasons for the loss?

The public, through its representatives in this House, has preferred to get a return for its money in the shape of greater facilities rather than in revenue. Consequently we are doing business at a loss.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will take steps to prevent any further portion of the Crown land known as Old Dean Common, between Bagshot and Camberley, being built over, in view of its value for the instruction in surveying of Sandhurst cadets and officers at the Staff College, and for other military purposes.

I explained the circumstances of this case at some length in an answer to a Parliamentary Question on 18th December last. I presume that the hon. and gallant Member refers only to the strip of land half a mile in depth which borders on the Bagshot Road. This land is of considerable value for building, and no representations have been made to me by the War Office against its use for this purpose. Should the Secretary of State require more land for military purposes, the Commissioners of Woods could let to the War Office a large area in addition to what they will still hold under the lease that has been granted. The hon. and gallant Member has therefore no ground for his apprehensions.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the proposed sale for building purposes of the open space of land at the west of Kensington Gardens, facing the Barracks, lying in front of Church Street, and adjacent to the densely populated neighbourhood of Campden Hill; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to prevent this sale.

I am not quite clear what is the property referred to. Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with me privately and put down the Question again later, if necessary.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the present state of the weather, he will take steps to prevent draughts of cold air being forced into the Library of the House of Commons.

The First Commissioner has made inquiry on this matter, and is assured that the currents of cold air referred to by my hon. friend are not connected with the ventilating system. They are most probably forced into the rooms from the open air by the pressure of the recent heavy winds, and cannot, it is feared, in such circumstances be prevented.

I can assure my hon. friend that the draughts come from the ventilator round the bottom of the room.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he has had an opportunity of considering the decision of one of the Revising Barristers for Belfast that sub-tenants of rooms in dwelling houses are entitled to the householders franchise; and whether he will introduce a Bill for the purpose of making it clear that such sub-tenants are merely entitled to the lodger franchise.

The Revising Barrister, in the instance mentioned, decided upon the facts of the particular case that the claimant occupied the upper portion of the house in which he lived as a separate dwelling; that his occupation and control were exclusive: and that the landlord who lived on the ground floor exercised no control. The Court of Appeal decided that there was evidence to sustain that finding, Lord Justice FitzGibbon intimating his opinion that the conclusion of the Revising Barrister was, on the evidence, right. The decision of the Revising Barrister was not of the general nature or effect indicated in the Question. It is in conformity with earlier decisions, and no amendment of the law seems to be called for.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Government intend to take any steps, and, if so, what, to have Irish industries represented at the forthcoming St. Louis Exposition.

This matter is engaging the consideration of the Government. At present, I am not in a position to make any further statement.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the average amount of rent reduction sanctioned by the Irish Land Commission for the first-term and second-term rents respectively; whether the whole of the holdings revised the first time have been revised the second time; and what proportion such holdings form to the total rent acreage of Ireland.

The Annual Reports of the Land Commissioners contain appendices showing the effect of second-term rent fixing on first-term rents year by year since second-term rent fixing commenced in 1896. The appendices distinguish first-term rent fixing from 1881 to the present. Roughly speaking, something less than one-third of the rents fixed for a first term have been revised for a second term. The total rent acreage of Ireland is not known.

I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can grant the Return relative to Land Purchase Acts (Ireland) standing on to-day's Paper.

The information under the first, third and fourth headings can be given. With respect, however, to the second, the official records do not distinguish the average number of years purchase on first and second term rents, respectively. Many holdings have been sold that are not subject to judicial rents, and the averages shown in the published Reports of the Land Commissioners are calculated without reference to the nature of the rent. I propose to lay on the Table some Papers on the subject of Land Purchase operations, and will include amongst these statistical information on the matters to which the hon. Member alludes.

Will the Papers be laid before the introduction of the Land Bill?

I should prefer to lay them on the day of the introduction. I wish to have a virgin field for my own efforts.

Return showing (1) the total acreage of Irish land sold to tenants under the Purchase Acts; (2) the average number of years purchase paid on the first term and second term rents; (3) the total amount advanced; and (4) the number of tenants to whom advances have been made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is a canteen attached to the police protection hut at Chaffpool, county Sligo, where persons of all ages can obtain porter at all hours, day and night; and will he state what steps the authorities propose to take in the matter.

A canteen store is attached to the police station at Chaffpool for the purpose of supplying the police and other persons in the local by who have experienced difficulty in obtaining necessaries. The canteen is duly licensed, and there has been no infringement of the law as suggested.

I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he state the number of police huts erected in the townlands of Chaffpool, Achonry, and Letrim, in the rural district of Tubbercurry, county Sligo, with the number of police stationed therein; what portion, if any, of the cost incurred will be chargeable on the people of these localities; and whether there is any present intention on the part of the authorities to have these huts and extra police removed.

There are four huts in this area, occupied by an officer and seventeen men. The cost to the district in respect of the force is at the rate of £516 per annum. I hope the condition of affairs in the district will soon justify the withdrawal of the extra police.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the promised inquiry has been held regarding the high-water line at Inch Strand, county Kerry; and, if so, will he state the result.

In reply to a question by the hon. Member on 27th October, I stated that the Board of Trade had received complaints that the owner of the adjoining land had erected posts upon the beach which were said to interfere with the use of the foreshore at Inch Strand. From inquiries which have since been made at my request by the Navigating Officer of H. M. S. "Collingwood" it appears that the posts are above the high-water line of ordinary spring tides, and in these circumstances the Board of Trade have no jurisdiction in the matter.

I beg to ask the Pos master General whether he is aware that an official in the Kinsale Post Office refused a parcel because the address on the parcel was in Irish; and whether, seeing that the official in question admitted that he knew Irish and could make out the destination of the parcel, such conduct of officials has the sanction of the Post Office authorities.

The official to whom the parcel to which the hon. Member refers was tendered, states that she could not decipher the address with any certainty, and in these circumstances she was justified in refusing to accept the parcel.

Will the right hon. Gentleman in future take steps to appoint to the Post Office only those who can read Irish?

No, Sir, I must decline to do that. I do not think it right to exclude from the Post Office services officials who cannot read Irish.

Did not this official admit that she understood the address?

Is it not the fact that in Wales—

Order, order! The general question cannot be argued on a Question raising a specific case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the strong feeling in Ireland that some facilities should be given in the Post Office—

Order, order!

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that no opportunity will be given, on a specific Vote or otherwise, to discuss the composition or functions of the new Committee of Defence, he will consider the advisability of proposing an alteration in the Rules of this House which would make the discussion of Imperial Defence as a whole, and the relative needs of the two services, in order on the Army or Navy Estimates, or will provide some definite opportunity other than on the Budget when such discussion would be permissible.

My hon. friend is no doubt aware that I have answered the most important parts of this Question a few days ago. Of course I am open to having questions put to me in the House as to the constitution of the Defence Committee, and I shall be glad to answer them to the best of my ability. But at present I do not think it would be advisable to devote one or two days of the session to a discussion of all the delicate international questions which must arise if we are to discuss strategy at large. I should be sorry to commit myself further at present.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury are His Majesty's Government aware that, by the Convention ratified on 22nd September, 1902, Chili and the Argentine Republic undertake to reduce their fleets within one year from that date, and that consequently two first class battleships of the latest type, costing together about £2,200,000, and recently launched by Messrs. Vickers and Messrs. Armstrong, respectively, are now for sale; have His Majesty's Government considered the change in the present proportion of foreign navies to that of Great Britain which would result from the acquisition of these ships by a Foreign Power; if so, what steps do they propose to take to prevent the consequent diminution in the relative strength of the British Navy.

The important point to which the hon. Member calls attention has been considered—and carefully considered—by the Admiralty; and they have clearly come to the opinion that the ships which are for sale are not suitable for their purposes, and that it would not be advisable to buy them.

Is it not the fact th at they are much superior to any ships of our own Navy?

That is not the Admiralty view.

I rise to move the Motion that stands in my name, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a new writ for the election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the city of Galway, in the room of Arthur Alfred Lynch, adjudged guilty of high treason." The effect of the judgment in this case is a matter of notoriety, and the House has now before it the record of the proceedings stating what was the form of the indictment, what was the judgment of the Court, and what has been done with regard to the commutation of the sentence There is no doubt whatever that this judgment operates to disqualify the person in question from sitting in this House. In past days there has sometimes been a debate on that subject, but all doubt is removed by the terms of the Forfeiture Act passed in 1870, which provides expressly that such a judgment shall operate as a disqualification from sitting in this House. In a matter of so much importance hon. Members will perhaps desire that I should read the words of the Act. The section runs—

"If any person is convicted of treason or felony for which he is sentenced to death or penal servitude, or any term of imprisonment with hard labour exceeding twelve months, he becomes, and until he has suffered the punishment to which he is sentenced or such other punishment as he may be subjected to by the competent authorities, or receives a tree pardon from the Crown, be continues, incapable of being elected to, or silting, or voting, in either House of Parliament.

That express enactment renders it quite unnecessary for the House to pass any resolution stating that that is the effect of the judgment. Before that Act the practice had been established of having a resolution declaring that the judgment had the effect of disqualifying the person in question, and that practice survived in several cases after the statute of 1870: but I think the House will agree with me that in face of this express enactment it is absolutely unnecessary to pass any resolution. That is a matter of clear law and the only question that remains is, what shall be done with reference to the vacancy in Galway, which has been so created? Notice of opposition to this Motion has been given by the hon. Member for North Islington. I am not surprised that there should be in some parts of the House a feeling such as finds expression in the Amendment. There is naturally a very strong feeling of resentment at what occurred in connection with this return to serve in the House, for at the time when Arthur Alfred Lynch was elected to serve in Parliament, it was notorious that he was in arms against the Crown. And that being so, I do not think anyone can be surprised at there being a strong desire to inflict some penalty on the constituency that chose to return such a Member of Parliament. I quite appreciate the reasons which have led the hon. Member to give his notice, but I hope that in this matter the House will be guided by precedent and principle. It might be a very dangerous thing indeed if a precedent were set of disfranchising a constituency because it returned to the House of Commons a person whose views or whose conduct were obnoxious—and most justly obnoxious—to the views of the majority of the House. Such a principle, if once introduced, might lead to very startling applications. The present case, no doubt, is a very extreme one. It has been said that hard cases make bad laws. However that may be, extreme cases may very easily lead to the establishment of very dangerous principles, which in their application in other cases may be very much to be regretted. There is a certain class of cases in which the House has been in the habit of suspending the issue of a writ. It will be found on examination that these are cases in which there has been in the constituency very general bribery and corruption, where inquiry was desirable and was about to be instituted, and where it was very probable that matters might end in the total disfranchisement of the constituency as a punishment for the practices which had been very generally prevalent there. There is the well-known case of the Mayo election, where intimidation had very largely existed, and in that case the House directed the prosecution of several persons and sus- pended the issue of the writ during the then present session. That was a very natural course to take, and it was a course which might have the effect of enabling the constituency to recover from those influences which, according to the result of the inquiry, appeared so extensively to have been brought to bear upon it. The present, however, is a very different case from those in which the writs have been suspended. There are precedents with regard to it, and the chain of precedents is unbroken in showing that in such circumstances as the present the issue of a writ ought not to be suspended by way of a punishment to the constituency. There have been five cases, beginning with the year 1849, and coming down to the year 1805, in which this question has arisen, under circumstances similar to the present. There was in 1849 the case of Mr. Smith O'Brien, who was Member for Limerick; in 1870 the case of O'Donovan Rossa, who was Member for Tipperary; in 1875 the case of Mr. John Mitchell, who was also Member for Tipperary; in 1882 the case of Mr. Davitt, Member for Meath; and in 1895 the case of Mr. Daly, Member for Limerick. In not one of those cases was the issue of the writ suspended in terms similar to those of the Motion of which my hon. friend has given notice, and it will be found on examination that in almost all the cases the proceedings necessary to fill up the vacancy were taken by the Government of the day.

Not in the last case.

I said "in almost all the cases." In 1849 there occurred the case of Mr. Smith O'Brien, which in some respects is most nearly analogous to the present case, because he was a Member of the House before the conviction for high treason took place. His punishment was commuted to transportation, and under these circumstances the Leader of the House, Lord John Russell, moved a Resolution that he was disqualified, and moved the issue of the writ to fill up the vacancy. It may be said by my hon. friend that in that case there is nothing to show how far the constituency were in sym- pathy with the views of Mr. Smith O'Brien when they returned him to Parliament. I do not know how that stands, and, at this distance of time, I dare say it would not be quite easy to ascertain. My hon. friend may say that that is not a sufficient reason for proceeding as Lord John Russell did. There are four other cases which really present stronger grounds for suspending the issue of a writ than the case of Galway now befor.; the House, because in every one of these cases the Member was returned to Parliament when he was actually a convict; and yet not in one of these cases was the issue of the writ suspended, and in most of them the necessary proceedings were taken by the Government for filling up the places. In 1870 O'Donovan Rossa was returned to the House. The Motion that he was disqualified for sitting in the House, and the Motion that a new writ do issue, was made by the Leader of the House, Mr. Gladstone. In 1875, Mr. John Mitchell, being then a convict, was returned to the House by Tipperary. He had been convicted of treason felony in 1848, but had escaped before his sentence had expired, and in 1875 he was returned to Parliament. Mr. Disraeli, who was then Leader of the House, moved the Resolution, and it would appear, though I do not think it is expressly stated, that Mr. Disraeli also moved the issue of the writ. In 1882 Mr. Davitt was returned for Meath. He had been convicted of treason felony in 1870, and was under a sentence of penal servitude for fifteen years. When he was returned in 1882, being then a convict whose sentence had not expired, the Attorney General of the day, now Lord James of Hereford, put down upon the Paper of the House two Resolutions. The first Resolution was that Mr. Davitt was disqualified for sitting in the House and that was carried on a division upon the Motion of the Attorney General. The other Resolution which the Attorney General put down was that a writ should issue to fill the vacancy. He did not move it for the reason that a claim was made for the seat, and it was not desirable that anything should be done until that matter had been disposed of. That took place in February, and the writ was not moved then for the reason I have stated. It appears to have been moved in the Parliament following, and I am told that it was moved by a Member of the Irish Party, but it does not appear to have met with any opposition, and was issued. The last case is that which occurred in 1895, when Mr. Daly was returned for Limerick. He had been convicted of treason felony in 1881, and his sentence being unexpired, he was returned to Parliament in 1895. The Attorney General, now the Lord Chief Justice, moved the Resolution declaring that he was disqualified from sitting in the House. That is the Resolution which I now ask the House to dispense with as being unnecessary. When the Resolution had been carried, the First Lord was asked whether he proposed to move the writ, and replied "Not to-day." The matter stood over, and the Motion was afterwards made by an hon. Member for an Irish constituency, and appears to have passed unopposed, and the writ was issued in the ordinary course. Now, Sir, I submit to the House that the precedents are really unanimous for the writ going in such cases, and that these precedents are based upon sound principles. The precedents also show that the practice has been for the Government to move in this matter, and I. apprehend for this reason the members of the Government may be regarded as being charged in some degree with the care of any matter of privilege which may arise. Under these circumstances, I beg to move. Sir, that you, Mr. Speaker, do issue your warrant for the purposes of this writ, and I would ask the House, in deciding upon the matter, not to allow themselves to be carried away by any feeling of resentment, however natural, and I may even say proper, but to be guided in a matter which is of so much importance by precedent and by reason. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a New Writ for the election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the City of Galway, in the room of Arthur Alfred Lynch, adjudged guilty of high treason."—(The Attorney General.)

I am sorry to have to move an Amendment to this Motion, and my Amendment will run in these words: Leave out all the words after "that," and insert "the writ for the City of Galway do not issue during the present session." I think that is a very moderate and mild conclusion, and I hope that what I shall have the honour of saying will convince many hon. Members that this is a reasonable step to take. I do not quite understand why the Government should act as they have done in pressing this matter forward. Although I am not a great believer in precedents, and do not think they should always be followed, it is clear from the precedents in this matter that it has not been the universal practice for the Government to move the writ. Under present circumstances, if it had been left to the Whips of the Irish Party, it would not have been a matter for the Government, and hon. Members on this side would have voted without the tie of Party allegiance, and without following the Party Whip. I regret that this course has been taken, because the reason is obvious, but nevertheless I think it my duty to bring the matter forward, and challenge a division upon the subject. I shall endeavour to show that this is an altogether unprecedented case, that we have never had a similar one, and the reasons I shall give ought to be reasons for suspending the writ. There have been many occasions on which a writ has been delayed in issuing, for as recently as 1901 an hon. Member moved that a writ should be withheld in the case of Maidstone. The reason for this was that it was considered that the borough was corrupt, twenty-five persons having been proved guilty of corruption, and eleven having been bribed. I spoke on that occasion and voted for the Resolution for delaying the writ, because I thought it should be delayed. I only refer to this question to show that it has been the practice in many other cases, and I also bring it forward to show the reason why the writ was there suspended. It was suspended because twenty or forty persons had been proved to be corrupt in that district, and although that was a proper case, I shall show that the offence was a compara- tively small one compared with the offence in Galway. The same thing happened in Nottingham and Norwich in 1848, when the writ for a similar offence—corruption—was suspended for five years; and therefore it is quite clear from the precedents that this House has the power, and has exercised it, of suspending a writ when it thinks proper, and suspending a writ even for a period of five years. It is clear from the Attorney General's speech that it is not unprecedented for hon. Members of this House to be guilty of treason. There have been several cases, and we are all very sorry for it. The last ease was Daly's, which the Attorney General has referred to, and in that case the Government did not take any action, but left it to the ordinary channels for the moving of the writ; but the case which is most in common is that of 1849, when William Smith O'Brien was expelled the House; and before that there was another case in 1715, when a Mr. Foster was expelled as a traitor. In both these cases, it is true—and certainly in Mr. Smith O Brien's case—the Leader of the House did move the writ, but the case I shall try and make out is that this instance of Galway differs, because the constituency knew the facts before the hon. Member was elected. In all these former cases this was not so. The Smith O'Brien case rests most on all fours, but he became a traitor after he had been elected. In Galway the so-called "Colonel" Lynch was elected by a constituency because they knew he was a traitor, and they voted for him because he was a traitor. This was advertised and known, as I shall show by quotations. It was known at the time that he was fighting against the King's soldiers, and it was for that reason that he was elected. I have shown, and I think it is obvious, that we have the right to suspend the writ; and I say distinctly that if we have the right to suspend it because a few persons in a district are guilty of bribery and corruption, most emphatically it is our duty to do so in a district and borough where there has been wholesale treason in returning a Member. Now, Sir, what are the facts? They are these: Arthur Lynch was returned for Galway; he was tried and found guilty of high treason for fighting for the enemies of this country, firing at, and doing all he could to kill our own soldiers our sons and brothers, he was condemned to death, but the Royal clemency has been given to him, and the sentence of death has been reduced to penal servitude for life. It may be that the constituency were unaware of these facts It may be that he might have become a traitor afterwards, but I shall read from quotations to show that this was not the case in Galway. As a matter of fact, a great number of the electors there knew what Colonel Lynch was doing, and they not only knew this but gloried in it, and made boast of it, and a constituency that does this certainly should be treated as severely as constituencies were treated where there was a certain amount of corruption and bribery. Now, the way to prove that will be to read extracts from the local newspapers and from the speeches delivered at the time. I do not wish to delay the House long, but I must just read a few of these quotations. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford, for instance, telegraphed that he hoped the electors of Gal way would haul down the bloodstained banner of England, and hoist that of a free nationality.

I was in America at the time.

It is all very well to laugh at these things, and it is ail very well for the hon. Member for Waterford to say he was in America—we have heard these things before.

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I said I was in America, and I took no part in the election. I indeed sent a telegram from America, but it was in no "such words as those.

I will read the words. The hon. Gentleman will not dispute that he telegraphed the words which were published—that he wished Colonel Lynch (the soldier of freedom) might be elected

No; I never telegraphed such words.

Where did you get them?

I have often noticed this course taken when these things are brought up. I will read the extracts from the Irish papers, and perhaps what they contain will conclusively show that my statement is correct.

Really, Mr. Speaker, I must intervene, I think, on the issue that has been raised. What I said is of very little importance; but as I have contradicted the statement, and as the hon. Gentleman has not accepted my contradiction, I ask you, Sir, as a matter of order, if the hon. Gentleman is not bound to accept my disclaimer of those words.

The hon. Member for North Islington was going beyond the Rules of Order in saying after the contradiction of the hon. Member, that such statements were often made. The hon. Member should withdraw that remark.

I do not wish to say anything that is not courteous or respectful to the hon. Member, but I will read various quotations which I have, and, if the hon. Member disputes them, of course I will withdraw.

Does the hon. Member withdraw the statement which seemed to imply that the hon. Member for Waterford had wilfully denied the use of words which he actually did use?

I beg pardon. I did not mean my words to have any such application.

It is of no consequence. Go on.

I shall give the various quotations as I have them hero. The Galway Observer; in an article on 26th October, said—

"Colonel Arthur Lynch … acted as war correspondent for Le Journal in the Transvaal, He abandoned the pen for the sword, and raised and commanded the so-called Second Irish Brigade on the Boer side."

That was the reason why the paper strongly urged the electors to support him. I say that is conclusive evidence that the electors knew what they were doing. The Irish Daily Independent and Nation, on 13th November, said—

"Colonel Lynch it will be remembered fought with the Boers in the South African War, and it is believed that if he landed in Ireland there is a probability of his being at once placed under arrest for high treason."

That is a clear indication that that newspaper knew that he was an offender, and I say emphatically that it was known in the district that he was acting in that way. The Galway Observer, on 26th October, said in reference to Colonel Lynch—

"He is quite eligible for a seat in Parliament, notwithstanding his being in arms against the forces of the King in South Africa."

That shows again it was common knowledge in the district where the election was going on. The Freeman's Journal on 18th November published a telegram sent to the hon. Member for East Mayo by the hon. Member for Waterford and others. It contained these words—

"We call upon the people of Galway to strike a blow for Irish freedom by electing triumphantly the Nationalist candidate, the soldier of freedom, Colonel Arthur Lynch."

These are the words on which I based the statement I made just now.

The words I objected to were some reference to a blood-stained flag.

I, of course, do not want to repeat that. [An IRISH MEMBER: "Because you can't."] The hon. Member for East Clare, speaking at a meeting at Galway on 18th November, is reported in the Freeman's Journal to have said that—

"Colonel Lynch could not come to Galway because there was a price upon his head, but if he was made M. P. for Galway the British Government would not dare to lay hands on him." That shows that the action of Colonel Lynch was known distinctly and emphatically to the electorate. The Freeman's Journal reported a meeting addressed by Mr. Davitt on the previous day at the Court Theatre, Galway. Mr. Davitt said—?

"What was the case of Colonel Lynch? They knew that he fought as gallantly and loyally for the Boers as Major MacBride. A convention was called in Galway and Colonel Lynch's name, with his consent, was placed before it and he was unanimously adopted as the Nationalist candidate."

There were two men, Major MacBride and Colonel Lynch, and there appeared to be a competition as to who had been most active on behalf of the enemies of this country. There was a competition as to which had been the greatest traitor. I say that is conclusive proof that the electorate of Galway knew emphatically what was going on. The Freeman's Journal, in a leading article on November 22nd said—

"Colonel Lynch, the soldier of Boer liberty, has been returned…. Those who have never heard of Mr. Plunkett will hear that Galway, an Irish constituency, has elected to the British House of Commons a Member whose chief claim upon it is that he defended Boer independence against unscrupulous British aggression."

I have an extract from the Galway Express, which I believe is a Unionist paper. In an article on November 30th it said—

"Mr. Lynch … cannot under existing conditions sit. He is, by the account of his own supporters, a rebel who joined himself unto the Boers, and bore arms against the British empire and its Sovereign."

The Freeman's Journal of November 26th contained a telegram reporting a meeting held at Chicago at which the hon. Member for Waterford said—

"When the Irish wanted to send a Member to represent them in Parliament they picked out a Colonel who had fought for the Boers."

That shows conclusively that they did know it, and acted accordingly. After the election, the Galway Observer states—

"A meeting of the Letter frack Branch of the United Irish League was held on 24th November, at which Mr. Valleby proposed the following resolution: 'That we, members of the Letter frack Branch of the United Irish League, hail with delight the result of the Galway election, and the return of Colonel Arthur Lynch, who fought against British tyranny and for the freedom of the South African Republics.'"

That resolution was passed unanimously by the meeting. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that a writ should be issued for the return of another Member by this constituency which voted for a man because he was a traitor and fighting against the King's troops. Hon. Members opposite, I think, will not dispute the statement that he was elected because he was fighting against the King's troops. I do not think that there is any indication that they regret it. I do not think anyone will get up and say that it is a fact that they do regret it. Mr. Lynch was returned by a large majority, and therefore I appeal to the House—I appeal to those who objected to the war, for the origin of war has nothing to do with it—to disfranchise the constituency. If we disfranchise a constituency for five years because they are corrupt, surely it stands to reason that we should disfranchise a constituency when we find that they are steeped in treason, when we know that they are glorying in their treason, and when we know perfectly well that at the present moment they do not regret or repent what they did. I do feel, even if the precedents are against us, even if the precedents show that the Government should move, that this is an exceptional case, because the same circumstances never occurred before. I protest against the Government having taken the initiative in this case, and beg to move the omission of all the words after "That," in order to insert "the writ for the city of Galway be not issued during the present Session."

In rising to second the Amendment I act with a full sense of responsibility, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite in general, and Irish Members in particular, will believe me when I say that under similar circumstances I should be prepared, nay, I should have felt it my duty, in similar circumstances to take a similar course in resisting the issue of a writ to any constituency in the United Kingdom. Until the other day we had all been under the impression that the ordinary course of procedure would have been followed and that the Irish Parliamentary Whips would have moved for this writ, but since then the excavation of some Parliamentary precedent has apparently entailed on the Government the necessity of bringing this Motion forward in the House. I think from the Attorney General's speech that it is his duty rather than his desire to move this writ, and that he is impelled thereto by tradition only. I hope that the Attorney General, having done so, the House of Commons will be permitted, without the assistance of the crack of the Party Whip, to take its own line in this matter. I confess that this new procedure has rather astonished me, for I never should have thought that those who in 1901 at Blenheim Palace delivered speeches which, if they meant anything, fore shadowed an early curtailment of Irish representation on account of the hostile attitude of Irish Members during the war, would have brought forward such a Motion. The phrase "toy shop treason" is present to the minds of us all; yet the colleague of the right hon. Gentleman who used this phrase is the first to ask the House to enable Galway to repeat its deliberate choice in lieu of a man whose treason at any rate was not "toy shop," and, with the same degree of sincerity with which the Irish leaders—or, perhaps, I should now say leader-writers—recommended Mr. Lynch to the electors of Galway on account of his hostile attitude toward this Empire. I beg the House of Commons to deny to a constituency amenable to such influences the exercise of the highest privilege of citizenship. This is the first notice which the House of Commons has taken of this act of treason. Indeed we make more fuss about a breach of our ordinary Standing Orders than we have made of this man's treason. Mr. Lynch, since 1900, has never passed the portals of this House as Member for Galway. He has never taken the oath of allegiance at that box; since he came to these shores he has been treated as an ordinary citizen of the country, charged with a high misdeemeanour. There has been no Motion for his expulsion. The House of Commons has done nothing but register the condemnation passed on Mr. Lynch by a Court of Justice, and has had no opportunity until this moment of giving its opinion of Mr. Lynch or of the constituency which elected him. It might be at some future date, in some dark day in our country's history, that not one man, but several men, might be returned by disloyal constituencies, and the House of Commons would be defenceless then, if the present procedure were followed, from doing anything but register the decree of the Court and then proceed to the risk of taking to its own bosom other men who are guilty of an equally bald but perhaps less brave form of treason. It is unnecessary to inform the House that we harbour no vindictiveness against Mr. Lynch. We believe, indeed, that he is a good deal braver man than many of those who share his opinions. We are jealous of the dignity and the honour of the House of Commons: and we are jealous lest, by allowing this writ to go without protest, we should prove ourselves guilty, in the words of the Lord Chief Justice, of the crime of "belittling treason." For ages past it has been our proud boast that England is the freest of countries in the whole world; but even we have never laid it down as a sound constitutional maxim that we should allow people to do what they choose until we find out what they choose to do; and if, in the exercise of their duty, the people of Galway, or any other constituency, choose to elect men like Mr. Lynch, then I say, for the sake of the dignity of the House, and also for the security of the loyalists throughout this country and the Empire, that the Government ought to waive this antiquated tradition which they have recalled into existence, and to alter, if necessary, the existing law of the country. They ought to offer difficulties and not facilities in the way of issuing this writ for Galway, and in this way, and this way only, which the words of the Colonial Secretary will prove to be just and true, "that the nation is taking note of these proceedings and expects that the Mother of Parliaments will know how to defend herself." Amendment proposed, "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'no Writ for the City of Galway be issued in this present Session.' "—(Sir George Bartley.)

The House has listened, not only with great-attention but with interest to the wise words of the representative of His Majesty's Government in moving the Resolution on the Paper. Mr. Gladstone expressed similar opinions in this House some years ago. There might be some truth in what had been said by the mover and seconder of the Amendment, but I rather prefer the views and to follow the lead of the Attorney General. Of course we know what is at the bottom of this Amendment; but it is only two or three nights ago that all those things were being said about the Secretary of State for War which are now being said of the constituency of Galway. Well, the right hon. Gentleman was not exactly accused of treason, but of wasting His Majesty's money, and I do not know which is worse. I would point out to the aspiring gentlemen who sit below the gangway that it is the opinion of the Attorney General that all sorts of constituencies should be represented in this House. The mover of the Amendment is a very good party man; and we all congratulate the hon. Member for Islington North on his late accession to dignity. We all welcome his promotion, but I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman is going a little too far in moving to disfranchise the constituency of Gal way, which, after all, may be Conservative. The hon. Gentleman is not following the rules of the game by attacking the referee who has given a decision against him. I happened to be in Galway during the election, not taking part in it, but because I was obliged to be in the town for a meeting of the County Council, and am therefore better informed on the facts than the hon. Gentleman whose quotations were misleading. We all know that the hon. Gentleman does not always get good information, but then we are all liable to make mistakes. I was surprised at some of the omissions made both by the mover and seconder of the Amendment. They talked as if Mr. Lynch was a man absolutely unknown to the burgh of Galway.

No.

At any rate they did by omission, if not by commission, That is fact number one. Another is that the family of Lynch has been very well known in Galway for many generations. They are one of the tribes of Galway, though not of the true Irish tribes; they are Normans. During the election the burgh of Galway was particularly quiet. Taking my information exclusively from Conservative sources, I found that there were from eighty to a hundred Conservative electors—most of them Unionist—yet Lord Killanin polled at the previous election 850 votes, though perhaps he owed a good deal to his name. Now at the last election one of the best known men in Ireland came forward as a Conservative candidate; some said that it was the Conservative Whips who insisted upon it. At any rate, Mr. Horace Plunkett was very well known as having taken the greatest interest in the agriculture of Ireland, and as a man of the highest probity and fairness. On the other hand, Mr. Lynch, whose family was connected with Galway, came forward, everybody on both sides knew, rather as a Home Ruler than as a supporter of the strong principles quoted by the hon. Member for North Islington. But a very curious thing happened. It is believed, I will not say it is a fact, because we cannot see into the ballot-box, but somehow an idea leaked out, that less than sixty Conservatives voted for Mr. Plunkett out of 407 who supported him, so that the Conservatives are just as responsible for the election of Mr. Lynch as the others who voted for him. Mr. Plunkett had been guilty of the iniquity of appointing a Catholic to the Agricultural Department. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, that is an iniquity in the view of the Conservatives of Ireland. They did not like him. What was the unfortunate elector in Galway to do? Here was a gentleman who was said to have fought against his country; the elector did not know whether he was boasting, or whether he was only a newspaper correspondent. No one was at all certain on the subject. Again, a great many people did not know whether he had not the right to change his allegiance. Up to about 1854 or 1855, no man could change his allegi- ance; but since that date it has been encted that a man can change his allegiance. However, the Lord Chief Justice laid it down, I have no doubt quite properly, that a man cannot change his allegiance during a time of war. But that was absolutely unknown at the time of the Galway election. I can quite understand a Home Rule elector saying, "Hero is a doubtful case; yet this candidate is a Home Ruler, and I must vote for him." If the House of Commons disfranchises this constituency it will be departing from the precedents which have been established. The Attorney General pointed out the great danger of such a proceeding; and the simplest thing to do is to accept the guidance which has been given by the Attorney General. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite have done quite enough to advertise themselves. Owing to anti-Irish feeling in the constituencies they will get a great deal of credit and kudos. The mover of the Amendment said that it was not a Party question; but I am too old a Parliamentary bird to be caught in that trap. Of course, it is a Party question. Another point is that there are too few borough Members in Ireland. It is acknowledged on all sides that there ought to be a balance in the representation of borough and rural constituencies; yet it was now proposed to reduce the borough constituencies in Ireland by one. Further, the Conservatives may win the seat, and, on principles of fairness, and in order to allow the constitution of the country to proceed in its usual form, I hope the House of Commons will accept the dictum of the Attorney General, and allow the writ to be issued.

It appears to me that no reason has been shown why we should depart from the well established practice of issuing a writ in cases of this kind. That practice has been absolutely clear, and was admitted by the hon. Member who seconded the Motion; and the House of Commons would be setting a very dangerous precedent if they were to leave a constituency unrepresented on account of the conduct of its Member, and not because of anything connected with the conduct of the constituency itself. It is clear to me that in this case the Attorney General is right in moving that the writ be issued, and I will, therefore, support the Motion.

There appears to be two questions raised by the speeches of my hon. friends who have moved and seconded the Amendment. One is a question of procedure, and the other is a question of merit. My hon. friends have asked, with feelings of virtuous indignation, why the writ has been moved from this Bench. That is a question of form, but not an unimportant question of form. I desire to state why I believe that this was the only course open to us. As my hon. friend who moved the Amendment pointed out in an interruption during the speech of the Attorney General, the writ was not moved from this Bench in the case which occurred in 1895. I was at that time First Lord of the Treasury, and my hon. friend appears to think that I then set a new precedent which I ought, in this case, to follow. Let me remind him of the circumstances of 1895. We met to wind up the necessary business of the session, immediately after a stormy General Election. The question was raised on, I think, the very first day of the meeting of the new Parliament; and, so far as I was concerned, I had not then made myself acquainted with the rather elaborate series of precedent to which attention has been called by the Attorney General; and I have no doubt, although my recollection is a little shadowy, that that was the reason why a course was not then taken in accordance with the precedent. The matter was put off for a fortnight, and the writ was then moved without any observation or any opposition. If the matter were to be passed sub silentio on this occasion, it appears to me it would be a small matter as to who moved the writ or not; but if the issue of the writ were to be contested, it appeared to us, after a most careful examination of the precedents, that we, as guardians of the Constitution, were bound to take a leading part in the debate, and that the most honest course for us was to move the writ our- selves, and do what our predecessors have so often done from this bench. So much for the question of form, which is relatively unimportant. What we have to ask ourselves to-day is what course we. should pursue, if we wish to preserve inviolate the ancient liberties and traditions of this House, and of the constituencies which this House represents. My hon. friend, in the course of his eloquent peroration, talked about excavating musty precedents, and he appeared to think that he was speaking as the defender of British liberties, and of the ancient forms and practices of this House. As a matter of fact, my hon. friend is a heretic on this occasion, and the heresy of my hon. friend is directed, not against musty precedents, but against precedents many of which have occurred within the memory of hon. Members now listening to me, and only one of which could have occurred before the first birthday of my hon. friend. What are the principles that underlie the action we are taking? First, let me say a word from the historical point of view. I have said that the precedents alluded to by my hon. and learned friend are of recent date. That is true, but the practice of the House is old. Going back to the precedent in which everyone now thinks that the House of Commons of that day took a very high-handed course indeed—I refer to the case of Mr. Wilkes—no one now defends what the House of Commons did in that case. But although the House of Commons declared Mr. Wilkes to be an outlaw and expelled him again and again from this House, and declared him to be incapable of sitting in this House, yet the electors of Middlesex went on electing him to the House of Commons; and, in spite of that, the House of Commons never went the length of endeavouring to disfranchise that constituency. The House of Commons of that day did many things, but even it shrank from disfranchising a constituency on the ground of the character of the man it returned. I admit, however, that it is on more recent precedents we have to rely; and the most recent precedent afforded a very much stronger case for disfranchisement than the case now before us. I will not go into the case of Smith O'Brien. I agree with the observation of my hon. friend who moved the Amendment that we have no evidence before us to show that the constituency when it elected Smith O'Brien either desired him to be guilty of treason, or anticipated that he would be guilty of treason. I think, therefore, we may put that case aside, so far as the argument which I am now making is concerned. Let the House consider the case of Mr. Mitchell. He was elected twice and was expelled once; and would, of course, have been expelled again had his election been regarded as valid. On both occasions on which he was elected, the constituency electing him knew that he was suffering imprisonment for treason felony. How can we compare a case like this with the case of Mr. Mitchell? His case was incomparably stronger on two grounds; first, because when he was elected he was actually suffering imprisonment; and secondly, because he was elected by the same constituency twice. That precedent occurred when Mr. Disraeli had just been returned to this House at the head of a very strong Conservative majority; and I cannot imagine a precedent which ought to have greater weight with my hon. friends than that. There is another case, in some respects as strong as the case of Mr. Mitchell, but which seems to me in many respects to be stronger. It is the case of Daly, who was a dynamitard. I do not know what scale of guilt my hon. friends observe in this case, but, shocking as is overt treason and crim-such as occurred in 1818, it is incomparably less atrocious and less shocking to all civilised and moral feelings than the crime of a dynamitard. Daly was imprisoned for dynamite, and, being elected for a constituency in 1895, it seems to me that the House has a perfectly clear precedent so far as modern cases are concerned, and I do not know what answer can be made to that argument. In considering the present case, if hon. Gentlemen ask me whether I think that the suspicion that Mr. Lynch had fought against us in South Africa helped or hindered his election in Galway, I have no hesitation in expressing my own personal belief that it assisted Lynch's election, but is it safe for the House to proceed on that kind of interpretation of the facts? My hon. friend has quoted, not Mr. Lynch's address, which, according to my hon. friend, was innocuous and even tedious, but articles from the Freeman's Journal and other newspapers, and two speeches delivered in Galway itself. I hope that I shall not be judged by the leading articles which are written about me; and the experience of my hon. friend and other hon. Members must be happier than mine if they wish to be judged by the speeches made on their own platform in their favour. I think it is dangerous ground, and never has that opinion been borne in upon me more strongly than when I heard a phrase from my hon. friend the seconder of the Amendment My hon. friend expressed a high and generous sentiment. He said that he had no personal feeling against Mr. Lynch, but that there were many others like him. My hon. friend did not say where exactly they were to be found, but he formed his own opinion on the point. My hon. friend said that these men were not only as guilty as Mr. Lynch in the national aspect of his crime, but in their moral turpitude in concealing and doing in a covert manner that which Mr. Lynch had the courage to do openly.

I wish I could have used the expressions which my right hon. friend has just put into my mouth. All I said was that Mr. Lynch was a braver man than many who shared his opinions. There was no question of moral turpitude or anything else.

I do not think do my hon. friend any injustice in putting the matter as I did when he discusses the question of the bravery of Mr. Lynch's acts. My hon. friend says there were twenty other persons like Mr. Lynch, who only differed from him by being not only traitors, but cowards as well; that if any such had been, or are likely to he, elected by any Irish constituencies, it is manifest that they commit a greater crime than the constituency which elected Mr. Lynch, because they elect traitors, who are, in addition, cowards. But are we to exercise our personal judgment, to study leading articles and speeches made on their behalf; are we to form our judgment, not by the action of the court of law, not on the report of two judges, not even on the investigations of a Committee of the House, but on the estimate of the general moral sources of opinion open to us, and then to say that this or that constituency has elected a person most unworthy to sit in the House, and that it should be disfranchised for six months? No, Sir; I say we should remember that we ought not to proceed against a constituency except on well-established facts and upon clear principles. If a man has committed treason, or treason felony, and is suffering for it, there we have a well-established fact—a court of law has decided it—and there can be no doubt, as far as human machinery can arrive at the truth, that the man was guilty. By all means let us say that no such person should be elected; but if we choose to lay down the principle that a constituency which elected such a man is unworthy to be represented, let the House do this elaborately, and in obedience to some principle carefully laid down and accepted by the House. But my hon. friend proposes to go much further. He asks the House to embark on a course in which their deviations from the path of justice are not based on clear principles. When the point is not quite clear, is my hon. friend going to ask the House to discuss leading articles and speeches without any full inquiry of any kind, and then proceed to expel the Member and disfranchise the constituency? I think it would he a risky transaction, and I recommend the House to accept the motion of the Attorney General.

This debate has originated in a question of great Constitutional importance, and although in all its parts it has not been a very great debate, although my right hon. friend has made an exceptionally ingenious case for the course the Government are taking, he has not, experienced dialectician as he is, been able to do more than obscure the true issue which lies before the House. I quite agree it may be said that precedent points to the House taking a rather more indulgent course than has been suggested by my hon. friend. But no precedent exactly deals with a case like that of Galway. Never before has the insult offered to the House been of such a scale and of so notorious and flagrant a character; never before has it been made so much an occasion of boasting and approval by those who applauded, if they did not imitate, the conduct of Mr. Lynch. This fact differentiates it from all precedent. But supposing the case was on all fours with precedent, what is the true argument to be drawn from precedent? It is that the indulgence of the House in the past has been abused. The House has allowed most improper Members to be returned without expressing displeasure, and instead of it passing over as a transient phase it has become the habitual practice, and has increased with passing years. The argument of precedent really tells the other way. It is time to draw the line and to set our faces against criminals or traitors or any person of that class who is notoriously unfit for Membership of the House. I quite agree that the return of the dynamitard is scarcely less insulting; but supposing the House had taken the course recommended in 1895, supposing we had withheld the writ altogether for the rest of the Parliament, would it not have been much better? Would the House not have been spared the election for Galway of which it complains? Should we not have convinced the constituencies who made an improper choice, of the impropriety of returning such representatives, making them suffer for the wrong they tried to do to Parliament? Mr. Lynch might have come to the Table last session, and, according to Mr. Speaker Peel, it would have been impossible to prevent him from taking the oath of allegiance. Is it to be said that a constituency is competent to send up a rebel—because he is a rebel, in order to outrage the House by taking the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign against whom he has been in revolt? The principle that there is no wrong without a remedy expresses a great truth. There must be a remedy against an outrage so flagrant to the Sovereign of this realm and the dignity of Parliament. This constituency committed a wrong which nearly resulted in a great insult to Parliament, and one which we could not have prevented, and I say that we ought to punish the constituency in order to prevent the danger of a recurrence of such an outrage. What is really at the root of all this is the fact that for too long we have regarded treason as a matter for joke or contempt, and not for serious notice. What was it that induced the Government to press the prosecution against Mr. Lynch? It was not any vindictive feeling against that individual. No doubt much might be said in extenuation of his particular offence; but it was in order to emphasise the gravity of the crime of treason as such, to show that treason must no longer be regarded as a trivial matter which the Government of this country and this House could afford to treat with contempt and pass over. That has been the attitude in the past, but it ought not to be the attitude in the future. The South African War brought home the lesson, amongst others, that treason is a matter of national gravity, and ought to be so treated. What we ask the House of Commons to do to-day is to express in a formal manner its disapproval of the action of a constituency which, beyond a doubt, was an accomplice in an act constituting an approval of treason, and to set up on high the standard of public duty, to be maintained before all the world, that treason is a great national offence. It is not intended to enter into a contest with the constituency. No one proposes that Galway should be disfranchised for ever and ever. All that is proposed is that we should impose on Galway a mark of our disapproval of its action in the matter, and then, as in every other offence, when the punishment has been inflicted and suffered, the offence will have been purged. In defence of a principle in the maintenance of which we believe, we should not hesitate to take the sense of the House.

What the House is asked to do is not to disfranchise the constituency for ever, but to mark its sense of the breach of trust which has been committed. It is not a punishment, but a mark of disapproval. The right hon. Gentleman says he is the guardian of the Constitution. Yes, but it must not be forgotten that the Government are, in some respects, under a suspicion in this case. The other day, when there was a possibility of the regular forces of the Army on this side proving insufficient, the reserve forces on the Irish Benches or what I may call the Irish Landwehr were brought up to save the Government either from disaster or from a moral defeat. What I rose to suggest was simply that on this occasion the Government influence should be withdrawn, and the Government Whips not used, and that the House should thus be allowed to express its unbiassed opinion.

Personally, I am quite Unable to give a vote in support of the attitude of the Government on this occasion. The Member for Galway spoke of playing by the rules of the game. It is by the rules of the game I propose to vote to-day. As I under-