Commons Sitting of 8 June 1899

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
They have agreed to:—
Pilotage Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
Ilford Gas Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to amend the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897." [Congested Districts (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1893, to enable the School Board for Liverpool to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts." [Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (Liverpool) Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Lowestoft Water and Gas Company in connection with their water undertaking; and for other purposes." [Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for enabling the North Eastern Railway Company and the Hull, Barnsley and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Company to make a dock and railways at Hull; and for other purposes." [North Eastern and Hull and Barnsley Railways (Joint Dock) Bill [Lords].
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer additional powers upon the North Eastern Railway Company for the construction of new railways and other works and the acquisition of additional lands; and for transferring to the company the North Holderness Light Railway Company; and for other purposes." [North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords].
Jones Divorce Bill [Lords]—That they do communicate Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings taken upon the Second Reading of Jones' Divorce Bill, as desired by this House, with a request that the same may be returned.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINES.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].
  Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with.
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the first reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

  TOTLAND WATER BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  ALL SAINTS' CHURCH (CARDIFF) BILL [Lords].
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: It is only necessary to detain the House a very short time in order to explain the Motion which appears on the Paper in my name. The Bill to which my Motion refers is called the "All Saints' Church (Cardiff) Bill," and it has passed the House of Lords. It has not yet been read a second time in this House, and, in fact, I take the opportunity of bringing up my Motion before the Bill comes on for second reading. My contention is that the Standing Orders of the House have not been complied with in this case. Hon. Members know that the Standing Orders provide in the case of Private Bills that notice should be given in October or November setting forth the objects of the Bill to be brought in, with a short explanation at the head of the notice describing the main objects of the Bill. I do not want to go into the merits of the Bill, but I may say that the objects of the Bill are to sell the present parish church called All Saints, and to devote the funds partly to the building of a new church and partly towards the present church of Dewi Sant, and to substitute as parish church for the church about to be sold the church about to be built. In the notices published in the Gazette and in the local newspapers in November last, it was stated at the head that it was proposed that the church called the New Church of Dewi Sant, the Welsh Church of the parish of All Saints' should be
  620
  constituted the parish church in place of the church it is proposed to sell. Now, the Bill itself provides for something very different indeed. Had it not been for what I regard as the very material changes between the objects as set forth in the notices and the objects provided for in the Bill, I suppose there would have been very little opposition to the Bill. The Bill itself provides, not that the church of Dewi Sant should be substituted as the parish church, but that the new church proposed to be built should be the parish church. Clause 10 provides that "The new church (to be built) should, on and after its consecration, for all purposes, take the place of and be in substitution for, the old church." I contend that the notices given in November last were distinctly misleading, and that a complete change of policy occurred between the time of giving the notices and the introduction of the Bill. The Bill in due course came before the Examiners, and they reported that the Standing Orders were compiled with; and I understand that there is no appeal against the decision of the Examiners. The only way to get out of the difficulty, it appears to me, is to refer the Bill back to them. I do not believe that this would cause any delay, because they will be able to report in a few days, and the Bill has not yet been put down for a second reading in this House. I do not wish to attach the smallest suspicion of blame to the Examiners. If I had been one of them I would have committed exactly the same mistake. Nor do I want to ascribe any blame to the Parliamentary agents of the promoters of the Bill, who are a firm of very high standing. But I cannot free myself from suspicion of doubt as to the action of the promoters. A friend of mind told me that in January he heard rumours that a change of policy had occurred, but, on inquiring, he was assured that the church of Dewi Sant was to be made the parish church. I say deliberately that the notices given of this Bill were distinctly misleading, and have, in fact, misled the people of Cardiff.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, to whom the Bill is referred, that they do inquire and report as to whether Standing Order No. 3 (notices by advertisement) has or has not been complied with."—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The view taken by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil in this case has my warmest sympathy, although I am afraid I cannot recommend the House to accept the motion which he has just made. The case, in a few words, is simply this: that under the notices which were given of this Bill it was proposed, amongst other things, to "constitute the new church dedicated to Dewi Sant, situate in Howard Gardens, in the said parish of All Saints', the Parish Church of the Parish and District Chapelry of All Saints' in substitution for the existing Church of All Saints, and to make all such provisions and confer all such powers as may be necessary for accomplishing that object." In the short title of the notice which was given, this phrase occurs: "Constitution of the New Church of Dewi Sant as Parish Church." I think that that is a wholly misleading notice, and I can quite understand that the inhabitants of Cardiff, seeing that notice of the Bill, thought that the Welsh church of Dewi Sant was to be constituted the parish church; that that fell in with their views, and that they, therefore, would not take further objection. They did not do what perhaps they ought to have done—send for a copy of the Bill, or at any rate inspect the Bill at the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons. It is only recently that they have discovered the omission in the Bill itself of provisions to carry out what was in the notice. It seems to me, as I have said, that the notice was very misleading, and that the public were led to expect that certain things would appear in the Bill. But when the Bill came to this House not only does this provision not occur, but the very opposite occurs—that the new church to be built is to be the parish church of the parish of All Saints'. So much on the merits of the case. Then comes the question of procedure. Now, although I have not a very strong feeling on the matter, I think it would not be a very wise thing to send the Bill back to the Examiners. It must be a matter of common knowledge that very often the notices go considerably beyond what is afterwards contained in the Bill. You cannot, under certain circumstances, expect that the Bill shall contain everything that is in the notice. There are numerous cases in which notices drawn
  622
  in November must contain proposals which, by the time the Bill reaches this House, it is obvious cannot be carried out. And, therefore, we cannot say that because a Bill does not carry out every particular in the notice there has been a non-compliance with the Standing Orders. If the Bill went back to the Examiners they would only report that, though in certain respects it did not carry out all that was in the notice, there has not been non-compliance with the Standing Orders. To send it back, moreover, would cause a great deal of delay and a very considerable amount of expense. Exception to the notices should also have been taken at an earlier stage, in the other House. For these reasons I do not ask the House to take that step on a question of procedure. When the Bill comes before the House there will be an opportunity to excise or amend the clause to which the hon. Member objects, and to insert the proposal that the church of Dewi Sant shall be the parish church. To that no technical objection can be taken. The hon. Member's case will not be prejudiced by waiting till that time, and therefore I should suggest that the House should not pass the motion standing in the hon. Member's name, but reserve to itself the right to amend the Bill in Committee.
  MR. D. BKYNMOR JONES: I do not think that the case is quite met by the course suggested by the Chairman of Committees. If we get the Bill sent back to the Examiners they will have to report that the Standing Orders have not been complied with. In Sir Erskine May's, "Parliamentary Practice," it is said that "in preparing a Bill for deposit the promoters should be careful that no provisions are inserted which are not sufficiently alluded to in the notices." Our complaint is that in the notices there was no sufficient indication that the Bill would propose that the new church would be the parish church. It was quite the contrary. The notice was that the existing Welsh church of Dewi Sant should be the parish church. But when the Bill is laid on the Table of the House it turns out that another church is to be made the parish church, the new church of All Saints, in which the English services are to be carried on. The case comes back to the general proposition I have read. In the notice in November no sufficient indication was

  623
  given that it was intended to make the new All Saints' Church the parish church, and therefore we ask that the Bill should be sent back to the Examiners, and that they should report whether the rule has been complied with.
  SIR E. HILL: It is not my intention to offer any remarks upon the technical objection as to the sufficiency of the notice, but I wish to state that which I think the House ought to know, and which probably is the cause of the terms of the original notice not being in exact accordance with the Bill. The church of Dewi Sant is a church built by the subscriptions of those who thought that the Welsh-speaking population of the whole of Cardiff should possess a church in which their own language was used. The Welsh-speaking population of All Saints' is a very small and diminishing quantity. Under these circumstances it would have been impossible to carry out the terms of the notice without destroying what the hon. Member opposite has rightly described as a thorough Welsh church, inasmuch as, as soon as it becomes the parish church, the services must necessarily be held in the language of the great majority of the parishioners.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. I think the hon. Member is going into a question which does not arise upon the instruction.
  MR. MACLEAN: I quite agree with the view expressed by the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means. The House of Lords has passed this Bill, but it is still open to consideration by this House. How, therefore, can the public suffer any loss by anything that has been overlooked by the House of Lords? Hon. Members will have ample opportunity, when the Bill is brought forward, of correcting it.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: After what has fallen from the Chairman of Ways and Means I do not propose to press my motion to a division.
  Motion by leave withdrawn.

  WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  WOKING WATER AND GAS BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  DUMBARTON BURGH BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION MARKETS BILL.
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 8).
  Mr. A. DE TATTON EGERTONreported from the Committee on Group 8 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday 19th June, at half past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  STANDING ORDERS,
  Resolution reported from the Committee—
  "That, in the case of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Pilotage) Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
  Resolution agreed to.

  POLICE AND SANITARY REGULA. TIONS BILLS.
  Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTEreported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills; That the parties opposing the Warrington Corporation Bill had stated that the evidence of Joseph Parry, civil engineer, of Liverpool, and John James Lackland, civil engineer, of St. Helens, was essential to their case; and it having been proved that their attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Joseph Parry and John James Lackland do attend the said Committee to-morrow, at Twelve of the clock,

  625
  Ordered, That Joseph Parry and John James Lackland do attend the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulationas Bills to-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LIVERPOOL) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 228.]
  LOWESTOFT WATER AND GAS BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  NORTH-EASTERN AND HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAYS (JOINT DOCK) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  POOR LAW RELIEF (DISFRANCHISEMENT).
  Two Petitions from Cardiff, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC.
  Copy presemted,—of further correspondence relating to the claim of the South African Republic for damages on account of the Jameson Raid [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) (ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS).
  Copy presented,—of Report of the proceedings of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, under the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869 to 1889, for the year 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series,
  Nos. 2282 to 2286 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  1. Inquiry into Charities (County of Carmarthen),—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 10th February 1898; [Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 213.]

  2. Charitable Endowments (West Riding of the County of York), Charitable Endowments (Bradford), Inquiry into Charities (Parish of Halifax, including County Borough of Halifax), Inquiry into Charities (City of Sheffield), Leeds (Inquiry into Charities), Huddersfield County Borough (Charities),—Further Returns relative thereto [ordered 10th August 1894, 13th May 1896, 8th February 1897, 8th April 1897, 29th July 1897; [Mr. Francis Stevenson and Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 214.]

  WORKMEN'S TRAINS.
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the number of Workmen's Trains running on all Railways in Great Britain; (2) the distance run and the fares charged on each particular Train; and (3) the Return to be prepared as that issued by the Board of Trade dealing with London Railways in 1897."—(Mr. Woods.)
  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
  Address for "Return showing the number of Experiments performed on Living Animals during the year 1898, under Licences granted under the Act 39 and 40 Vic. c. 77, distinguishing Painless from Painful Experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No 215, of Session 1898)."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)

  ARMY (LENGTH OF SERVICE AND AGES OF MEN IN EACH UNIT).
  Address for "Return with respect to all Infantry Regiments to which one or more Battalions have been added; the Return also to show the number of men of the First Class Army Reserve recalled

  627
  to, and serving with, the Colours in each Battalion of such Regiments (in continuation of Return [C. 8757])."—(Mr. Arnold-Forster.)

  ARMY (LENGTH OF SERVICE AND AGES OF MEN IN NEW BATTERIES OF ROYAL ARTILLERY).
  Address for "Return showing the number of Men serving in each of the newly formed Batteries or Companies of the Royal Artillery, with the Age and Length of Service of the Men."—(Mr. Arnold-Forster.)
  EAST INDIA (MILITARY BULLET).
  Address for "Copy of Reports on the effect of Military Bullet now in use in India."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
  MALTA (POLITICAL CONDITION).
  Address for "Copy of a Despatch addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies by Sir Arthur Lyon Fremantle, late Governor of Malta, dated 29th December, 1898, on the political condition of Malta; and of all recent Correspondence relative to the same."—(Mr. M'Iver.)
QUESTIONS.

  THE MUSCAT INCIDENT.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the discussion of local details in relation to the Muscat incident has sufficiently closed to allow of the presentation of the Papers to Parliament.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): I am afraid the discussion of local details is not yet closed, and we cannot lay Papers at present.

  EXEMPTION OF FOREIGN CONSULS FROM TAXATION.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the immunities and privileges (if any) in regard to the exemption from personal taxation enjoyed by the Consuls representing foreign countries in different portions of the Empire;
  628
  and are the same immunities and privileges allowed to all Consuls, whether paid by salary or by fees.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Consuls of foreign states enjoy no special privileges or immunities, as a matter of right, in the Queen's Dominions. In the United Kingdom foreign Consuls are, however, exempted in practice, as a matter of courtesy, from payment of income tax on their official salaries, but not from other taxes.

  RUSSIA AND BRITISH LOAN CONTRACTS IN CHINA.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the protest presented on 24th July by the British Minister at Pekin to the Tsung-li-Yamen, in which it was stated that England would not tolerate any interference of another Power with the British loan contract entered into freely by the Chinese Government, especially referred to the demand made by Russia at Pekin, on 11th June, 1898, and 19th July, 1898, that the portion of the line to be built should not be mortgaged to the British bondholders, and that no foreign control should be permitted even in case of default, both of which points were included in the preliminary contract between the Chinese Government and a British corporation on 7th June, 1898; and, whether the Foreign Office subsequently insisted on the British corporation withdrawing from the agreement the clauses objected to by Russia, despite the British Minister's statement that England would tolerate no interference in the matter.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The negotiations concerning the Northern Railways loans are detailed at length in the Blue-book, and must be considered in connection with the negotiations for a general settlement proceeding at the time. The British corporation was consulted, and agreed to the arrangements made upon which their capital was successfully raised.

  RUSSIAN RAILWAY CONCESSIONS IN PERSIA.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the agreement giving Russia priority of railway conces-

  629
  sions in Persia expires; and what stops Her Majesty's Government propose taking, at the expiration of this agreement, to place England on an equal footing with Russia as regards the construction of railways in Persia.
  *MR. BRODRICK: No public announcement has been made as to the agreement in question, and it would be inexpedient for Her Majesty's Government to make a declaration as to their intentions.

  BRITISH INTERESTS IN THE PERSIAN GULF.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the concessions granted to German capitalists for the construction of a railway through Asia Minor and Mesopotamia to Bagdad, Her Majesty's Government will notify the Porte that English interests in the trade of the Persian Gulf make it necessary for any line that may be hereafter constructed from Bagdad to Bussora and the Gulf to be entrusted to English capitalists.
  *MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid I cannot make any statement as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in this matter, but we are fully alive to the necessity of maintaining British interests in the Persian Gulf.

  RUSSIAN TAXES ON ENGLISH COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS.
  *MR. BILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Government has lately imposed a tax of 50 roubles on English commercial travellers carrying on their business in Russia; and also a tax of 500 roubles, or over £50, on the firms which they represent; and whether Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg has been instructed to make representations to the Russian Government against such charges as calculated to check the development of trade between that country and England.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The reply to the two questions in the first paragraph is in the affirmative. There are, however, several points in regard to which the precise manner in which the new law will be applied is open to doubt, and upon these points Her Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed to ask for explana-
  630
  tions, before it can be decided whether Her Majesty's Government would be warranted in making any representations against the proposed charges.

  TONGA.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make his promised statement in reference to the recent visit of H.M.S. "Tauranga" to Tonga, the interviews of Captain Stewart with King George, and the further responsibilities, if any, incurred by Her Majesty's Government in connection with this native kingdom.
  *MR. BRODRICK: This agreement involves no liability on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and it is therefore not thought desirable to publish it.

  MANCHURIAN RAILWAYS.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the clause in the Anglo-Russian Agreement, that the Russian Government is at liberty to support concessions for a railway from the main Manchurian line in a south-westerly direction, implies that the British Government will offer no objection to the construction of a railway joining Peking with the main Manchurian line.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The clause referred to in the Anglo-Russian Agreement does not, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, cover the question of railway communication with Peking.

  THE YANG-TSZE VALLEY.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any consent has been given by China, Russia, or any country to the geographical definition of the Yang-tsze Valley as being the provinces bordering the Yang-tsze River and the provinces of Honan and Chekiang; and whether the Government has got inserted in any railway concessions obtained by foreign Powers in China a proviso guarding British goods from differential treatment or preferential rates, as suggested by Lord Salisbury's despatches of the 24th September last.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The valley or basin of the Yang-tsze has been defined as stated in the question, and this definition was communicated to the Russian Government, but there has been no occasion to invite the assent of the Powers to it. As will be seen from the papers just presented, the Russian Government considered the question of railway rates as too technical for insertion in a preliminary agreement, and that it should be settled between the two Governments when the time came for its necessary consideration. Her Majesty's Government will, of course, use their best efforts to prevent British goods being subjected to differential treatment on Chinese railways.

  BRITISH OFFICERS AT OMDURMAN.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what was the number of British officers present with each battalion of native troops at the Battle of Omdurman; and whether care will be taken in any future operations in the Soudan that the proportion of British officers to native troops shall be kept to the full standard.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The number of British officers in Sondanese battalions is five, in Egyptian battalions four. It is not now possible to say what number of these were present with each battalion at the Battle of Omdurman, but battalions are kept complete or very nearly so to the above establishments. It is, of course, not possible on a campaign to secure that all officers will be present at an engagement.

  FUTURE MILITARY OPERATIONS IN THE SOUDAN.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether further military operations on a considerable scale are to be undertaken in the Soudan in the autumn; and, if so, whether they are to be carried out entirely by means of native troops, or whether British troops will also be employed.
  *MR. BRODRICK: It is impossible for me to make any statement as to whether military operations may be necessary in the Soudan next autumn or not. Nor has any question arisen as to the nature of troops to be employed.

  THE PATRIOTIC FUND.
  MR. SPICER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Patriotic Fund Commissioners have declined to re-admit a widow named Frances Lewis, of Newport (Mon.), who, as the wife of Patrick Driscoll, 1st Battalion, 1st Regiment of Foot, was two years in the Crimea, and underwent many of the hardships of that campaign; and, whether the decision will be reconsidered, seeing that she is now aged, again a widow, and almost absolutely dependent on the ratepayers.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. G. WYNDHAM, Dover): The case of Mrs. Lewis has been carefully considered by the Patriotic Fund Commissioners, and in view of the fact that there is not only no evidence of the death of her second husband, Charles Wilmott, but that the certificate of her third marriage has been unmistakably tampered with, they are unable to readmit her to the list of recipients of the fund.

  ELECTRIC MOTORS IN THE NAVY.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether an order has been issued, or is in contemplation, withdrawing from the engineering branch the control of the various electrical motors, and placing these complicated machines in charge of lieutenants; and whether it is contemplated that the necessary duty of overhauling and repairing the motors shall be performed by the engineering branch.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): No change in the present Regulations as to the charge of electric motors is contemplated. In 1898 the torpedo officer, or where none is borne the gunnery officer, was made responsible for electric motors. Before that time electric motors were not specially mentioned in the Regulations, as there were scarcely any in the Service, but in the few cases in which they were fitted it was the practice for the torpedo officer to take charge of them. The motors are kept in repair by the torpedo staff,

  WATER-TUBE BOILERS.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Belfast, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when, and in what form, it will be convenient to him to present to the House the promised statement with regard to the performance of the water-tube boilers on board Her Majesty's ships.
  MR GOSCHEN: Every effort is being made to complete the statement as soon as possible, but ill view of the large amount of current work in the office the preparation necessarily takes some time. It is not practicable to explain in an answer to a question the form in which the information will be given, but I shall be glad to show it to the hon. Member. It will be, generally speaking, a continuation of the Return No. 234 of 1895.

  LIFE ASSURANCE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
  MR. BOULNOIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board is obtaining Returns under the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th schedules of the Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870, from those members of Lloyd's and others who have issued policies of insurance upon human life within the United Kingdom: and whether such persons who have begun such business since the passing of the Act have been required to make the deposit of £20,000 specified in the 3rd section thereof.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon):
  I can only give the hon. Member the same answer as I gave to the similar question asked by him on the 12th July, 1897. The Board of Trade have no information that any member of Lloyd's or other individual has issued or incurred any liability under such policies except as a member of a life assurance office.
  MR. BOULNOIS: May I be allowed to hand the right hon. Gentleman copies of such policies which I hold in my hand?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes, I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will give me any information he can,

  BLACKHEAD LIGHTHOUSE.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the erection of the new lighthouse at Blackhead, county Antrim, whether he is aware of the danger involved in delaying to secure from the tenants arid occupiers possession of the lands upon which it is proposed to construct the lighthouse there; whether, considering the increasing value of land in the vicinity of Whitehead, which is adjacent to the place, a fair and liberal offer will be made to the tenants for their interest in the holdings required; and if he can say about what date the work is likely to be commenced.
  MR. RITCHIE: As stated by me on 2nd June, in reply to the hon. Member for Gateshead, a site has been obtained for the new lighthouse on the Blackhead. I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the site can he entered upon at once. The Board of Trade have no power to make any suggestion as regards the amount to be paid to the tenants, which, in case of disagreement, will be determined by arbitration in manner provided by statute. I understand that tenders for the buildings will be invited very shortly, but I have no information as to the date upon which the work is likely to he actually commenced.

  SIGNALMEN ON THE NORTHEASTERN RAILWAY.
  MR. FORTESCUE FLANNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state to the House how many signal boxes on the North-Eastern Railway exist in which signalmen are on duty 12 hours consecutively without any relief; and whether the Board of Trade is taking steps, in the interest of the safety of the travelling public, to discourage such long hours of continuous labour in positions where concentrated attention to duty is essential for the safety of passengers.
  MR. RITCHIE: The Board have not the information asked for in the first paragraph of the question. In cases under the Regulation of Railways Act, 1893, the Board discourage continuous twelve-hour shifts in signal boxes. The amount of work to be done by signalmen

  635
  varies largely, and the case of nearly every box must be considered on its merits.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Will the right. hon. Gentleman take any steps to obtain the information referred to in the first paragraph?
  MR. RITCHIE: We have no power to compel the company to give the information, but if the hon. Member wishes it I will see what can be done.

  NEWBIGGIN-BY-THE-SEA FISHERIES.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that property of the value of £110, belonging to the fishermen of Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, in the county of Northumberland, was destroyed last week by trawlers operating within the recognised limit; and whether, seeing that these offences occur with great frequency, he is prepared to take any further steps to prevent the inshore fishing industry on the north-east coast being wilfully destroyed by the illegal operations of these trawlers.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have received no information as to the alleged destruction of fishing gear at Newbiggin, but the matter was referred to at the annual Fishery Conference on the 6th instant. Trawling within this district is prohibited by bye-law made by the Northumberland Sea Fisheries Committee, and it is for that body to take such steps as may be necessary to enforce their own bye-law.

  SCOTTISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT CIRCULARS.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether he will furnish Members desiring it with copies of the circulars of the Education Department which have been issued since the publication of last year's report, so that they may be in their hands before the discussion of Scotch Estimates.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The circulars issued by the Department in the course of a year are numerous, and several of them have reference only to unimportant details of routine business.
  636
  All that are of general interest are on sale, and may be obtained at small cost, and it has never therefore been considered necessary to have them printed and distributed as Parliamentary papers. In any case the request could not be complied with before Friday of next week.

  BRITISH COLUMBIA AND THE JAPANESE.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether recent enactments by the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia in reference to the immigration of Japanese have been disallowed at the instance of Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, upon what grounds.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): Certain laws enacted by the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia imposing disqualifications on Japanese have been disallowed by the Government of Canada at the instance of Her Majesty's Government on the ground that they were offensive to a friendly Power.

  SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC—THE BLOEMEONTEIN CONFERENCE.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make any statement to the House with regard to the Conference at Bloemfontein.
  The following questions on the same subject also appeared on the paper:—
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to be able to lay upon the table papers in reference to recent negotiations with the Government of the Transvaal.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the result of the Conference between President Kruger and Sir A. Milner.
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will make a full statement as to the causes of the failure of the Conference between President Kruger and Sir Alfred Milner; and whether he will undertake that, pending the presen-

  637
  tation to Parliament of the official reports of the proceedings of the Conference, Her Majesty's Government will proceed with no action tending to the possible rupture of diplomatic relations between this country and the Government of the Transvaal.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will cause to be printed and at once circulated to Members copies of the Outlanders' petition received some weeks since from the Transvaal, and also of the counter-petition.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is unfortunately true that the Conference has broken up without any result, and a new situation has thus been created. President Kruger has rejected the proposals for a settlement offered by Sir Alfred Milner, and the alternative suggested by him was considered by Sir Alfred Milner, and is now considered by Her Majesty's Government, as entirely inadequate. I have not yet received the Memorandum which Sir Alfred Milner informs us he has communicated to the Press on the subject of the Conference. He understood that this memorandum would be telegraphed by Reuter verbatim to this country, but owing to some unexplained cause it has not yet arrived. I am therefore unable to say whether the statement of the Government of the South African Republic which has been published in the meantime agrees in all respects with Sir Alfred Milner's account. I understand that the discussion turned mainly on the question of the franchise. Sir Alfred Milner was of opinion that the exclusion of the Uitlanders from representation was the root of the difficulties which have arisen, and that it was desirable, if possible, to come to an arrangement on this point before dealing with other questions in dispute between the two Governments. Sir Alfred Milner asked that the franchise should he given to all naturalised aliens who have resided five years in the country, with retroactive effect, and a fair amount of representation be conceded to the new population. President Kruger's proposal was substantially as follows: First, that aliens who were resident in the country before 1890 might naturalise and have the full franchise in two years' time; secondly,
  638
  that the bulk of the Uitlanders might be naturalised in two years' time, and might receive the franchise five years later—that is to say, in seven years from the present time. Between the period of naturalisation and that of receiving the franchise they would have to abandon their present nationality, and would have no rights of nationality in the Transvaal. The President also attached to his offer certain conditions as to a pecuniary qualification, and the proof of possession of civil rights in the country from which the alien had come. It is not clear whether the further condition, that a majority of two-thirds of the burghers would be required to confirm the possession of the franchise, would be insisted upon. The President agreed that three members might be added to the representation of the mining districts, thus giving to them five members out of a total of thirty-one. According to these proposals no change whatever would take place for two years, and then only in the case of a small minority of the Uitlanders who had resided eleven years in the Transvaal. The whole of these proposals were made subject to an agreement by this country to refer all differences with the Transvaal to the arbitration of a foreign Power. Sir Alfred considered these proposals as altogether inadequate, and further informed the President that Her Majesty's Government would not consent to the intervention of any foreign Power in disputes between themselves and the Government of the South African Republic. The President also asked for the incorporation of Swaziland, but does not appear to have pressed this claim. He also demanded that the question of an indemnity for the Jameson raid should be settled; and was informed by Sir Alfred Milner that the British South Africa Company had agreed, in a despatch which was then on its way, that, while protesting against the amount of the claim sent in as altogether unreasonable, they would nevertheless consent to submit to arbitration the amount of damages for any material injury suffered by the Transvaal in consequence of the Jameson raid. The question of the dynamite monopoly was touched upon, but, in view of the failure to come to an agreement with regard to the franchise, it was reserved for further discussion between the two Governments.

  639
  I have to add that the despatch in answer to the petition of the Uitlanders to the Queen, which was sent to the High Commissioner before the invitation to the Conference was received from the President of the Orange Free State, and which had been held back pending the result of the Conference, will 110AV be communicated to the Government of the South African Republic, and as soon as they have received it will be laid on the Table with other papers, including the petition of the Uitlanders to the Queen, and the counter-petition of other Uitlanders to the Government of the South African Republic.
  MR. MACLEAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will include in those Papers the instructions he gave to Sir Alfred Milner for his guidance at the Conference?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; that will not come into the present Bluebook. A subsequent Blue-book will have to be published as soon as we get the full report of the Conference, and that will contain all the instructions I gave.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to point out that the right hon. Gentleman has not fully answered my question as to when he expects to lay on the Table the Papers relating to the Transvaal. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that hé will lay immediately the despatches and reply to the Uitlanders' petition, and that further Papers will be laid at a later date. I venture to urge on the right hon. Gentleman the view that a situation has now arisen when the Government ought to lay before the House all the Papers relating to the negotiations which they propose at any time to communicate to the House.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government cannot lay Papers on the Table until they get them. I cannot possibly receive the full despatches containing what has taken place at the Conference for about three weeks. As soon as I get them I propose to lay them on the Table.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANN: I presume the Colonial Office Vote will nut be taken before these Papers are received?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): No, Sir; I think that would be expedient.

  BATHING FATALITY AT ALDERSHOT.
  MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, N.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private D. Jackson; of the 2nd Black Watch, was drowned whilst bathing in the canal at Aldershot on 28th May, and that there were no appliances for saving life in the vicinity; and whether proper bathing places will be established for the use of the soldiers at Aldershot.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I regret to say that a soldier of the Royal Highlanders was drowned in the canal, notwithstanding the praiseworthy efforts of a comrade to save him. The man was bathing contrary to orders, as the bathing season had not commenced. When bathing is permitted, certain hours arc specified and picquets with the necessary apparatus for saving life are detailed at three bathing places. I may add that money is taken in this year's Estimates for the provision of a swimming bath at Aldershot.
  MR. JEFFREYS: May I ask whether last week the weather was not hot enough for bathing at Aldershot?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: This private was drowned, I am sorry to say, on Sunday, the 28th May.

  MILITARY PRISONS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the Annual Report of the Inspector-General of Military Prisons will be presented to the House.
  *MR.WYNDHAM: I hope to present this Report before the end of the month.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state if any difficulty is experienced at the present time in obtaining an adequate supply of suitable recruits for the ranks of the Metropolitan Police; and by what number that force is short of its established strength.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY, Lancs., Blackpool): The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. It is necessary, in order to provide a margin for temporary augmentations, to keep the force below its authorised strength, and it is at the present moment 285 short; but this includes a recently authorised augmentation of 100 men for whom recruiting has not yet commenced. The actual deficit therefore is 185, which is below the average of the past seven years. These figures take no account of the 75 men now being trained in the preparatory class.

  ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT—LADY BARRISTERS.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbigh-shire, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the unsuccessful application of Miss Sorabji for permission to plead before the Allahabad High Court; whether he is aware that the lady referred to has taken law honours at Oxford and has passed the LL.B examination of the Bombay University, and has complied with all the necessary regulations; and whether he will state the grounds upon which she is prevented from practising before the High Courts of India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEO. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): I am aware that Miss Sorabji applied to the High Court for permission to practise as a pleader, and that the Court, which has an absolute discretion in the matter under Letters Patent, refused its assent to her application. I do not know what honours Miss Sorabji may have taken at Oxford or elsewhere, nor do I know the grounds of the Court's refusal; but I think it probable that in was on account of her sex, which would equally have debarred her from practising in any court of law in this country.

  LEGAL EDUCATION IN INDIA.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the control of legal education in Calcutta is wholly in private hands, the Government Presidency College having no law department, and the four private
  642
  colleges teaching up to the full course of the University law degree; and whether he will state upon what grounds the Bombay Government have now decided to pursue a different policy, and consider it not advisable that the control of higher legal education in Bombay should he wholly or partially in private hands.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the question. The grounds on which the Bombay Government decided that the control of higher legal education should not in Bombay be allowed to pass to private institutions are thus stated in a letter from that Government of the 1st September, 1898:—
  "In the opinion of this Government it is inadvisable to allow the control of higher legal education to pass to private institutions, for the administration of the law is undoubtedly a part of the general administration of the country, and in spite of the fundamental dissociation of law front politics there is a distinct danger of the perversion of legal instruction to political uses."
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether for the last few years the Bombay Government have contributed nothing to the support of the Government Law School, but on the contrary have made a yearly profit of about Rs.8,000 from the fees paid by the students, and have now resolved to raise these fees; whether he is aware that the Bombay Government refused to sanction the affiliation of the proposed private College of Law on the ground that they desired to improve the Government School by means of these enhanced fees, and were therefore unwilling that students should be diverted to another institution; and whether this prevention of the establishment of a private College of Law has been sanctioned by the Government.
  *LORD GEORGE HA MILTON: It is a fact that the fees received at the Government Law School at Bombay have during recent years exceeded the expenditure, but I doubt whether the average excess has been so much as Rs.8,000; in 1896–97 it was only Rs.3,190. It is also true that the Bombay Government have resolved to raise the fees; but this is not to make a profit out of fees, but to make the new organisation self-supporting. I answered the second and third paragraphs of the question in my reply

  643
  to the hon. Member's question of the 16th May last. The question of the fees had nothing to do with the refusal of the Bombay Government to sanction the application of the private institution to the Bombay University.
  *SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: Will the noble lord ascertain from the Bombay Government which of the contradictory reasons they rely upon for preventing the establishment of this private college?
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No, sir I can add nothing to my answer.

  PASTEUR INSTITUTE FOR INDIA.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings of the Central Committee of the Pasteur Institute, held on the 15th April last, at the office of the Director-General, Indian Medical Service, at Simla (the Director-General himself in the chair), when it was proposed to ask the Government to make a grant for a Pasteur Institute, and to place it under a Government medical officer; whether this committee has been formed with the sanction of Government; and whether it is proposed to grant them the assistance asked for.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: (1) I have seen a newspaper report of the meeting of the Pasteur Institute Committee to which the question refers. (2) The Government of India are, I believe, aware of the formation and proceedings of the committee; but I ascertained some weeks ago that they had not decided on their course of action. They hoped, however, to deal with the subject during the present summer.

  MINERAL BIGHTS IN HYDERABAD STATE.
  SIR ANDREW SCOBLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to certain prospectuses of the Godaveri Estates, Limited, and the Godaveri Valley Collieries, Limited, purporting to deal with mining and other rights in the Zemindari of Ramangavaram and Mullur, in Hyderabad State; and whether the Zemindar has power to give a lease of the mineral rights on his estate.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: My attention has been called to these prospectuses, which appear to have been issued in London for the purpose of exploiting a concession alleged to have been granted by one Mathu Krishnam, Zemindar of Ramangavaram and Mullur, in the Warangal District of Hyderabad State. The Government of His Highness the Nizam brought the matter to the notice of the Government of India, and reported that they had nothing to do with this alleged concession; and that, inasmuch as no Zemindar has the right to lease minerals to an English Company without their consent and that of the Government of India, ally contract purporting to deal with milling rights which may have been made by the Zemindar is null and void.
  INDIAN SUGAR TRADE. CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will be good enough to state the quantities of sugar, raw and refined, entering India during the year 1898–9, specifying in each case the countries of origin.
  *LARD GEORGE HAMILTON: The trade returns for March, 1899, give the following figures as the imports of sugar into India during the year 1898–99:—

  Refined Sugar.

  From Austria-Hungary

  1,063,737 cwt.

  From Germany

  413,971 11 cwt.

  From Mauritius

  1,793,607 cwt.

  From China

  185,682 cwt.

  From Java

  162,500 cwt.

  From Straits Settlements

  75,656 cwt.

  From Other countries

  69,757 cwt.

  Total

  3,764,910 cwt.

  Unrefined Sugar.

  From all countries

  312,778 cwt.

  I have as yet received no details regarding the countries from which this unrefined sugar came. It may be added that 167,644 cwt. of foreign refined sugar were re-exported from India during the year.

  SAVINGS BANK INQUIRY.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state to what kind of committee the proposed inquiry into the financial relations of the State to savings banks will be referred, and the scope of the reference.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I have fulfilled the intention I expressed of consulting with several hon. Members who have taken a special interest in this subject; and a strong opinion has been expressed to me by some whose views I feel bound to respect that such a matter ought not to be referred to a Select Committee without a definite indication of the views of the Government. There would also be some difficulty in constituting a Committee at this time of the year, as some Members whose services I should much like to secure are already engaged on other work. I intend, therefore, to institute certain preliminary inquiries, with the assistance, I hope, of someone with practical knowledge of the working of savings banks; and I hope to base on them a proposal which may be considered by a Select Committee early next session. This will not involve any real delay, as no legislation could in any case take place this year.

  TEA ADULTERATION.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to a statement in the Press, that a quarter of the caper teas and half of the dust teas now imported should be confiscated under the Food and Drugs Act of 1875, by reason of their containing 20 per cent. of earthy matter and sand; whether he will explain the nature of the precautions taken by the Customs Department in London for the detection of such adulteration, and whether the number of samples analysed could be increased with advantage: and, whether, having regard to the fact that the descriptions of tea above named are for the most part consumed by the humbler classes least able to protect themselves against adulteration, he will increase the staff of inspectors especially allocated to the duties of sampling and analysis of caper and dust teas.
  MR. GOSCHEN: My attention has been called to this matter. The Board of Customs have, in view of representations made to them by certain firms and of statements in the Press, ordered a full inquiry to be made. It is not easy, within the limits of an answer to a
  646
  question, to explain the precautions taken by the Board for the detection of the adulteration of tea; but I shall be happy, if the hon. Member wishes it, to supply him with particulars. The Board of Customs, as at present advised, do not consider that there is any need for altering the existing regulations, but if, as a result of the investigation now in progress, it should appear advisable to make such alterations or to increase the number of tea inspectors, the necessary steps will he taken at once. Meantime a circular has been issued to the tea inspectors directing them to administer the existing regulations with special care.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: When will the inquiry be held?
  MR. GOSCHEN: It has already been begun.

  IRELAND—RIOTING AT COOKSTOWN.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 21st April last, while a private meeting of the Irish National Foresters, of Cookstown, was being held in their own hall, an attack was made on the hall, and the windows smashed, by an Orange drumming party; and will he explain why the police were not present while the attack on the hall was going on, why no arrests were made, and why no one has been prosecuted.
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. G. W. BALFOUR, Leeds, Central):I am aware of the occurrence referred to in the first paragraph. After the drumming party had marched through the streets it halted opposite the Foresters' Hall and continued drumming, at the same time hooting and yelling. When the drumming party had passed it was found that four panes of glass in the hall had been broken. The damage is estimated at ten shillings. A party of police was present on the occasion, but they saw no windows broken when the drumming party was passing, and did not become aware of the fact until afterwards. This is accounted for by the noise caused by the crowd, which was a large one. Every possible inquiry has been made with the

  647
  view of obtaining evidence against the persons concerned in the breaking of the windows, but so far without success.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION, COUNTY CAVAN.
  MP. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the judgments in two sittings of the Sub-Commissioners held in Bailieborough, county Cavan, 7th and 8th March and 10th May, have not yet been communicated to the tenants; whether he is aware that this delay is disapppointing to many of those who are offered and desire to purchase their holdings under the Land Act; and whether he can say at what time the decision of the Land Commission will be made known.
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Judgments have been delivered in a few of the cases heard at Bailieborough on the 7th and 8th March last. It is expected, however, that the decisions will be announced on the 24th instant in the remaining cases, as well as in a large number of the cases subsequently heard on the 10th ultimo at the same place. The inspection and office work necessary to complete these cases is being proceeded with as rapidly as possible. The Commissioners have no information on the subject referred to in the second paragraph of the question.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION, COURT VALUERS.
  MR. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in those cases where landlords and tenants agree to fix fair rents on the report of two Court valuators there is great delay in securing the valuation; that in many instances four months will elapse after applying to the Land Commission before there is a response; and whether there is any reason for this delay.
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: There has been some delay in referring a number of the applications mentioned to the court valuers for inspection, but the delay has been unavoidable owing to the work in other districts in appeal cases, and it is expected that all such applications will have been referred to the valuers before the end of July.

  IRISH INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the complaint of Mr. Fagan, inspector of industrial schools in Ireland, that the children now committed in Ireland are rather destitute than criminal, whether he is aware that the circulars sent from Dublin Castle discouraging the magistrates from making such committals has raised considerable indignation throughout the country; that the industrial Schools (Ireland) Act provides that such destitute children arc proper subjects for committal under this Act; and that out of 396 boys discharged from industrial schools in Ireland from 1894 to 1896 (both inclusive) 347 are found doing well, and 31 only re-convicted; and out of 49 girls 47 are doing well, and not one reconvicted; and, whether, considering the good results of the present system, the closing of some of the prisons in Ireland, and the reduction of the number of prisoners in several others, he will consider the advisability of withdrawing or modifying the Circular referred to.
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The words attributed to Mr. Fagan will be found in his last Annual Report on Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland. These words should be read with the context, when it will appear that in using the word criminal the inspector meant not alone actual criminals, but waifs and potential criminals. The statistics quoted in the question refer not to industrial school cases, but to those of reformatory schools. There is no intention to withdraw or modify the Circular mentioned.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this new role may possibly lead to the closing of some of these schools altogether?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is not a new rule at all, and I have no reason to believe that it will lead to the closing of any schools.

  ASSISTANT LAND COMMISSIONERS, IRELAND.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Land Sub-Commission has been appointed

  649
  for a fixed term of three years; whether this rule will apply to all future appointments; and, with what object has the change been made.
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Presumably the hon. Member refers to the Rule made by the Land Commission on the 13th March last, and which has been laid on the Table. That Rule provides that Temporary Assistant Commissioners appointed by the Lord Lieutenant after the date thereof and before the 31st day of March, 1902, shall hold office, subject to the provisions of the Land Act of 1881, up to and including the 31st day of arch, 1902, save that where any such Temporary Assistant Commissioner has attained the age of 65 years he shall not be appointed or re-appointed for a continuous period greater than one year. It is clear from the wording of this Rule that its application is limited to appointments made before the date mentioned. The object of the Rule is to give as long a tenure of office to Temporary Assistant Commissioners as is consistent with the convenience of the Service.

  IRISH EMIGRATION TO AMERICA.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Irish emigration to America continues upon an extensive scale, and has considerably increased this year as compared with the same period last year; and whether it is intended to take any steps to revive Irish industries with a view to provide Irish workers with employment in their own country.
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is the fact that the number of emigrants from Ireland to the United States during the past five months is larger than the number in the corresponding period of 1898, in which year, however, the number of Irish emigrants was smaller than for many years back. But the number of emigrants from Ireland to the United States and other countries during the past five months is considerably less than the average numbers for the corresponding period in the ten years 1889 to 1898.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Committee to inquire into the causes of this steady
  650
  drain of the Irish population to foreign countries?
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I da not think there is any occasion for such a Committee. As far as I am able to judge, the number of emigrants from Ireland to America depends much mare upon the state of trade in America than on any other cause.

  LAND PURCHASE ACTS.
  MR. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the unreasonable delay complained of by the tenants and owners of land in Ireland in carrying out the Land Purchase Acts (Ireland), whether his attention has been called to an estate in Chancery near Kingscourt; whether he is aware that a number of tenants on that estate have agreed with the landlords to purchase at a price already fixed, and have lodged with the Land Commission the usual affidavits under the Land Purchase Acts, and no court valuer has since been sent to inspect the holdings; and if he can state the cause of delay or say when the court valuer will come down to inspect these holdings.
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The hon. Member's question does not contain sufficient information to enable the particular estate referred to to be identified. If he will communicate with me on the subject I will cause further inquiry to be made.

  THE AGRICULTURAL GRANT, COUNTY KILDARE.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen the statement of the Secretary of the Kildare County Council that a sum of –753 had been struck off the amount to which the Council were entitled under the Agricultural Grant, notwithstanding the fact that exceptional circumstances existed which should have increased rather than diminished the county's share of the grant; whether he is aware that the Local Government Board has failed in response to the application of the Secretary of the Council to afford any information as to the basis on which they calculated the amount of the grant; and whether he will order the required information to be given.
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The amount of the reduction made by the certificate of the Local Government Board was –289, not –753 as stated in the question. All exceptional circumstances were considered in this case. The information asked for by the County Council was not given, but I propose to lay on the Table of the House a general memorandum explaining the methods adopted by the Local Government Board in calculating the amount of the grant.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORDERS.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can undertake to have the Orders in Council, General Orders, and Rules issued by the Local Government Board, and the Rule of Court in connection with the Local Government (Ireland) Act, collected in one volume and issued to Members before the vote for the Irish Local Government Board is taken.
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: There are some cases in which the Local Government Board Orders referred to may require modification, and I would rather that they were not collected and printed in a permanent form until these cases have been considered. Apart from that, the collection, when completed, will form a bulky volume, and I do not think there is any chance that it can be printed in time for the Estimates.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the General Order in reference to collectors of the poor rate, recently issued by the Local Government Board, has been laid upon the table of the House; and why it has not been circulated.
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The General Order has not been laid on the table of the House. Copies of it were sent to every county council and board of guardians in Ireland, and the Order can be procured through any bookseller. I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with a copy if he so desires.
  MR. DILLON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that to be a bad practice? Can he not undertake that General Orders of this character,
  652
  which bear directly on the administration of the Local Government Board, shall be circulated as a Parliamentary paper?
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member will give me a list of the General Orders which he would like so dealt with, I will see if it can be carried out.

  CORK COUNCIL CONTRACTS.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Local Government Board informed one of the Cork Councils early in the year that a director of a joint-stock company, which had a contract with the Council, could not be a member of the Council; and whether, as Article 12, Sub-section 5 (c), of the Application of Enactments Order, 1898, provides that a shareholder of a company having a contract is not disqualified as a councillor, and as a director's interest is not greater than a shareholder's, he will direct the Local Government Board to issue fresh instructions on the subject.
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Local Government Board have been unable to trace any case such as is referred to in the first paragraph, but if the hon. Member will supply me with further particulars I will have another search made. I may add that the point raised appears to be a legal one, and could not, therefore, be finally decided by an opinion of the Local Government Board, even if they expressed one.

  AGRICULTURAL GRANT, COUNTY ROSCOMMON.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount deducted as an excluded charge from the Agricultural Grant for the county Roscommon in respect of the Suck drainage charges; whether he is aware that the Suck drainage charges are not charges in connection with navigation works under Drainage and Navigation (Ireland) Acts, 1842 to 1857, or any special Act whether public or local; and whether he will have the Agricultural Grant to Roscommon increased in respect of this matter.
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The amount deducted as an excluded charge from the Agricultural Grant to Roscommon

  653
  in respect of the Suck drainage charges is –100. As regards the second and third paragraphs, the Commissioner of Valuation is of opinion that the Suck Drainage Act of 1889, under which these charges arise, fairly comes within the description given in the latter part of Section 57, Subsection 6, paragraph 1, of the Local Government Act, and therefore that these charges should be excluded from the benefit of the Agricultural Grant.
  MR. TULLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the details of the excluded charges?
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have not the details here, but if the hon. Member will put down a question I will attend to it.

  BELFAST STREET RIOTS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for S. Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the meeting in Shaftesbury Avenue, Belfast, addressed by one of the Custom House steps preachers, on the 27th May last; whether he is aware that the men present there then marched through the City of Belfast, and when passing through Dougall Street stoned and smashed the windows and fixtures in the business houses of a number of Roman Catholics, and that they afterwards attacked and assaulted with stones or otherwise a number of the city police; and, whether he will take steps to have this practice prevented by the local authorities.
  *MR. G W. BALFOUR: The facts are generally as stated in the question, except that it is not true that the mob on this occasion made an attack on the police, none of whom were injured. Proceedings have been instituted against 17 persons for obstruction and riotous behaviour, and the cases will be heard at the Belfast Petty Sessions Court on the 18th instant.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Ids attention has been called to the report of the
  654
  proceedings at the inquest upon the body of the old man Davies who died from injuries received at a so-called religious meeting at the Custom House steps, Belfast; whether a copy of the depositions taken thereat has been received by the authorities, and if a copy will be laid upon the Table of the House; whether he is aware that the depositions disclose that foul and filthy imputations were made by the evangelists disturbing the peace there upon the members of a Roman Catholic Sisterhood remarkable for their works of mercy and charity, respected by the whole community of Belfast, and very dear to the Roman Catholic citizens; also that the coroner's jury and the coroner condemned these open-air demonstrations as disgraceful and a menace to the public peace of the city; and what steps, if any, will he taken to prevent a recurrence of this danger.
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I replied to a question on this subject, addressed to me by the hon. Member for East Mayo, on Thursday last. I see no reason for laying a copy of the depositions taken at the inquest on the table of the House, but if the hon. Member so desires I will be happy to supply him with a copy. In answer to the last paragraph, I do not propose, in view of all the circumstances of the case, and after conferring with the local authorities in Belfast, to institute proceedings for the language used on the occasion mentioned, but the Government will certainly prosecute in the event of a repetition of such language in future.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an attack was made upon the Nationalist demonstration on its way home from the meeting at Hannahstown, near Belfast, on Sunday evening last; that stones were thrown by a mob; that a disturbance took place in the Old Lodge or Shankhill Roads, and near the Townsend Street Police Barracks; and that the house of a Roman Catholic publican was attacked in or near Upper Townsend Street. Whether any, and how many, persons have been arrested; and if he can give particulars as to the damage done to persons and property in Belfast during these riots.
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Upon the return journey of the Nationalist procession from Hannahstown on the 5th instant, when near Broadway on the Falls Road, a small crowd of the Protestant party assembled in a field and groaned and displayed party emblems. Some of the processionists left the procession and attacked them, both mobs throwing stones. They were at once dispersed by the police and military, and no one was injured. On the Old Lodge Road a mob of roughs of the Protestant party, who had collected to watch the return of some of the processionists, made a wanton attack with stones on the police. They then immediately dispersed. They shortly afterwards reassembled and threw stones at the house of a Roman Catholic publican named O'Neill, breaking all the glass in the windows. They were dispersed by the police and military, and three of them arrested. The place where this disturbance took place is about 300 yards from Brown's Square Barrack, on the Shankhill Road. The disturbance extended to the Shankhill Road and continued for about three hours, but the rioters were held in check from the outset by the military and the police, and very little damage was done to property. In all 47 persons were arrested for riotous conduct, stone throwing, etc. So far as the police are aware, no person was seriously injured. Six members of the Royal Irish Constabulary were wounded, though not seriously. Mrs. O'Neill, wife of the publican whose house was attacked, and two of her boys were injured by stones, and one of them is in hospital suffering from a broken nose. Accurate particulars regarding injury to property cannot yet be given, but at present it would appear that about £270 would cover the damage done.
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the military were withdrawn from the streets of Belfast at a very early hour yesterday morning; and, if so, by whose orders was this done; and whether he can say anything further as to the injuries inflicted on the military magistrate Major Tobin, and give further particulars generally as to the riots.
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Early yesterday morning the Commissioner of Police satisfied himself that the services
  656
  of the military were no longer required, and an intimation to that effect having been conveyed to the magistrates on duty with the military, the latter were withdrawn front the streets by degrees. The injury to Major Tobin was of a trivial character, and it never incapacitated him from the discharge of his duty as a military magistrate. Further information regarding the riots is given in my reply to the previous question of the hon. Member. The city has been quiet since Tuesday night, and the riots may now be regarded as virtually over.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION EXPENSES.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that heavy election expenses have been caused by candidates putting themselves forward at the recent local government elections in Ireland for divisions where no possible chance existed of their being returned; and whether he will undertake to amend the Local Government (Ireland) Act to the extent of obliging any candidate who provokes a contest, and fails to secure at least a fourth of the votes of the electorate, to pay a moiety of the cost of such election.
  *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The amendment in the law suggested by the hon. Member is clearly one which, if adopted at all, should be of general application. I think, however, it will be found on consideration to be open to grave objections.

  THE METROPOLITAN VOLUNTEER "MARCH PAST."
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if, having regard to the desire of officers commanding and other officers arid members of provincial regiments of Volunteers to see the March Past of the Metropolitan Volunteers before Field-Marshal H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, K.G., on Saturday, 8th July, in commemoration of a similar Review held by His Majesty King George III. in 1799, he will be good enough to authorise or move H.R.H. the Ranger to authorise the erection of a stand near the saluting base, provided that the cost be guaranteed by the Institute of Commanding Officers of the Volunteer Force and the Council or the Major-General Command-

  657
  ing the Home District be responsible for the distribution of seats.
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's):The preliminary arrangements are still under the consideration of the General Officer Commanding the Home District, and his proposals have not yet come before the Office of Works. Should the Review take place, it will no doubt be possible to give reasonable facilities for the erection of stands.

  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT— SUGGESTED PROVISION OF AN AMBULANCE.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the desirability of providing an ambulance within the precincts of the House, to be ready for use in case of accident or sudden illness.
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: In reply to my hon. friend, I have to say that the matter appears to me to be outside my jurisdiction; and I would refer him to the authorities of the House.

  RETIRED OFFICERS AND CIVIL EMPLOYMENT IN PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state whether the Return for the year ended the 31st March, 1898, of the Army and Navy officers permitted under Rule 2 of the regulations drawn up under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act of 1887 to hold civil employment of profit under public Departments contains a complete list of all officers so employed; and whether he is aware that Case 4, on pages 28 and 29 of the above-mentioned Return represents that of an officer whose retired pay is –450 a year, and emoluments of civil employment –500, who does not draw retired pay, who is consequently serving for –50 a year, and that the deductions made from this officer's salary, compared with the total amount received of effective and non-effective pay, amounts to 90 per cent.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrews Burghs) (for Mr. HANBURY): My right hon. friend has no reason to doubt the completeness of the Return in question.
  658
  The lists, however, are not in the first instance compiled at the Treasury. The officer referred to in the second paragraph was appointed Naval Assistant to the Hydrographer while still on the active list. After being placed on the retired list, he was retained in his civil employment under the provisions of the Order in Council of 18th May, 1870, which necessarily precluded him from drawing retired pay. The case is not an ordinary instance of deduction, as the officer was in receipt of the same emoluments both before and after retirement.

  TELEGRAPHIC DELAYS.
  MR.ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the extraordinary length of time taken in the transit of the following telegraphic messages to Oldham, between the 3rd and 18th of May: From Manchester, 48 minutes; Eastbourne, 2 hours 2 minutes and 2 hours 12 minutes; Crystal Palace, 2 hours 17 minutes: London, 2 hours 14 minutes; Cambridge, 3 hours 4 minutes; Kennington Oval, 2 hours 4 minutes; Bath, 2 hours 4 minutes; Worcester, 2 hours 11 minutes; House of Commons, I hour 40 minutes; and Liverpool, 1 hour 19 minutes; and whether there is any intention on the part of the postal authorities to give a through wire to Oldham from London, or in some other way remove the cause for the constant complaints that are made by supplying an efficient and effective telegraphic service.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for MR. HANBURY): My hon. friend communicated with the Postmaster-General on the 24th ultimo respecting the delay sustained by the telegrams in question. The various cases are being investigated, and as soon as the inquiry is completed an explanation will be furnished to him. In regard to the question of a wire from London to Oldham, I fear I can only refer him to the answer given on the 15th ultimo.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he can give any explanation why a telegraphic message sent from London on the 31st May to Messrs. Bradbury and Co., of Oldham, took over one hour before it arrived at the Oldham Post-office: whether he is aware that the systematic

  659
  neglect of the postal authorities to grapple with the delay in transmitting messages to Oldham is resulting in considerable loss to the constituency; and whether, if the postal authorities cannot remedy the evil without going to the expense of a separate wire, it is intended to do What is necessary in the interests of the public.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): The Postmaster-General is unable to find any trace of the message to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will furnish him with the necessary particulars inquiry will be made. The Postmaster-General is not aware that there is any general delay in the transmission of Oldham telegrams. The cases to which the hon. Member has drawn attention are of an exceptional nature. The matter is, however, being kept under review, and every effort will be made to avoid unnecessary delay.

  THE "MANDAT-POSTE" SYSTEM.
  MR. BILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the attention of the Postmaster-General has been called to the mandatposte system, for the transmission of money by post, which has been for many years in operation with great success in Switzerland and Germany; and whether he will consider whether it would be desirable to give the system a trial in this country.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY: The question whether it is desirable to introduce into this country the money-card system in operation in some Continental countries is under the consideration of the Postmaster-General, and it is not possible at present to make any definite announcement on the subject.

  THE MONEY-LENDING BILL.
  MR. ASCROFI: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Money-lending Bill was particularly referred to in the Queen's Speech, and that it has already been read the third time in the House of Lords, it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the measure this session; and whether he can give any informa-
  660
  tion as to the date when it will be brought forward for discussion in this House.
  CAPTAIN CHALONER:I beg at the same time to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any prospect of his being able to proceed with the Money-lending Bill at an early date.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid that in the present situation of the business of the House I cannot make any accurate forecast which would enable me to answer my hon. friends' questions.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state definitely the day on which Scotch Supply will be taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I intimated I would take it to-morrow week. On Monday I propose to take the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill, on Tuesday the third readings of the London Government Bill and the Finance Bill, and Thursday I propose to allocate to the Vote of Censure, or the Motion to be proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the subject of the sugar duties.
  MR. CHANNING: What Supply, if any, will be taken after the Foreign Office Vote to-morrow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess I have not considered that. If the hon. Member will communicate with me privately later I will endeavour to inform him.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can tell the House when the Naval Works Bill and the Military Loans Bill will be introduced. Both Bills were promised long ago.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am anxious to produce them at an early date, and I hope no long delay will intervene before they are introduced. The Military Bill is almost ready for introduction, and may be expected in a day or two. The Naval Bill is not quite so well advanced,

  661
  but I think it will he in the hands of Members before very long.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to proceed with the Telegraphs (Telephonic Communication, &c.) Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I regret that my right hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury is not able to be in his place to-day, and I have not been able to communicate with him. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will postpone the question till a later day.

  MUNTCIPAL TRADING COMMEFITE.
  MR. BARTLEY: When will the Municipal Trading Committee be appointed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot give any pledge at present.

  UNDERSIZED FISH BILL.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I beg to ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill dealing with undersized fish. Its object is to prevent the destruction of immature fish, and I am sure the House will realise that it is a matter of importance to prevent the destruction of such fish, which has the effect of limiting our food supply. The Bill is based on the Report of the Select Committee on Sea Fisheries. A measure was introduced by us in the House of Lords in 1897, and it passed through that House, but came down to the House of Commons too late to be considered. The present Bill is somewhat similar, and will, I hope, he passed into law. Every year the Fishery Department have been urging on me the great necessity of introducing a Bill on this subject, because of the great injury caused by the destruction of undersized fish which is constantly going on. Similar representations have also been made to me by the representatives of sea fisheries, and by the Fishmongers' Company.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: This is a Bill which has been introduced almost every year since I have had the honour of holding a seat in this House, and I feel bound to make one or
  662
  two remarks with reference to it. I believe this Bill is introduced under an entire misapprehension. I am perfectly convinced that fish in the sea, or even the fringe of them, cannot be touched by anything done by trawlers or lines; but however that may be, what I wish to impress on the House is the great ignorance which prevails as to the habits of fish, even among fishermen. No one can tell, for instance, why the herring come one year and not another. Consequently if this Bill is founded on the assumption that we knots a great deal about fish and their habits, it is a very serious misapprehension indeed. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Sea Fisheries Committee of 1893. That Committee practically reported what have just said, viz., that there was great ignorance with regard to the size of fish. I would ask leave to read a sentence from the Report of the Biological Society, of which the First Lord of the Treasury and the Secretary for the Colonies are vice-presidents, and it is therefore a very important society. On page 239 the Report states:
  "A calm survey of the situation, however shows that the cry concerning the annual diminution of our lisp supply has been dispelled by the institution of statistics; that the alleged destruction of spawn has no basis in fact; that the destruction of immature fish is common to all classes of fishermen, and nowhere is proved to have resulted in the ruin of any sea fishery."
  I fail to see the basis of the Bill, or any justification for it, either in the Report of the Committee of 1893 or in that of the Biological Society. Our fish supply is increasing, and has increased very largely during the last ten years, both in quantity and value. There is, however, one matter to which I wish to call attention, and that is the increasing importation of foreign fishermen who are trot subject to these restrictions.
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes, they are in France and elsewhere.
  MR. BOWLES: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He is supposed to have informed my right hon. friend the Member for Thanet that these restrictions would apply to foreign fishermen, but in my opinion what my right hon. friend wanted to know was whether these restrictions were applied to foreign fishermen in their own waters.

  663
  If they were he would support the Bill, otherwise he would not. I think that is manifestly fair. There is great difficulty in saying what are undersized fish. Fish are of all sizes, and a fish is not undersized because it is small, any more than a Shetland pony is undersized because it is smaller than a shire horse. Our knowledge in regard to these matters is very defective indeed, and it would be a very dangerous thing to legislate without further information. What I suggest is that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee, and if the evidence given before the Committee justifies it, and if the fishermen are found ready to cut their own throats by opposing undersized fish—which I do not admit are undersized at all, because small fish are the very best—then let the Bill be proceeded with. I reserve my opinion of the Bill until I have seen it; but whatever the Bill may be, I hope it will be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have no objection to considering the hon. Member's suggestion.
  Bill to provide against the Destruction of Undersized Fish, ordered to he brought in by Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill "to provide against the Destruction of Undersized Fish," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 229.]

  PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
  Lords' Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  THE SOUDAN EXPEDITION, 1896–7–8.

    (THANKS OF THE HOUSE.)
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): It will not, I think, be necessary for me to trouble the House at any length in regard to the series of resolutions which I propose you should put, Mr. Speaker, from the chair, for on Monday last, to the best of my ability, I made a general survey of the campaign which culminated at Omdurman, and did my best to explain
    664
    the difficulties which were inherent to that expedition, and the skill, success, and courage with which the Sirdar and all those who served under him contrived to surmount them. For similar reasons it will not be necessary for me to say anything at all about the first of these Resolutions, for the ground of it was entirely covered by the Debate on Monday, and the result of the Division which the House then took is a sufficient indication of what the opinion of this assembly is as to the merits of Lord Kitchener as a soldier and as a general. With regard to the remaining names mentioned in the Resolution, it is hardly necessary for me to do more than say one word, for they are writ large in the history of the campaign, and they are names familiar to all those who followed the fortunes of British and Egyptian arms from month to month and year to year, in the course of that arduous and protracted contest. It may suffice, therefore, if I remind the House that the first name on the list—that of Major-General Hunter—is that of a man who has for 14 years been connected with the organisation of the Egyptian Army. As much as any other man, perhaps, he is to be congratulated upon the degree of discipline and efficiency which that army has attained. In addition to these services, stretching far back into the past, I may remind the House that he was in high command at Ferkeh, Hafir, and Dongola, and was in chief command of the expedition which took Abu Hammad, an expedition which was remarkable for a forced march of, I think, six days under the blazing sun of a tropical summer, a feat of endurance not perhaps least remarkable among the feats of a similar kind of which we have a record. The next name is that of the Chief of the Staff—Major-General Sir H. M. L. Rundle, who, in his responsible capacity, did so much to organise the expedition, and who, like General Hunter, has long been honourably connected with the history of the Egyptian Army. Major-General Gatacre is known to all Englishmen in connection with the Chitral campaign. He was, in this campaign, the chief commander under Lord Kitchener at the battle of Atbara, and he commanded the British Division at the final and crowning triumph at Omdurman. The two next names on the list are those of the generals who commanded the two brigades of British troops—Major-General

    665
    Lyttelton and Major-General Wauchope. Sir, the British troops were but a third, or thereabouts, of the total force engaged on our side, but, as everybody will admit, though they were a relatively small fraction of the total force, they were an absolutely essential portion of it, and without the assistance of British troops it would have been insanity to have undertaken the final advance towards Khartoum, and any attempt to have made that advance without them would have been followed by signal disaster. The next name is that of Colonel Sir F. R. Wingate, who, I think, under ordinary circumstances and in an ordinary campaign would probably hardly appear in the list of those whom this House would desire to thank in connection with a successful expedition; at least I am not aware that the head of the Intelligence Department has on similar occasions been included on the list of officers whom this House has desired to honour by name. But, Sir, this expedition had many circumstances which sharply distinguish it from other expeditions in which this country has been engaged, and the part played by the Intelligence Department was so important and so critical that I think we are well advised to include specially and by name the most distinguished officer to whose labours in chief measure the efficiency of that department is due. I need hardly mention the Intelligence Department without at the same time mentioning a name which does not appear, and cannot appear upon this list. It is a name which I think everybody must have in their recollection when they turn their minds to the sources of information which enabled us to deal successfully with the power of the Madhi. That name, sir, is that of Slatin Pasha, whose dramatic history is familiar to all. Sir, I do not know that I need say anything in particular about the distinguished names which follow, which are those of the commanders of artillery and the brigade commanders of the Egyptians and the Soudanese. Their names are familiar to all; they are Colonel MacDonald and Colonel Lewis; and perhaps it is only needful for me to remind the House that Colonel MacDonald had, by the fortune of war, an opportunity of showing perhaps the most brilliant tactical display of the battle of Omdurman, and of bearing an especially distinguished part in a contest
    666
    where all played their part well and manfully. Colonel Lewis, who also commanded a brigade at Omdurman; had the good luck some month or six weeks later to be the General in chief command at the brilliant battle of Rosieries, and though that battle is subsequent to the military operations with which these resolutions specially deal, it is not unfit that we should bear in mind that his services in the Soudan were not confined either to the battle at Omdurman or the previous work which he did in connection with Lord Kitchener's main force. The last name in this list is that of Commander Keppel. It is not often, I believe, that the Navy has proved itself an efficient ally of the Army at a distance of 1,400 miles from its native ocean; but in this case, as is well known, this distinguished naval officer and those under him played an essential and practical part in the battle of Omdurman, and had their place in the British line, and in that position performed essential service to the British arms. I need not dwell upon the spirited and most useful performances which distinguished the naval forces at earlier periods. It is enough if I remind the House that at Omdurman they were an essential part of our commanding force, and they performed admirable services not only in the battle of Omdurman, but in connection with the taking of the city of Omdurman after the victory was won. There is one other name upon the list—that of Lieut.-General Sir Francis Grenfell. He had not the good fortune, which he so ardently desired, of himself taking any immediate and active part in the advance to Khartoum, but none the less he did great service in the part that was allotted to him, and I am glad to think that we are able to include his name in this list, because surely no man is more closely or honourably associated with the recovery of the Egyptian military force from the disasters which had reduced it to a nullity, and almost worse than a nullity, than the distinguished general whom I ask the House to include in the list of those whom they are going to thank by name. Sir, the last paragraph of this series of resolutions refers to those who, alas! cannot be benefited by any action we can take, and who are beyond the reach of any thanks or praise from us. They did their duty, and died in the consciousness that they would earn by their death the gratitude

    667
    of their countrymen, and I am glad that I have this opportunity of putting on permanent record our sense of their services, and of conveying to those who mourn them, not merely as public servants and devoted citizens, but as near relations and friends, our sense of the magnitude of the loss they have endured. I think it is not necessary that I should add anything more, and I beg now to move the Resolutions which stand in my name on the paper.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I rise for the purpose of seconding the Motion just made by the First Lord of the Treasury. On Monday last, like the right lion. Gentleman, but in the more modest measure which befits my position, I had the opportunity of expressing my opinion of the splendid qualities exhibited and the brilliant services rendered in this expedition by the General in chief command, by the officers who constituted his staff, and by the troops of all ranks who served under him. I will not occupy the time of the House by repeating anything I then said, but will merely say that I cordially and sincerely approve of these Resolutions, which give expression to the admiration and gratitude of the House of Commons.

    SOUDAN EXPEDITION (THANKS OF THE HOUSE).
    Motion made and Question proposed,
    "That the thanks of this House be given to Major-General Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, G.C.B., K.C.M.G., for the distinguished skill and ability with which he planned and conducted the campaign on the Nile of 1896–7–8, which culminated in the battle of Omdurman, the capture of Khartoum, and the overthrow of the power of the Khalifa."—(Mr. Balfour.)
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I am very unwilling to stir up any opposition to the unanimity with which this Vote will be passed, and I yield to no one in my appreciation of the brilliant services which have been rendered; but I should be wanting in my duty to the profession to which I still have the honour to belong, and the Army Medical Department, if I failed to direct the
    668
    attention of the House to a conspicuous omission.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman cannot do that upon this Resolution. Any observation which he desires to make upon the point will come on the next Resolution.
    MR.DAVITT: Any opposition to a motion of this kind, which will be accepted with unanimity by the great bulk of the British people, must appear an ungracious act upon my part. I acknowledge it frankly, and 1 assure the House that it is only with a deep sense of conscientiousness and as a matter of duty that I take this step. 1 am not responsible for that system of rule which compels me, an Irish Nationalist, to come here, where I find myself in opposition to the bulk of the British nation. I cannot agree to this Motion, for several reasons. In the first place, a very serious step has been taken in moving a vote of thanks to the Egyptian Army, which means that this House of Commons claims to exercise sovereign rights over a country believed by other Powers of Europe to be independent.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If the hon. Member is going to confine his remarks to the Egyptian Army, that will come on the next resolution.
    MR.DILLON: On a point of order, Sir, are you going to put each Resolution separately, or are we going to discuss the resolutions as a whole; because a question will arise as to the conduct of the Soudanese troops?
    MR. SPEAKER: They will be taken separately, and any question relevant to a particular Resolution must be raised upon that Resolution. Otherwise confusion may arise.
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes, 321; Noes, 20. (Division List No. 178.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood,Capt.SirAlex. F.

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Hill, Sir Edward Stock(Bristol

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Cooke,C.W.Radcliffe(Heref'd)

    Hoare,EdwBrodie(Hampstead

    Allen, W. (Newc.underLyme)

    Cox, Irwin Edw. B. (Harrow)

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Holland,Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Crombie, John William

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Arnold, Alfred

    Curson, Viscount

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Ascroft, Robert

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Howard, Joseph

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Davies,SirHoratioD.(Chath'm

    Howell, William Tudor

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Denny, Colonel

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. G.

    Baillie,James E. B.(Inverness)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

    Baird, John George A.

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Balcarres, Lord

    Doughty, George

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Balfour, Rt.Hn.A.J.(Manch'r)

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W.(Leeds)

    Duckworth, James

    Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Dunn, Sir William

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Jones, D. Brymnor (Swansea)

    Barry, Rt. Hn.A.H.S.-(Hunts)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Kenyon, James

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

    Kimber, Henry

    Beach,Rt.Hn. SirM H.(Bristol)

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn.SirJ.(Man)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

    Finch, George H.

    Kinloch, Sir John George S.

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Kitson, Sir James

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Knowles, Lees

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Fison, Frederick William

    Lafone, Alfred

    Bethell, Commander

    FitzGerald, Sir Rob. Penrose-

    Lambert, George

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Biddulph, Michael

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Billson, Alfred

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Lecky, Rt. Hn. William E. H.

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Flower, Ernest

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Leighton, Stanley

    Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

    Leng, Sir John

    Bond, Edward

    Fry, Lewis

    Llewelyn, Sir D.-(Swansea)

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Gedge, Sydney

    Lloyd-George, David

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H. (City Lond.

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Gibbs,Hon.Vicary(St. Albans)

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Brown, Alexander H.

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Lough, Thomas

    Butcher, John George

    Gold, Charles

    Lowe, Francis William

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

    Caldwell, James

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Lowther,Rt.Hn.J.W.(Cumb'd)

    Campbell,Rt.Hn.J.A.(Glas.)

    Gorst, Rt. Hn Sir John E

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(St. Geo's

    Lyell, Sir Leonard

    Carlile, William Walter

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Cavendish, R. F. (N.. Lancs.)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

    Gourley,SirEdward Temperley

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Cawley, Frederick

    Graham, Henry Robert

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Green, Walfrd D. (Wedn'sb'y)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Gunter, Colonel

    M`Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Gurdon,Sir WilliamBrampton

    M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M`Killop, James

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Hamilton,Rt.Hon.LordGeorge

    Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hardy, Laurence

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Clarke, Sir Ed. (Plymouth)

    Harwood, George

    Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks.)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Coddington, Sir William

    Hayne, Rt. Hon.CharlesSeale-

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    HedderwickThomasCharles H

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Helder, Augustus

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Hill,Rt.Hn.A.Staveley(Staffs.

    Monk, Charles James

    Colville, John

    Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

    Montagu, Sir S.(Whitechapel)

    670

    671

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Robertson,Herbert (Hackney)

    Thorburn, Walter

    Morgan, Hn. F, (Monm'thsh.)

    Robinson, Brooke

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Morgan,W Pritchard (Merthyr

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Morley, Charles (Breconsh.)

    Rothschild,Hon.LionelWalter

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Morton, ArthurH. A. (Deptf'd)

    Round, James

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Ure, Alexander

    Mount, William George

    Rutherford, John

    Usborne, Thomas

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Valentia, Viscount

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Samuel, Harry S.(Limehouse)

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

    Wallace, Hobert (Perth)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Scott, Chas. Prestwich(Leigh)

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Shaw, Charles Ed. (Stafford)

    Williams, Joseph P.- (Birm.)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

    Shaw-Stewart,M.H.(Renfrew)

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Wilson, J. W. (Worces'e, N.)

    Percy, Earl

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

    Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

    Perks, Robert William

    Smith, James Parker (L'n'rks)

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

    Pierpoint, Robert

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

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Woodall, William

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Spicer, Albert

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.-

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

    Wyndham, George

    Purvis, Robert

    Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Pym, C. Guy

    Stanley, Henry M.(Lambeth)

    Young, Comm'nd'r (Berks,E.)

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

    Younger, William

    Rankin, Sir James

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

    Strachey, Edward

    Sir William Walrond and

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    NOES.

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Tully, Jasper

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Morris, Samuel

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

    Dillon, John

    O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Woods, Samuel

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Healy, Thomas. J. (Wexford)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Steadman, William Charles

    Davitt and Mr. James

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath

    O'Connor.

    1. Resolved, That the thanks of this House be given to Major-General Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, G.C.B., K.C.M.G., for the distinguished skill and ability with which he planned and conducted the campaign on the Nile of 1896–7–8, which culminated in the Battle of Omdurman, the capture of Khartoum, and the overthrow of the power of the Khalifa.
    Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That the thanks of this House be given to:—
    Major-General Sir Archibald Hunter, K. C. B., D.S.O.;
    Major-General Sir Henry MacLeod Leslie Rundle, K.C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., R.A.;
    Major-General Sir William Forbes Gatacre, K.C.B., D.S.O.;
    672
    Major-General the Hon. Neville Gerald Lyttelton, C.B.;
    Major-General A. G. Wauchope, C.B., C.M.G.;
    Major and Brevet Colonel Sir Francis Reginald Wingate, K.C.M.G., C. B., D.S.O., R.A.;
    Lieutenant-Colonel and Brevet Colonel C. J. Long, R. A.;
    Major and Brevet Colonel J. G. Maxwell, D.S.O.;
    Major and Brevet Colonel H. A. Mac-Donald, D.S.O.;
    Lieutenant-Colonel D. F. Lewis, C.B.;
    Major and Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel J. Collinson, C.B.;
    Captain C. R. Keppel, C.B., D.S.O., R.N.;
    and to the other Officers and Warrant Officers of the Navy, the British and the Egyptian Army, and the Royal Marines, for the energy and gallantry with which they executed the services which they were called upon to perform."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I should like to direct the attention of the House to an omission in this list, which, from my point of view, is important, and to be deeply regretted. While I appreciate the services of the distinguished officers mentioned in the Resolution, I do not see in the list the name of a man to whom I think a great portion of the success of the campaign is due, namely, Surgeon-General Taylor, whose distinguished and admirable conduct of the medical part of the service called forth the emphatic admiration of his chief. I do not propose to move anything, but I think it my duty to raise a protest against this omission. I understand there is no precedent for the inclusion of medical officers in such a vote of thanks; but I should have thought the House might have made a precedent. I hope the omission was not made in deference to the foolish bogie about combatants and non-combatants. There was a notion in the old days that the officers were combatants, but that the medical officers were not so; but now we know that in campaigns the doctors are called upon to expose themselves as much as, if not more than, other officers, and the distinction has been practically abolished. I hope that in any answer that may be made to me that will not be brought up again. It is practically admitted that success in modern warfare depends largely on engineering skill and medical science. I know that Lord Kitchener would be the first to recognise the great services rendered by the medical officers throughout the campaign and in the action in Omdurman, for in his despatch he gave a noble and generous tribute to the medical officers. His lordship said:
    "The medical arrangements were so conducted as to afford the maximum of comfort with the minimum of suffering."
    I do not think that any higher compliment than that could be paid by a commanding officer. Not only do the medical officers take a full share in the risk of battle, but when the actual campaign is over, when the fighting has terminated, and the other officers have retired to their tents, the doctors' work is practically beginning. They have to sit up long hours treating the sick and the suffering and wounded through perils and dangers. We should also remember that, when the ambulance work is over, they are fre-
    674
    quently called upon to fight pestilence. I emphatically say that the medical officers in this campaign accomplished their work with skill, bravery, and success, under a variety of the most unpromising conditions, and I express my disappointment that the name of not one of these medical officers appears in this Motion. It is unfortunate, because by a wise provision of the Secretary for War medical officers have now been given definite rank; and it is a great misfortune, when their services have been so singularly successful, and when it is important that our Army Medical Department should be made more popular in the medical schools, that this recognition was not given. I want to know why this inclusion was not made, and I hope it may yet be done.
    *MR. DAVITT: I cannot support this Resolution for many reasons. First, there is no expression of regret, either in the terms of the Motion or in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, for the killing of the wounded, on the orders of these officers, at the battle of Omdurman. I feel that their action towards helpless enemies on the field of battle was a disgrace to our modern civilisation, and yet we are asked, lower down in this Resolution, to declare that the conduct of the officers and men in this respect was worthy of admiration. I would not be an Irishman if I could give my assent for a moment to the laudatory terms of the Motion to the officers and Men to which I have referred. We are called upon to vote this thanks for the mowing down by machinery of thousands of people who, whatever were their faults, never inflicted any injury or injustice upon my country. Hon. Members may laugh, but I am not aware that they have ever even thought in their wildest moments of desert warfare of invading the shores of England, and I cannot understand how, for the killing of thousands of these people by machinery while helpless on the field of battle, we are asked now to give these officers and soldiers this meed of praise. Sir, what were the casualties at this so-called great battle of Omdurman? What was the real bravery for which this Vote is to be given? I find, according to the statements made by correspondents who were on the field of battle, that there were about 100 Anglo-Egyptian soldiers killed. I am sorry—as sorry as any bon. Member opposite—for

    675
    the, families of those men who died on the field of battle in carrying out a policy for which they were not responsible. But at the same time my sympathies go out to the widows and children, and the tens of thousands of the poor Soudanese who lost at that battle their bread-winners. I say that the loss on the Anglo-Egyptian side was so trivial that it takes away altogether from the action at Omdurman the character of a real battle. There is one regrettable fact about this whole discussion which I deeply regret, and that is the studied silence of the speakers on both sides of the House with reference to the desperate bravery of those savage warriors in defence of their country. Sir, there have been English soldiers and English statesmen who were not ashamed in this House to bear testimony to the bravery and courage shown by their foes on the battlefield. I say it detracts from the character of present-day statesmen and soldiers that not a single man was found in tins House to bear testimony to the pluck and courage of these Soudanese warriors, which was recognised by the English war correspondents.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the Vote to Lord Kitchener, I, in the very strongest way, paid a warm tribute to the extraordinary courage of the Dervishes.
    HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.
    MR. DAVITT: I at once withdraw. I was not in the House at the time, I regret to say, when the right hon. Gentleman spoke. I was travelling from Belfast in order to take part in the Division against the Vote to Lord Kitchener. Had I heard the right hon. Gentleman make the statement I would have cheered it heartily, because I must recognise that no one, so far as my experience in this House goes, is ever more courteous and generous to his opponents than the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I shall pass over what I had intended to say if the right hon. Gentleman had not corrected me upon that one point. But, Sir, what was the conduct of the soldiers in the Anglo-Egyptian army as compared with the bravery and heroism displayed by the Dervishes? I do not want to go over the ground travelled the other night by some hon. Members; I do not wish to bring up gruesome details. But we do know that the Dervish wounded
    676
    were slaughtered while lying helpless on the battlefield at Omdurman, and after this horrible slaughter I find, from the testimony given by one Corporal Rawlinson in a letter sent to his relatives in Wales, and published in the Morning Leader of January 12, 1899, that the Soudanese and Egyptian soldiers went into the city of Omdurman and slaughtered women and children. ("Oh!") According to this corporal several children were tossed on the bayonets of Soudanese soldiers under British and Egyptian officers. ("Oh!") Well, I do not accuse hon. Members of making mockery of this—I am sure they would protest against this as much as 1 do: their jeering so, I understand, signifies that they do not believe this statement. (Ministerial cheers.) Yes, but I am not the witness. I give you the name of the corporal who made the statement, and, to his credit be it said, it caused a feeling of unutterable disgust in his mind. Well, Sir, we are called to vote praise to men who have been capable of performing acts of cowardly barbarism of this kind. Sir, I for one will not support this Motion. I oppose it as an Irishman, simply because it would be impossible for me to condone in any way the killing of helpless wounded foes on the battlefield of Omdurman, or to support, directly or indirectly, the conduct of Soudanese and Egyptian soldiers under the orders of British officers in perpetrating nameless outrages inside the city after the battle was over.
    *MR. CHANNING: It is with the utmost reluctance and only from a sense of duty that any one would enter on the topics raised by my hon, friend the Member for Mayo. I cannot but think that the point might have been more properly raised on the next Resolution, that relating to the conduct of the troops, as I do not think the officers are responsible for some of the things that occurred. I voted against the grant to Lord Kitchener on Monday, not, because I did not recognise his splendid services in organising the Egyptian Army and in carrying out the work began by a friend of mine on the opposite side of the House, whose friendship I much valued—the late Colonel Duncan. We are glad that the Egyptian Army has been made so efficient, and recognise the splendid services of Lord Kitchener and of the officers named

    677
    in the resolution in carrying out this campaign. I, for one, feel the most profound doubt as to whether any justification could be offered for the charge that any officer, whether Lord Kitchener or an officer below him, could be found guilty of any formal order or any direct authorisation for the butchery of the wounded that occurred after the battle. The reason why I gave my vote against the grant on Monday, and the reason why I feel so profoundly on this occasion, is that I do think it is a national duty to face such facts as were laid before the House by my hon. friend the Member for the Leigh Division of Lancashire On Monday night, making up a body of evidence as to which there can be no doubt, to which no answer whatever has been given in these debates, and which is not seriously challenged by anyone, making it certain that terrible acts were committed On that battlefield, and have been committed again and again in these Soudanese campaigns. I do think it would be a cowardly neglect of duty, while expressing our warmest thanks to the officers who have carried out their duty nobly and effectively, if we were not to make an effort to make such acts as these impossible in the future. I am not going into the evidence adduced by my hon. friend the Member for the Leigh Division, but I should like to read a few words from the book of Major De Cosson, a distinguished officer who served under Sir Gerald Graham in the Suakim Campaign in 1885, and, upon these specific points, ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether those words do not justify us in asking that there should be some further inquiry into the conduct of these campaigns, so that, as far as possible, we should introduce the principles of Christianity and humanity into every detail of warfare as far as possible. In his book on the campaign of 1885, Major De Cosson says:
    "One thing has troubled my mind much, and that is the knowledge that some of the enemy's wounded have been shot in cold blood, though I could scarcely credit, it of English troops; but it was unfortunately too true, and I was told by those I could not doubt that the same thing was repeated during the skirmishes with the convoys, and that even an officer had been seen to empty his revolver at a man writhing on the ground. It is most painful for me to allude to the subject, but I do so that we may never have to reproach ourselves with anything of the kind again."
    678
    And then he says that in acts of self-defence the killing of even wounded men who attack those who are living may be justifiable. No sane man could dispute that fact. Then he goes on to say:
    "It should be the earnest endeavour of every civilised Power to introduce as much humanity as possible into its treatment of a fallen adversary, even though their chivalry may occasionally cost a life. … Such acts should be rendered impossible by the most stringent regulations promulgated throughout, the length and breadth of the land, and I feel that it is only necessary to allude to the matter for the remedy to be found."
    This is the opinion of a British officer which confirms the view I have laid before the House. It may be urged that it is impossible, and that the wounded will act with treachery, but I would venture to lay before the House the remarkable evidence given by Mr. Winston Churchill as to the way in which Lord Tullibardine, to his infinite honour, went among the wounded and gave them water, without a single one of them seeking to injure him. I say that that is a proof that if yon meet these poor creatures in a Christian and generous spirit, if you convince them that you do not intend to deny them quarter, they will not inflict any injury; and this will prove the advisability of introducing a higher standard into our warfare with them. To his honour, Lord Kitchener, after the battle of Atbara, gave the order that if the enemy would throw down their arms and raise their hands, they were at once to be passed through the ranks to the rear, and actually sonic of these men were enlisted in Lord Kitchener's army and loyally served at the battle of Omdurman. That shows that a higher standard of warfare can be introduced into these campaigns by treating these savage tribesmen with humanity. I hope the opportunity will not be lost of enforcing that lesson upon those who have the conduct of these campaigns ill the future, so that the horrible events on that ghastly field of Omdurman shall never be repeated, and that England will not tolerate such conduct as has been complained of towards the wounded.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Before dealing with the more important topic raised, and unfortunately raised, by the hon. Member who has just spoken, I must say one word

    679
    in answer to the hon. Member for West Aberdeen. He has reproached us for not having included, in the list of those who are thanked by name, some member of that great and distinguished profession to which he belongs. Sir, I can assure him that this omission does not indicate on our part any desire to underrate the eminent services rendered in war as well as in peace by the medical profession. But, Sir, the hon. Gentleman will feel with me that in these lists of names you must have some principle, you must draw a line in some place, and it is inevitable that beyond that line there will be names of men whose special services we should be glad to recognise. On that principle one name that I personally should like to see in the list is that of Lieutenant Girouard, who did such distinguished service in organising the railway. But, Sir, we have gone on the principle that you should not go below the rank of general of brigade, or some rank equivalent to that. We have included generals of divisions, all generals of brigades, naval officers commanding, and commanding officers of artillery, who practically do rank as generals of brigade, and there we have stopped. It would be impossible to add to the list without making it enormously, inconveniently, and impossibly lengthy. We have proceeded as near as we can in letter and spirit according to precedent, and while I entirely recognise the value of the services of many departmental officers, without whose assistance neither this nor any expedition could have been successfully conducted, I do not think it can be said that we convey any slight upon a great profession, or make an omission which we ought to have avoided, by not specially including these officers.
    DR.FARQUHARSON: May I point out that I referred to the name and rank of Surgeon-Major Taylor?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, but, I am not talking of the rank in the Army List; I am talking of the actual work done in the field. Some of it, I think, was done by captains and majors, hut on the field of battle they had, of course, the practical rank of general of brigade. Now, Sir, I leave that comparatively uncontroversial topic for the one raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo, and by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire.
    680
    The Member for Mayo does not profess, and has never professed, any interest for or sympathy with British soldiers, the British Army, or British institutions. He virtually comes here, I had almost said as an enemy of our country.
    MR. DAVITT: Of the Government of Ireland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not in the least wish to press the matter too far, but the hon. Gentleman has with perfect candour—and I must say always with tact and moderation, considering the substance of his speeches, for the form of his speeches is somewhat in contrast to their occasional substance—he has always let us clearly understand that, after all, a British success gave him no satisfaction, and that a British reverse would not break his heart. But, Sir, I do regret that the hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary to cast perfectly unwarranted aspersions on the character for honour and humanity of British officers. I am sure that, as he stated that British officers had given orders that the wounded should be killed, he believes it.
    MR.DAVITT: I believe it on the testimony of Englishmen who were on the spot, and who gave their evidence in English newspapers.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is my firm belief there never was a legend more absolutely devoid of any species of foundation, and I do not believe the most critical examination could extract a scintilla of evidence showing any condition of things so horrible as that in the story to which the hon. Gentleman has too easily given credence. Then he was followed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Northamptonshire, whose speech I confess I liked much less than that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for-Mayo. The hon. Member for Mayo was perfectly frank; he spoke in a sense and in a degree, as I indicated, as an enemy; he spoke plainly and openly. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Northamptonshire thought it desirable and appropriate to read out some story of what happened in 1885, and

    681
    he told us that it is our business to see that such proceedings never occurred again. Of course, it is our business to see that the laws of humanity are preserved, in war as well as in peace. No doubt that is our duty, and neither we in this House nor the generals and officers of the Army have ever for a moment thought it was not a duty which we and they should earnestly and sedulously pursue. But to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Northamptonshire has suggested, that our soldiers are inhumane, and that our officers do nothing to discourage or to temper their inhumanity, is truly to put a libel upon a great and honourable profession, which, although no doubt the work of destruction is its primary business, has always had the tradition of carrying out its duties in a manner as consistent with the diminution of human suffering as is possible.
    *MR. CHANNING: The right hon. Gentleman has wholly misrepresented what I said. I quoted a well-known and very distinguished British officer who served in the campaign of 1885, and I gave his opinion as to these facts rather than my own. I expressly excluded, in t he beginning of my speech, any belief in the responsibility of the officers for the acts which unfortunately took place.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no desire to misrepresent him. I judged from the general tone and tenour of his speech. If I judged him unjustly, I am sorry for it, and I am glad that he should have an opportunity of explaining that in rising to carry out what he justly described as a most painful task he did not, at all events, intend to cast any slur 011 the officers and men of the British Army. I have only one word more to say about this question of the wounded. I believe the whole of these legends have been exploded by a multitude and host of eye-witnesses. But, of course, it is the fact—nobody has ever disguised it or pretended to disguise it—that there have been wounded in these battles who have, though wounded, remained combatants, and, being combatants, had to be treated as combatants. The laws of civilised warfare are sometimes represented as if they stated that the wounded were always to be spared. The laws of
    682
    civilised warfare are that non-combatants Ore always to be spared, and it would be impossible to carry on war under any principles by which one side was allowed to fight and the other side had its hands tied behind its back. Sir, the hon. Gentleman tells us that his evidence goes to show that any attempt to help these poor, unfortunate, wounded men on the field of battle was never made impossible by any hostile action on their part.
    *MR. CHANNING: I did not say that at all; I said that Lord Tullibardine's experience showed that it was not always the case.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, it certainly was not always the case—I quite grant that. But that is not the point; the point is, if you show, as I am told is the fact, that there were wounded who had to ho killed, were they ever killed except in self-defence? As long as the wounded are combatants they must be treated as combatants, and, disguise it as we may, that is the inevitable result of war. The fact that in civilised battle such incidents are never heard of is because in civilised battle a wounded man always is a non-combatant. For my own part, I think the humane attempts of our men, the humane and persistent attempts of men like Lord Tullibardine and others, to carry succour and assistance to these poor wounded soldiers, though they knew that in doing so they carried their lives in their hands and ran the risk of a treacherous attack from the very men whom they attempted to assist, speak volumes for the humanity of that Army which hon. Members in their speeches have so cruelly traduced. I earnestly hope, Sir, under these circumstances, that neither the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo nor that of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire will move a single Gentleman in this House to abstain from recording his vote of thanks and giving his assent to the resolution which you, Sir, have just read from the Chair.
    MR. DILLON: It was not to be expected that the cause we advocate in this House would be a popular one, and the most we can ask for, and, I think, have a right to expect, is that the great majority who are bound to vote in favour

    683
    of this Resolution will give a fair heating to the reply to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman. Sir, what is it that has been alleged? And what is the evidence upon winch the charge has been made? It has not been alleged by anyone, as the right hon. Gentleman sought to make it appear, that the charge is made against the whole body of officers in the British Army, or even the Egyptian Army. No such charge was ever made, and when the right hon. Gentleman triumphantly instanced the case of Lord Tullibardine and other officers who humanely, and unquestionably at the risk of their lives, offered assistance to some of those wretched wounded men, he undoubtedly did allude to facts which reflected infinite credit on Lord Tullibardine and other officers on that occasion. I have not the slightest doubt that they acted as humane and civilised soldiers ought to act. The charge has not been made by Irishmen, but by British soldiers and officers who took part in the campaign and were eyewitnesses, according to their statements, of what they stated. The charge that has been made is, substantially, that of the 16,000 men estimated to be wounded at the battle of Omdurman the great majority were ruthlessly slaughtered after the battle. ("Oh!") Of course I am no eye-witness. I have no knowledge—did I ever pretend to have any knowledge?—of these unhappy things, except what I derive, in common with the public of this country, from the evidence afforded by the letters of British soldiers and officers published in the newspapers, and the evidence of military correspondents. The right hon. Gentleman did not seek to deny for a moment that a great many of the wounded were slaughtered. Everybody who is not a fool admits that on a field of battle, particularly when engaged in war with such people as the Dervishes, a certain number of the wounded have to be killed. But my conviction is that certainly the Soudanese—to an enormous extent, and to a much less extent the British troops—went out of their way to seek the wounded and kill them. Now I have the strongest objection to this Resolution because it includes an expression of thanks to the Soudanese troops. Sir, I have read with much interest an article written on the subject by Major-General Gatacre. That officer served for a long time in India,
    684
    and most successfully conducted the operations against the plague in India, and it was only when he was removed in the ordinary course of duty that difficulties arose. I am informed that he is an extremely humane man, and a man who undoubtedly has had great experience of savage warfare. He, very naturally, defends the British officers, but in the course of his article he does not attempt to deny that the Soudanese did commit most painful atrocities; and, after all, it must he remembered that we have the authority of Gordon himself, Soudan, had a long experience of wars in the Soudan, that it was a fixed practice to give no quarter on either side. It is not very much to be wondered at that the Egyptian troops did commit dreadful atrocities, all the more, perhaps, because several tribes had old scores to wipe off, What I object to in this Resolution is that, without any expression of regret from the Government, without any promise of inquiry to satisfy the conscience of this country, and without any indication that there is even a doubt as to the transactions with reference to the wounded, we are called upon to vote the thanks of this House, not only to the British troops, but also to the Soudanese and Egyptian troops—the forces of a foreign country. Under those circumstances I, for one, will vote against this Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to make the case against my hon. friend the Member for South Mayo that he spoke on this question as an enemy of the British power, and that he would rejoice in a British defeat if it occurred; but I have endeavoured to address myself to the question simply from the point of view of humanity, whatever my feelings towards British power may be. It may be—I think it is—that from the peculiar position we Irish Members hold in this House we are the most impartial. [Laughter.] Do you pretend to he impartial? You know perfectly well you are not. It is very hard for Englishmen to sit in judgment on their own victorious officers and troops, and to have any consideration for their defeated enemy. You are not quite so generous a people as that, and it is therefore no harm that there should be men in this House who can feel even for those savage tribes, who are God's creatures, and have a right to, at least, humane and merciful treatment, and

    685
    to be looked upon as human beings, and not as noxious animals, as those who are sent to fight them too often come to regard them. I wish that the effect of this debate and the debate on Monday Will be to moderate and temper the savagery of war. Although this is on a totally different blanch of the subject, I desire also to support I he contention put forward by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire. Why should not the names of the officers of mercy who accompany the army he joined in the vote of thanks to the combatant officers? It would be a good thing, if these votes of thanks are to be passed at all, that they should include the names of some men whose duty it was to save life, while thanking those whose duty it was to destroy life; and, belonging myself to the same profession, I desire to concur entirely with the view of the hon. Member that these votes should record the names of representatives of the healing and merciful side of war, and that we should register our conviction that, while war may be necessary, yet it is to civilised nations, or ought to be, a horrible evil, and that the moment victory is won it ought to be the duty of every soldier to help to succour and assuage the sufferings of those who have fallen by the strength of his right arm.
    MAJOR RASCH: It is difficult to see for what section of the public the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire holds his brief. It seems to me that they are the people who in the last century would have prosecuted Warren Hastings and Clyde, who twenty years ago would have attacked General Eyre, and, later, the men who won Rhodesia for the British Empire. They are the people who always find Englishmen in the wrong all over the world, and find foreigners right. They have friends in every country in which this nation has enemies. They are the people who wish to support, and did support, the reverend gentleman who talked at the Conference at Birmingham about the "filthy rags of Imperial policy." They rejoice in the name of "Little Englanders"; all the same they do not disdain the use of the Army and Navy when they want to bolster up a political party in the country. They sent Gordon to Khartoum, and deserted him when he got there. They sent Lord Wolseley up the Nile, and when he came back they had very little thanks for him.
    686
    They were ready to use the Sirdar, but having used him they throw him away like a squeezed orange. All I can say is I hope the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire will take a division; if he does he will probably have a greater record than even that achieved by my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn the other night.
    *MR. H. J. WILSON (York W.R.,Holmfirth): I desire to make an appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury. There are two things about which we are all agreed—one is the bravery of the English officers and soldiers wherever they are, and the other that the vast majority of them are naturally humane men. Notwithstanding what the First Lord of the Treasury has said, I want to put it to him that all the stories referred to have not been exploded. I desire to support the appeal of my hon. friend the Member for East Northamptonshire (who does not deserve the language which has been applied to him) that there ought to be searching investigation into the matter. The proceedings of forteen years ago, which have been referred to, throw a great light on this question, because the misbehaviour of the black troops then should show that these events were not unforeseen. If not unforeseen, precautions ought to be taken against them; and if such precautions were not taken, how then can we support this vote of thanks? I have here an account worse than anything that has yet been read. It bears every evidence of authenticity, and it shows how officers were implicated. I will not read it, but I will take the liberty of sending it to the First Lord of the Treasury in support of the plea of my hon. friend. I can assure him that nobody would be more thankful than we should if these stories could be entirely refuted; but if these methods of war are considered necessary, let us know who says so, and in any ease let us know what has been done and who is responsible. Until this has been done I am obliged to vote, by my conscience, against all the Resolutions except the last.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,): It may appear somewhat ungracious to vote against this resolution, and I desire to explain why I am compelled to do so. In the first place, I have all along felt strongly opposed to the passing, in modern times, of resolutions of this kind after every sort of campaign. I

    687
    had almost said that this was a prostitution of the usages and functions of this House. I do not think that "prostitution" is the correct word—it is too strong a term; but I do think that we are passing these resolutions on very much too trivial occasions. It is far better we should reserve them for some great occasion. This House formerly never dreamt of passing a resolution of this kind except on an occasion, such as Waterloo or Trafalgar, which was equivalent to the saving of the Empire. Then the thanks of the House were given, and so important was it regarded that history recorded the fact as exceptional. But now every small campaign, if it happens to be successful—and it always is—is brought before this House, and we have a peerage given for such a matter as the bombardment of Alexandria. I object altogether to that; we ought not to throw away such an important honour, and, of course, it lessens the honour when it is given on every occasion. Suppose we were engaged in war with a European Power, with an army equal in numbers to our own and equally equipped; suppose we won a brilliant victory, which saved the reputation and possibly the existence of this country, what honour would there be left for the General who achieved such a feat? None, except to persuade the reigning monarch to go on his bended knees and hand over his crown. I am unwilling to believe the stories of cruelty on the part of our officers and men; but we must bear in mind that English officers and men have the weaknesses of humanity, and they may, on occasion, in the excitement of the moment, have allowed their feelings to carry them further than they ought. But where we find letters published in the local Press from private soldiers, in which the names of the men are given, and in which it is stated that the wounded were killed, and that it was done by order, it is a very serious thing indeed. I do not believe for a moment that it was done by order, but these men were evidently under the impression that it was. A private in the Lancashire Fusiliers writes:
    "As we advanced we were ordered to kill all the wounded we met."
    A corporal of the Grenadier Guards writes:
    "We had to march with orders to kill all."
    A soldier who was present at the battle writes:
    "The ground was strewn with bodies, and
    688
    the order was given that all the wounded Dervishes were to be shot or bayoneted."
    A private in the 2nd Fusiliers says that the order was conveyed to bayonet everyone, dead or alive. General Gatacre and Lord Kitchener have denied that any such order was given, and I accept their denial, but some inquiry ought to be made as to how came such an impression to be so general among the troops. Until some inquiry is made and the character of our men completely cleared, I certainly will not join in this Vote of thanks.
    *MR. LEES KNOWLESI have received a letter which appears to me to be a complete answer to the statement which has been made by the hon. Members opposite. It will be remembered that two foreign military attaches accompanied the Anglo-Egyptian Army. One represented Germany, and he wrote a letter, which appeared in The Times on the 16th of January, refuting these calumnies. The other, Major Luigi Calderari, represented the great military nation of Italy. Last December I had the honour of meeting him a few days after his return from the Soudan, and he was full of praise of our magnificent Anglo-Egyptian Army. He had been with the Staff, and therefore in a position to be able to see everything that went on. He subsequently wrote me the following letter, which I read in the House on Monday night, but as many hon. Members were not then present it may be desirable to read it again:—
    "Caserta, February 28th, 1899. "Dear Mr. Lees Knowles,—I am very glad to have an opportunity to put in writing what I stated to you verbally in Milan as to the manner in which the Dervish prisoners at the battle of Omdurman were treated, and to deny in the most absolute way that any cruelty was practised towards the prisoners. I rode on the field of battle in various directions, and everywhere I saw hundreds of wounded lying alive, notwithstanding that the ground had already been traversed by the Anglo-Egyptian troops. I happened to be for a while at the head of the troops in their advance after the attack on the zariba had been repulsed, and then again I was able to convince myself that the wounded were not in any way molested. If an occasional wounded man was killed it was only in legitimate defence, because, as is well known, it is a custom with these peoples to pretend to be dead and then to fire on the enemy as he passes, or, worse still, to ask for water and help, and then treacherously to kill those who are succouring them. I do not write these things in order to defend Lord Kitchener: he is so far above such accusations that merely to waste words in denying them would be an insult to him. I can only repeat that I am very happy that an opportunity presents itself

    689
    for me to give a denial to statements which are untrue. It was, moreover, my duty to do so, especially as some Italian newspapers have copied and republished such statements.
    Believe me, etc., etc., etc.,
    "LUIGI CALDERARI."
    That, I think, is an important letter, and adds considerably towards the refuta-
    tion of these calumnies. Coming from a foreigner, it may be appreciated by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland.
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes, 347; noes 18. (Division List, No. 179.)

    Knowles, Lees

    Newdigate,Francis Alexander

    Stanley Edward J. (Somerset)

    Lafone, Alfred

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

    Lambert, George

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    O'Neill, H. Robert Torrens

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Lecky,Rt.Hn.WilliamEdw.H.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Pease, A. E.(Cleveland)

    Stock, James Henry

    Leighton, Stanley

    Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)

    Strachey, Edward

    Leng, Sir John

    Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Pease, Joseph A.(Northumb.)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    LlewelynSirDillwyn(Swansea)

    Pender Sir James

    Start, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Lockwood,Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Penn, John

    Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G. (Oxf'd U.)

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Percy, Earl

    Tennant, Harold John

    Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham

    Perks, Robert William

    Thomas,Abel(Carmarthen,E.)

    Long,Rt.Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Thorburn, Walter

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Lowe, Francis William

    Price, Robert John

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Lowther, Rt. Hn. J. (Kent)

    Priestley,SirW.Overend(Edin

    Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Purvis, Robert

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Lyell, Sir Leonard

    Pym, C. Guy

    Ure, Alexander

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Usborne, Thomas

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Reckitt, Harold James.

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Valentia, Viscount

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Richardson, J. (Durham,S.E.)

    Vincent,Col.Sir C.E.Howard

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W)

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon.

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Robertson, Herbert (H'ckney)

    Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

    M'Killop, James

    Robinson, Brooke

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und r-L

    M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

    Round, James

    Williams, Joseph P.-(Birm.)

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks.

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid.)

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Rydey, John Herbert Dudley

    Wilson, John (Govan)

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

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

    Middlemore, John T.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

    Wodehouse,RtHn.E.R.(Bath)

    Milbank,Sir Powlett Chas. J.

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Woodall, William

    Monk, Charles James

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Woods, Samuel

    Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B)

    Wyndham, George

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Shaw-Stewart,M. H. (R'nfr'w)

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Young, Commander(Berks,E.)

    Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

    Sinclair,Capt.John(F'rf'rsh'e)

    Younger, William

    Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptf'd

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Smith, Hon. W. F. (Strand)

    Muntz, Phillip A.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Murray, Rt.Hon.A.G.(Bate)

    Spicer, Albert

    Sir William Walrond and

    Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

    Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

    Mr. Anstruther.

    NOES.

    Carvill,Patrick Geo.Hamilton

    O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

    Tully, Jasper

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Dillon, John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Doogan, P. C.

    O'Malley, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cumb'l'd)

    Pickard, Benjamin

    Mr. Davitt and Mr. James

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    O'Connor.

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Steadman, William Charles

    Morris, Samuel

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    2. Resolved, That the thanks of this House be given to—
    Major-General Sir Archibald Hunter, K.C.B., D.S.O.;
    Major-General Sir Henry Macleod Leslie Rundle, K.C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., R.A.;
    Major-General Sir William Forbes Gatacre, K.C.B., D.S.O.;
    Major-General the Hon. Neville Gerald Lyttelton, C.B.;
    Major-General A. G. Wauchope, C.B., C.M.G.;
    Major and Brevet Colonel Sir Francis Reginald Wingate, K.C.M.G., D.S.O., R.A.;
    Lieutenant-Colonel and Brevet Colonel C. J. Long, H.A.;
    Major and Brevet Colonel J. G. Maxwell, D.S.O.;
    Major and Brevet Colonel H. A. MacDonald, D.S.O.;
    Lieutenant Colonel D. F. Lewis, C.B.;

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood,Capt.SirAlex.F.

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Dorington, Sir John Edw.

    Allen, Wm. (New. u. Lyme)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Doughty, George

    Allhusen, Augustus Hy. E.

    Butcher, John George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Caldwell, James

    Duckworth, James

    Arnold, Alfred

    Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Ascroft, Robert

    Campbell, Rt.Hon.J.A.(Glas.)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Elliot, Hon. A Ralph Douglas

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

    Carlile, William Walter

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Fellowes, Hon. AilwynEdward

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Ferguson,R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Fergusson,Rt.Hn.Sir J. (Man.

    Baillie, Jas. E. B. (Inverness)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Finch, George H.

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Fison, Frederick William

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man.)

    Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.)

    FitzGerald,SirRobertPenrose-

    Balfour,Rt. Hon.G. W. (Leeds)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    FitzWygram, General Sir F.

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Charrington, Spencer

    Flower, Ernest

    Barry, Rt.Hn.A.H.S.-(Hunts)

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Forster, Henry William

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Beach,RtHn.SirM H.(Bristol)

    Coddington, Sir William

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Fry, Lewis

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Gedge, Sydney

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

    Gibbs, Hn.A.G.H.(C.ofLond.)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Colville, John

    Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Bethell, Commander

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

    Billson, Alfred

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Birrell, Augustine

    Crippe, Charles Alfred

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Crombie, John William

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir. J. Eldon

    Bond, Edward

    Curzon, Viscount

    Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's)

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlx.)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Davies, M. V. (Cardigan)

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Disraeh, Coningsby Ralph

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

    Captain C. R. Keppel, C.B., D.S.O., R.N.;
    and to the other Officers and Warrant Officers of the Navy, the British and the Egyptian Army, and the Royal Marines, for the energy and gallantry with which they executed the services which they were called upon to perform.
    Motion made, and Question put—
    "That this House doth acknowledge and highly approve the gallantry, discipline, and good conduct displayed by the Petty Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, and men of the Navy, the British and Egyptian Army, and the Royal Marines during the campaign."—(Mr. Balfour).
    The House divided; Ayes. 355, Noes 16. (Division List No. 180).

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Gunter, Colonel

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Russell,Gen.F.S.(Cheltenh'm)

    Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinb'rgh, W.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. L.d. Geo.

    M'Killop, James

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Hardy, Laurence

    M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Harwood, George

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

    Shaw-Stewart,M.H.(Renfrew)

    Hayne,Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Heath, James

    Mellor, Rt.Hon.J.W.(Yorks.)

    Sinclair, CaptJohn(Forfarsh.)

    Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Helder, Augustus

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

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

    Henderson, Alexander

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Hermon-Hodge,RobertTrotter

    Milbank, Sir Powlett C. John

    Spicer, Albert

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

    Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs.)

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

    Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hamps.)

    Monk, Charles James

    Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechpl.)

    Steadman, William Charles

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Howard, Joseph

    Morgan,Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.)

    Stirling Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Howell, William Tudor

    Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

    Stock, James Henry

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Strachey, Edward

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Hutchinson, Capt. G. W.Grice-

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Jackson,Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Talbot,Rt.Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd.U.)

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Tennant, Harold John

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Newdigate, Francis Alex.

    Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

    Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Nichol, Donald Ninian

    Thorburn, Walter

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Jones, William (Carnarvons.)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHn.SirU

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Tomlinson, WM. E. Murray

    Kearley, Hudson, E.

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Kenyon, James

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Keswick, William

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Ure, Alexander

    Kimber, Henry

    Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

    Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

    Kitson, Sir James

    Pender, Sir James

    Knowles, Lees

    Penn, John

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    Lafone, Alfred

    Percy, Earl

    Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

    Lambert, George

    Perks, Robert William

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Pickard, Benjamin

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

    Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Leighton, Stanley

    Price, Robert John

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Leng, Sir John

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

    Llewelyn, Sir D.- (Swansea)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Purvis, Robert

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

    Pym, C. Guy

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

    Long, Col. C. W. (Eversham)

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Richardson,J. (Durham,S.E.)

    Woodall, William

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Woods, Samuel

    Lowe, Francis William

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.

    Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matt. W.

    Wylie, Alexander

    Lowther,Rt.HnJW(Cumb'l'd)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

    Wyndham, George

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh.)

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

    Lyell, Sir Leonard

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Younger, William

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Rothschild,Hon.LionelWalter

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Round, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

    696

    697

    NOES.

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Morris, Samuel

    Tully, Jasper

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

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

    Dillon, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Doogan, P. C.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    O'Malley, William

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Mr. Davitt and Mr. James

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    O'Connor.

    3. Resolved,—That this House doth acknowledge and highly approve the gallantly, discipline, and good conduct displayed by the Petty Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, and men of the Navy, the British and the Egyptian Army, and the Royal Marines during the campaign.
    Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That the thanks of this House be given to Lieutenant-General Sir Francis Grenfell, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., for the support and assistance which he afforded to the forces employed in the operations in the Soudan."—(Mr. Balfour.)
    MR. DAVITT: I do not intend to divide the House upon either of the two remaining resolutions, because they do not raise the question upon which we desired to protest, more especially when one of these resolutions amounts to an expression of sympathy with those families who have lost their sons. I trust that in this connection the House will remember the family of an hon. Member of this House who was universally respected, and who died on Monday night in the performance of the manly duty of protesting against all this butchery.*
    Question put and agreed to.
    4. Resolved,—That the thanks of this House be given to Lieutenant - General Sir Francis Grenfell, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., for the support and assistance which he afforded to the forces employed in the operations in the Soudan.
    Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That this House doth acknowledge, with admiration, the distinguished valour, devotion, and conduct of those other officers and men who have perished during the campaign in the Soudan in the service of their country, and feels deep sympathy with their relatives and friends."—(Mr. Balfour.)
    LORD CHAS. BERESFORD: I wish to make a request to the Government, and, whether it will be complied with or not, I am sure I shall have the
    698
    sympathy of the First Lord of the Treasury. It came to my knowledge, when a similar vote of condolence to the relatives of the men who were killed in the last Soudan campaign was passed in this House, that many of the widows and relatives of the men never knew at all that such a vote had been passed, as far as any official intimation was concerned, and they would not have known anything about it if I had not taken the trouble to write to them. I therefore ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can see his way to order a memorandum to be sent to the relatives of those who fell in battle, in order that they may know that the gallantry of their relatives has been fully appreciated by the representatives of the country in this House. Many of them are very poor people, and they never see a newspaper at all, and a great many of them would have no idea that this vote has been passed unless they receive an intimation to that effect. I am sure that these poor people would greatly appreciate an official intimation that the devotion and gallantry of their relatives has been acknowledged in this House.
    MR. DILLON: May I suggest that on future occasions when this House votes large sums of money, honours, distinctions, and sympathy with the relatives of those who fall in battle, the latter, who are often reduced to poverty by their loss, should receive a year or two's pay along with the resolution of sympathy.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the suggestion of my noble friend the Member for York is worthy of consideration. I do not know whether machinery exists for carrying out the suggestion, but I conjecture that no great difficulty need be found in doing so. On that point I can hardly pledge myself without consulting the officials concerned; but I can give the noble Lord the assurance that anything

    699
    that can be done in the direction he has indicated will certainly be done.
    Question put and agreed to.
    5. Resolved,—That this House doth acknowledge, with admiration, the distinguished valour, devotion, and conduct of those other officers and men who have perished during the campaign in the Soudan in the service of their country, and feels deep sympathy with their relatives and friends.—(Mr. Balfour.)
    Ordered,—That the said resolutions he transmitted by Mr. Speaker to Major-General Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, G.C.B., K.C.M.G., and that he be requested to communicate the same to the several officers and men referred to therein.—(Mr. Balfour.)

    LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
    Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [6th June] on consideration of the Bill, as amended:—
    "And which Amendment was, in page 12, lines 32 and 33, to leave out the words 'the inhabitants of the parish,' in order to insert the words 'such inhabitants of the parish as shall have obeyed that rubric of the Book of Common Prayer which is printed at the end of the Order of the Administration of the Holy Communion, and which requires that every parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year, of which Easter to be one.'"—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)
    Question again proposed—
    "That the words 'the inhabitants of' stand part of the Bill."
    Debate resumed.
    *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,): While I very much admire the courage which the noble Lord has shown in bringing this matter forward, I must say I think there will be a general agreement on both sides of the House that in submitting this Amendment he has allowed his zeal to outrun his discretion. We are dealing with a Bill for the better government of this ancient metropolis, and the noble Lord calls on us to so shape the measure as to involve a re-construction of an ancient Church establishment. The noble Lord, in fact, seeks to make this a Disestablishment Bill; but it is a piece of disestablishment beginning at the wrong end, for he proposes to disestablish, not the Church, but the parishioners. Further, he proposes not only to disfran-
    700
    chise all Nonconformists, but also a number—probably a majority—of members of the Church of England, who are non- Communicants. What are the grounds on which the noble Lord makes this suggestion to the House? First, he urges that it is only right and reasonable that a body which has to deal with Church affairs under the Act should be composed, not of the general public, but of Churchmen and communicating members of the Church. His second point was that it would be decidedly improper to allow those who disobeyed the law of the Church to exercise any government over Church matters. A very large number of Churchmen would stoutly deny both propositions of the noble Lord, but I would remind the noble Lord that these are not the principles on which the Church establishment in this country is based. He has to deal with facts as they are, and not as they ought to be. The parish church is the church of the parish and of all the inhabitants of the parish, and all inhabitants can claim the right of having free seats and of availing themselves of the services of the incumbent, whether they be communicants or not. Nonconformists, in common with Churchmen, can claim to be baptised, married, and buried with the Church's rites; they have the right of electing churchwardens, and if they happen to be on the Parliamentary roll they have the right of deciding who shall, as their representatives in this House, act as supreme governors of the Church. Does the noble Lord intend. this Amendment to be a beginning of a very much more extensive scheme? Will he presently insist that no Minister of the Crown who does not communicate three times every year—once at Easter included—shall be allowed to administer the Church patronage in the hands of the Crown? And then with regard to the large army of private patrons, will he insist that they all shall be communicants? What is he going to do with this House? Will he hereafter insist that none of us shall have a right to sit here and legislate for the Church unless we are communicants of that Church? The noble Lord says the laity of the Church of England do not exercise their proper share of influence in relation to the affairs of the Church, and he suggests that the reason for their not doing so is that they are an indeterminate body. He proposes that they should cease to be indeterminate by depriving

    701
    them of their existing rights. He proposes to increase their interest in the affairs of the Church by banishing them from the parish church, unless they happen to be communicants of that church. The truth is this Amendment, in principle, seeks to convert the National Church into a sect, and not only into a sect but into a section of a sect. It proposes to make the Church as narrow as it can be made. I do not wonder that the noble Lord was haunted by the ghost of the Test and Corporation Acts—those infamous Acts, which were scathingly described by the poet Cowper as
    "Making the symbols of atoning grace An office key, a picklock to a place."
    The noble Lord denies making the Communion a test in the same way as it was used in connection with the Test and Corporation Acts, but he proposes it as a qualification for entrance into the parish vestry, and thereby seeks to re-erect a barrier which the good sense and religion of the people of this country banished more than half a century ago. I have no doubt that the great majority of the members of the Church of England would strenuously object to the proposal of the noble Lord, and I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University and the hon. Member for St. Albans were quick to dissociate themselves from the Motion, although they have put forward Amendments equally objectionable. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University proposes to substitute for communicating a declaration of bonâ fide membership of the Church of England, while the Member for St. Albans supplies a double-shotted test, for he not merely requires a declaration—
    MR. VICARV GIBBS: Is the hon. Member in order in discussing my Amendment?
    MR. SPEAKER: No. That Amendment can only be discussed in the event of the Amendment of the noble Lord being carried.
    *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I am content with the fact that the Amendment of the hon. Member is on the Paper, and the House must draw its own conclusions from it. My view is that both the Amendments should be re-
    702
    jected, and I think it will be time enough for the noble Lord to come to this House with a proposition of this character when Churchmen themselves are agreed. There is another point, and that is what should constitute membership of the Church? The noble Lord told us on a former occasion that he is anxious to maintain the independence of the Church and also its position as an Establishment. But the two things are incompatible, and the noble Lord knows that he will not secure their conjunction.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now not merely discussing the general question of disestablishment, but he is also referring to a statement made in another Debate earlier in the session. He must confine himself to the Amendment.
    *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I need not pursue that argument any further. I think I have said enough to prove the absolute futility of this discussion.
    *MR. GEDGE: It seems to me there is no necessity whatever for this Amendment or any other Amendment. The inhabitants of the parish have hitherto had certain powers, partly ecclesiastical and partly secular, and I can see no reason why because the secular powers are now taken away the others should be taken away also. No doubt representative bodies will be appointed to deal with ecclesiastical matters. The only money they have to spend will he supplied by Churchmen. Those who pay the piper can also call the tune, and we may be quite sure that the inhabitants, unless in exceptional cases, will always elect Churchmen to attend to Church affairs. Without disparaging religious work done by Nonconformists, it has been the glory of the Church that she is answerable for all the parishioners. They all are entitled to her ministrations. I anticipate no danger whatever for the Church, and I cordially associate myself with what the hon. Member for Mansfield said as to the clergyman being the clergyman of the whole parish, and not of a section of the inhabitants.
    MR. HARWOOD: Did I not know the undoubted earnestness of the noble Lord, I should have thought that he had brought forward this Amendment as

    703
    a sort of grim joke, for it certainly carries us back to the days of the Inquisition and of the Star Chamber—times in our history which we would gladly forget. I regret that the matter has been brought forward. We know that all kinds of tests have been tried and have failed, and I do think that the re imposition of this test would be a retrograde step of a most pitiful kind. I do not think the country has yet recovered from the shock inflicted upon it by the operation of the Act which turned a most sacred rite in the service of the Church into a mere qualification for voting power. The Church, in one sense, is a collection of those who are bound together by a common faith and a common love, and history teaches us that we have never been able to find any sure method of making such a faith. The Church of England is not a testing Church, and it has distinctly repudiated the idea of applying these tests as a final mark of membership.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is going beyond the scope of the Amendment.
    MR. H ARWOOD: I will simply say, in conclusion, that those who glory in the Church will regard nothing with favour which is calculated to narrow the liberties of that Church, and I therefore trust that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
    LORD HUGH CECIL: I do not propose to put the House to the trouble of a division on this question, but, by permission of the House, I would like to express my dissent from the views of the hon. Member for Mansfield, and to state that I regard this purely as a matter of law, and not as arty test of obedience.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    *MR. J. G. TALBOT: Notwithstanding the criticisms which have come from the other side of the House, I will venture in a few words to ask the House to agree to the Amendment which stands in my name. I think I can show that my grounds for doing so are reasonable. My Amendment, which proposes to insert the words "who shall declare themselves bonâ fide members of the Church of England," ought not to offend the conscience of anyone or to
    704
    raise any bitter controversies. The framers of this Bill have distinctly raised the question of withdrawing Church matters from the jurisdiction of the new bodies which are to be established—this is shown by the words of this clause—and the only question is, by what sort of bodies shall they be administered in future. It surely cannot be considered fatuous, old-fashioned, or absurd that Churchmen should manage Church matters, and I think we are bound to secure the introduction into this Bill of words which shall enable them to do so. I do not know what view the Government may take of my Amendment, nor am I aware what is the opinion of the House upon it, but I do ask hon. Members not to be led astray by any plausible arguments, such as the allegation, true in a certain sense, that the Church is the Church of the whole nation. I only wish by moving this Amendment to show that we, as members of the Church of England, while anxious to acknowledge the service which the Government has clone by preserving the management of the affairs of the Church from the control of the borough councils, are anxious to ensure that they shall be administered only by those who declare themselves to be Churchmen.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 12, line 33, after the words last inserted, to insert the words 'who shall declare themselves bonâ fide members of the Church of England "—(Mr. Talbot.)
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I quite admit that this Amendment is not open to some of the objections urged against that of my noble friend the Member for Greenwich. But it is not a very opportune moment at which to discuss such questions as the reform of vestries. This Bill is a Bill for the reform of London municipal government. To make it a Bill for dealing with ecclesiastical matters would be throwing on our shoulders a burden which we neither desire to assume nor which ought to be thrust upon us on an occasion of this kind. On the abstract merits of the proposal I say nothing; on the face of it the suggestion contained in the Amendment is an extremely plausible one. But any ecclesiastical reform of the

    705
    vestries should take the shape of a measure applying to the whole country, and not to London alone. I am informed that the late Archbishop of Canterbury had very much at heart the question of the reform of the vestries, and I believe I am right in saying that what stopped all further procedure on his part in dealing with the question was the very problem touched on by my right hon. friend, namely, whether for vestry purposes the Church is to be regarded as a sect or as the Church of the whole nation. Is it practicable or tolerable that we should attempt to discuss, on such a Bill as this, a controversy we should find difficult enough successfully to tackle alone? While I do not complain of the action of my right hon. friend in moving the Amendment, I do protest that he has chosen a most improper time for raising this question.
    MR. VICARY GIBBS: My right hon. friend has rebuked those of us who have thought fit to intrude ecclesiastical matters into a debate on the London Government Bill. But this is the point I should like to draw attention to. It seems to be suggested that there is something inherently absurd and unreasonable in the proposition that the affairs of the Church of England, where they arise in connection with vestry business, should be managed by members of that Church. But surely it is not altogether unreasonable to bring before the House by means of this Amendment the fact that under the clause, as it now stands, persons who have no interest in the Church will be granted the power to interfere in purely ecclesiastical matters.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: In the few words I wish to say I would point out that the terms of this Amendment are much less rigid than those of the one proposed by my noble friend the Member for Greenwich. It was pointed out on a previous occasion by the First Lord of the Treasury that the test proposed in the last Amendment was stronger than that which prevailed in the Church of Scotland. But, as I understand the position in the Scottish Church, the members consist of communicants and those whom the body of Churchmen recognise as such, whereas the amendment proposes that a man who bona fide declares himself a Churchman will be accepted as such on his own word. I believe my
    706
    right hon. friend has stated that this Bill makes no change in the position of the Church in these matters. It is very evident that he ought to be the chairman for ecclesiastical purposes, yet under the scheme or method by which this clause will be carried out there is no guarantee of anything of that kind. Sooner or later this question must be faced; you cannot come up to the House of Commons and say that laymen are to have control over the Church of England, and not define what a layman is. One hon. Gentleman says that we must wait for a large Bill to deal with these matters; but will any Member of the Government or of the Front Opposition bench presume to foreshadow the time when we shall have a Bill to deal with ecclesiastical vestries? In the meantime the question has to be dealt with. Here is a simple example, which shows that this is the very opportunity, when we are reconstructing a public body which has exclusively to deal with Church matters, to take this matter into consideration. This is a very practical matter. Who ought to have control over Church matters? Why, evidently the Churchmen. The proposition before the House is a most reasonable one in my opinion, and it is for this reason that I cannot regret that my right hon. friend has proposed his Amendment. This proposal does not represent the view of a small body of Churchmen, but of the whole. There is no subject on which Churchmen as a whole agree so much as upon their having greater control over the Church.
    *MR.J G. TALBOT: After the sympathetic reception which my proposal has had from my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury, I beg to withdraw my Amendment. (Cries of "No, No.")
    Question put and negatived. Other Amendments made.
    MR.W. F. D. SMITH: I think the Amendment which stands in my name is desirable, because there are cases which may arise in which officers are simply transferred from the vestries to the borough councils, for whom they would perform the same work, and it is only fair that past services should be reckoned for the purposes of calculating the compensation to

    707
    which they are entitled. With these remarks I beg to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In Clause 26, page 15, line 27, at end, to insert—'Provided that the borough council may, if it thinks fit, take into account continuous service under any authority or authorities to which this Act refers, in order to calculate the total period of service of any officer entitled to
    compensation under this Act."—(Mr. W. F. D. Smith.)
    Question proposed "That these words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The particular form in which the hon. Gentleman put his Amendment on a former occasion made it compulsory in its character, and thus rendered it obligatory for one municipality to pay for services performed for another municipality. The objection to such a clause was obvious. The hon. Member shows his appreciation of that fact here by making it voluntary. In this form it is not objectionable, and of course there are cases in which the change might be extremely hard upon the persons concerned. This proposal only gives the borough councils liberty to exercise the power, therefore I suggest to the House that we should accept this Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Further Amendment proposed.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (SIR R. B. FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): I think that one word of explanation as regards this Amendment is desirable. The object of it is to bring within the scope of the compensation clause the case of officers, such as registration officers whose powers and duties are not transferred by this Act. The duty of that class of officer has been transferred to the town clerk, and this Amendment is inserted to remove a doubt which may exist as to whether these persons come within the scope of the clause or not.
    Amendment proposed, in page 15, after Sub-section (1), to insert—
    "(2.) Sub-sections 4 and 7 of Section 89 of the Local Government Act, 1894, shall apply to the existing officers affected by this Act, as as if references in those sub-sections to the borough council, and all expenses incurred by the borough council in pursuance of those subsections shall be paid out of the general rate."—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. STUART: After what has been said by the hon. and
    708
    learned Gentleman, I do not think any exception can be taken to the proposal. I only regret that the Solicitor-General was not able to put his Amendment down upon paper.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I go further, and say I see no reason whatever for the Amendment of the Solicitor-General. We have accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Strand Division, and it seems to me that we have gone quite far enough. The Amendment of the Solicitor-General seeks to include officers who are not regularly employed, and who, because they are not regularly employed, are paid a higher rate of remuneration.
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: At the end of the clause it runs—
    "A scheme under this Act may make such provisions as may appear necessary for carrying this section into effect, and if necessary for determining the authority to whom any existing officer is to be transferred, and for applying the provisions of this section to any officer who suffers pecuniary loss by reason of anything in or done under this Act, although he is not transferred to a borough council."
    To that I wish to add my Amendment. The object is not to bring in officers not regularly employed, but to remove a doubt which exists as to whether registration officers are officers in authority, and as such come within the scope of the compensation clause.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: We are much indebted to the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but that does not remove my objection to this Amendment. We do not object to the registration officer who is constantly employed being brought within the scope of the clause, but I do trust that the clause will be so drawn that it will not include men who, because they have been precariously employed, have been paid a very much higher rate of remuneration than if they had been employed under the town clerk as permanent officials. I do protest against those registration officers who are only partially employed throughout the year being brought in. I regret that we accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Strand Division, and I still more regret that the Solicitor-General is dipping his hand again into the public pocket. I strongly protest against it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR SAMUEL MONTAGU: I hope the Com-

    709
    mittee will accept the Amendment I now rise to move. Since the Second Reading I have had many communications with my constituents, and, quite irrespective of party I find there is a universal opinion against the creation of this large municipality. They think that the municipality so created would be so large as to be unmanageable. Both Whitechapel and St. George's suffer from rack-renting and overcrowding, and have to be specially treated. At three meetings which were lately held by separate organisations unanimous votes have been passed against the proposal to have so large a municipality, and proposing as an alternative to unite the two Parliamentary boroughs of White-chapel and St. George's. I find that there is no objection at all to this; that Mile End, Stepney, and Limehouse would be willing to be united into one borough, leaving Whitechapel and St. George's alone. The only case of difficulty is Wapping, which is a strip of land running round St. George's on the water side, which ought to be united with St. George's. It is in the Parliamentary borough, and ought to go into that division, but it is a very small area, containing less than 2,000 souls, and a rateable value of about £50,000. But as the feeling is so strong in favour of small boroughs, my friends are quite prepared in this case, if the Solicitor-General says that Wrapping ought to remain with Limehouse, to waive its being in-chided in St. George's. We are all in agreement that Mile End, Stepney, and Limehouse should go together, leaving Whitechapel and St. George's without Wapping as a separate municipality. I can assure the First Lord of the Treasury that there is no difference of opinion in this matter, either in St. George's or in the constituency which I represent. I have represented Whitechapel ever since it has been a Parliamentary borough, and as I do not intend to seek re-election after this Parliament, I have no further interest in the matter than to do what I consider my duty.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In Schedule 1, page 18, to leave out lines 10 and 11, and insert the words, 'The area consisting of the Parliamentary division of Whitechapel, consisting of all the areas included in the Whitechapel District Board of Works, together with the Parliamentary division of St. George's-in-the-East (including Wapping).'"—(Sir Samuel Montagu.)
    Question proposed—
    "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'Limehouse,' in line 11, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. H. S. SAMUEL: The way in which the hon. Gentleman moves his Amendment entirely gets rid of my objection to it. My constituents have the very strongest objection to parting with the richest portion of the district of Limehouse. The population of Wapping is extremely small, and the rateable value extremely high, and if it were taken away it would mean a great increase of rates of Limehouse. The hon. Gentleman has now removed my objection, and is practically proposing the exact Amendment which I put down at the Committee stage of the Bill, when I proposed that the Poor Law districts of Mile End Old Town and Stepney should be joined together. From the first I have always objected to the creation of this large borough, and have always suggested that the best way to deal with the matter would be the formation of three boroughs of equal size. That being so, I accept the suggestion of the hon. Baronet, and I earnestly hope that the Government will agree to the suggestion which I believe is put before them with the unanimous assent of all the electors concerned.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: This particular scheme was put into the Bill conditionally, and subject to discussion and agreement when we came to this table. If the whole area were divided into two, having regard to population and rateable value, there would be two boroughs of almost equal size. I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment.
    LORD HUGH CECIL: I am 10th to intervene in the discussion, but I feel confident that if the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley were here he would take a different view.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I did speak to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, and he said he was ready to accept the Amendment.
    MR. STEADMAN: On the Committee stage of this Bill I moved an Amendment, and took some trouble to rake out some historical records in reference to Mile End. Seeing that it sends two Members to Parliament and four members to the London County Council, I thought it had a just claim on the First

    711
    Lord of the Treasury. But evidently my historical records had not the desired effect. On that occasion the First Lord of the Treasury laid clown the principle that either the Tower Hamlets should be divided into two, or the whole thing should be referred to the Boundary Commission, but, seeing that he has made no provision in the Bill for the matter going to the Boundary Commission, the matter ought to be decided by the House. I may say that my own Vestry have passed a resolution in favour of the amalgamation of Lime-house and Mile End; but if you look at the map you will see that that is not a good geographical area, because with the exception of the north-east of Wapping it is surrounded by St. George's-in-the-East. Therefore it would make a long straggling borough, and would be rather awkward to get at. That is the difficulty I am placed in in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member. As the five parishes are now scheduled in the Bill, although they would make a very large borough, it would be a more uniform borough than the amalgamation of Mile End and Lime-house.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not approve of the proposed division?
    MR. STEADMAN: Well, it would make a very awkward borough.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are five Members representing this area in the House of Commons. Two have spoken strongly in favour of the new proposal, and I understand the other two take much the same view, while the fifth thinks that one division is better than two. I am very reluctant to diminish the size of the areas already agreed to. There must, of course, be a certain amount of objection to changes of this kind, and which cannot be entirely removed. As the House in Committee unanimously came to an agreement on the matter, and as the Members interested are not unanimous in any of the proposed changes, I think the House had better adhere to the original decision of the Committee.
    *MR. LOWLES: I quite understood that the Government were prepared to accept the proposal. I believe that the proposed division is most acceptable to all parties
    712
    in the division, and I feel very strongly that there are many circumstances which justify it. The First Lord of the Treasury would be consulting the consensus of opinion on both sides of politics if he listened to the voice of the whole of the Members for the district, except the hon. Member for Stepney.
    MR. STUART: I hope that the First Lord of the Treasury will still favourably consider the division proposed. When he agreed to put the whole of these five boroughs in one division on the Committee stage, it was not by any means that that view prevailed in the Committee; it was simply that hon. Members felt that something should be put in the Bill at that stage in order that the matter might be discussed. It has been very much discussed, and I venture to say there is more unanimity than the First Lord recognises in the desire to divide the area into two. The hon. Member for Stepney is the only Member of this House who has really said anything on the other side; but I would point out that he himself is in favour of two boroughs, his only difficulty being that if Wapping is to he attached to Stepney it would not look well on the map. Then, I would point out that the hon. Member for Stepney admitted that his own representative Vestry is in favour of the proposal now before the House.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: Several conversions seem to have taken place in regard to this matter, and the names of three hon. Gentlemen are mentioned as being converted to the division into two boroughs. The hon. Member for Mile End discussed this question with me over and over again. He was particularly keen as to this area being made one borough. Now we hear he has changed his mind. Then we are told that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley had also changed his mind, but I found him very keen in having this large area made one borough. There is a great deal to be said as to the area nearest the City being very narrow and unworkable as a borough. I certainly had not the slightest idea that the Government had the intention of altering the area. I have heard distinct approval from people in the district of the arrangement the Government came to on the Committee stage of the Bill, and I have

    713
    received no memorials from vestries or other public bodies against the proposal of the Government.
    SIR. R. B. FINLAY: I do not know why the hon. Member for Haggerston understood that this Amendment was to be accepted by the Government.
    *Mr. LOWLES: A large deputation waited on the Government; I believed that they were given some encouragement.
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: The deputation was received with courtesy, as usual, but the gentlemen seem to have jumped to the conclusion that the Government were going to accept this Amendment. We are told there is a general agreement on this proposal amongst the Members for the district, but it is unfortunate that some of these Gentlemen are absent. I cannot help thinking that, if these hon. Members entertained this view at all strongly, they would have been here to support it. We are in this difficulty, that we are asked to make a change of this kind without strong reasons of administrative con-

    AYES.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Douglas, Rt.Hon.A. Akers-

    Kemp, George

    Baillie, Jas. E. B.(Inverness)

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Keswick, William

    Balcarres, Lord

    Drage, Geoffrey

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(Manch'r)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Lawrence W. F. (Liverpool)

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W.(Leeds)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Fishier, William Hayes

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l.)

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    FitzGerald,SirRobertPenrose-

    Lowe, Francis William

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Berg, Ferdinand Faithfull

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Garfit, William

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(C.of-Lord.)

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    M'Killop, James

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward.

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Monk, Charles James

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Chamberlain,J.Austen(Worc'r

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hardy, Laurence

    Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Clarke, Sir Edw.(Plymouth)

    Heath, James

    Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptf'd)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos.H. A. E.

    Henderson, Alexander

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

    Pease, Herb. Pike(Darlington)

    Colston, Ch. Ed. E. Athole

    Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hamps.)

    Penn, John

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Houston, R. P.

    Percy, Earl

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Howard, Joseph

    Pilkington, R.(Lanes Newton)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Howell, William Tudor

    Priestley,SirW Overend (Edin.

    Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Purvis, Robert

    Curzon, Viscount

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hutchinson, Capt. G. W.Grice-

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matt. W.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    venience being adduced to the House for it. On the other hand, we have had some good reasons given the other way, which, to my mind, were convincing. If you look at the map it will be seen that, geographically speaking, the proposed division would be awkward. You would have Mile End and Limehouse, and then a long strip along the shore of the Thames which ought to belong to St. George's-in-the-East. That view was strongly presented to us by a deputation Which was accompanied by the hon. Baronet who made this motion. Under these circumstances it is desirable that Wapping should belong to the other four districts, and the whole made into one borough.
    MR. STEADMAN: By leave of the House I may say I have no very strong feeling in this matter; and, seeing that I am in the minority, I am quite willing to withdraw any objection I have to the proposed division and to support the hon. Member for Whitechapel.
    Question put—
    The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 55. (Division List No. 181.)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Strauss, Arthur

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Round, James

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

    Russell, Gen.F.S(Cheltenham)

    Thorburn, Walter

    Wodehouse,RtHonE. R. (Bath)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Wylie, Alexander

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Tomlinson,Wm. Edw. Murray

    Wyndham, George

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

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

    Valentia, Viscount

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M`Taggart

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    William Walrond and Mr.

    Stock, James Henry

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

    Anstruther.

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Whiteley,H. (Asht'n-und'r-L.)

    NOES.

    Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire)

    Hedderwick,ThomasCharlesH

    Samuel, Harry S. Limehouse)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Caldwell, James

    Lowles, John

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Carvill, PatrickGeo.Hamilton

    M`Dermott, Patrick

    Steadman, William Charles

    Charrington, Spencer

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Colville, John

    Maddison, Fred.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Crombie, John William

    Morgan, J Lloyd Carmarthen

    Tully, Jasper

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Davitt, Michael

    O'Connor,James(Wicklow,W.

    Weir, James Galloway

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Williams,JohnCarvell(Notts.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

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

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Pickard, Benjamin

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Woods, Samuel

    Flower, Ernest

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    G1adstone,Rt.Hon.Herb.John

    Price, Robert John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

    Sir Samuel Montagu and

    Harwood, George

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Mr. James Stuart.

    Hayne,Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Other Amendments made.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In Schedule 1, page 18, to leave out lines 14 and 15, and insert—'The area consisting of the parishes of St. George the Martyr, Christ Church, St. Saviour, Southwark, and Newington"—(The Solicitor-General.)
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think the Solicitor-General should give some reason for this change.
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: The alteration has been made for this reason. If anyone looks at the map he will see that this area forms a projecting tongue, which, in the Parliamentary Division, is in Bermondsey, and not with the rest of the parish along with Newington and West Southwark. It is admitted that it would be very inconvenient to divide the parish. A resolution has been sent to me which was passed by the vestry of Rotherhithe, St. Thomas' Board of Works, and the Vestry of Bermondsey, in support of the resolution passed by the Vestry of St. George the Martyr, in favour of the retention of that part of the borough. I hope that the House will not cut the area of the parish and the Poor Law Union in the way the original schedule will do.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Other Amendments made.
    MR. STUART: We have passed a clause which says that every portion of the county of London shall be in some borough. Now, so far as I can make out, the Collegiate Church of St. Peter's, Westminster, is not so included.
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: I have handed in an Amendment to meet that case. The reason why it was omitted before was that there was some question as to the right boundaries. I now beg to move that Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 18, line 30 to add 'and including the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, and the Liberty of the Rolls.'"—(The Solicitor-General).
    Question, "That these words be there inserted," put and agreed to.
    MR. STUART: I think there is another part of London that we have hung up, and that is the Tower. I think the Tower will have to be added to the White-chapel district.
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. The matter will be considered.
    Other Amendments made. Another Amendment proposed—
    "In page 19, column 2, line 20, before the word 'subject,' to insert the words 'subject to bye-laws and regulations matte by the County Council and '"—(Mr. James Stuart.)
    Question proposed—" That those words be there inserted."
    SIR R. B. FINIAY: I had an interview with some persons of experience in regard to this matter. I am unable to see the necessity for these words, and I do not think any clear reasons were adduced in support of them. The matter will, however, be considered.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments proposed—
    "In Schedule 2, page 19, column 2, line 23, after 's. 100,' to add 'and s. 101'; and and in Schedule 2, page 19, column 2, line 23, after 's. 100,' add 'subject to the requirement that borough council shall send annually to county council a copy of the register.'"—(Mr. Stuart, for Captain Sinclair.)
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: The first of these Amendments is already dealt with by an Amendment made at my instance.
    MR. STUART: As to the second Amendment, I do not see how, without it, the County Council can obtain a copy of the register.
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: I hope the hon. Member will not press this. I do not see the necessity. for the duplication of these registers. The register kept by the borough council may be inspected.
    MR. STUART: I do not wish to press it, but I hope that the Solicitor-General will consider the matter when he is inquiring into other points.
    Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I have to move to leave out lines 26 and 27 on page 20. It will be convenient, I think, that I should briefly call the attention of the House to the history of that portion of the Act
    718
    with which we are now dealing, and which is embraced in the schedule of this Bill. Part III. is a consolidation of an Act which was passed by Lord Beaconsfield in 1851; but that Act, which was in vogue from 1851 to 1890, was seldom, if ever, brought into operation in the metropolis. It was framed by Lord Beaconsfield with the idea that if dwellings were required over and above those dwellings which were formerly acquired under Part I. and Part II., they should be acquired under Part III. There may have been individual instances here and there where Part III. was brought into operation, but, practically speaking, it was a dead letter from 1851 to 1890. In the year 1890, when there was a general consolidation of all the different Housing Acts, Lord Shaftesbury's Act came into operation. With the exception of one or two instances, between 1890 and now, Part III. has not been put into operation very much in the metropolis. It was exercised in the year 1893 on a considerably large scale for the acquisition of the Millbank Estate, and it was also put into operation in 1895 in what is known as the Falcon Court Improvement Estate. But in both these cases Part III. was exercised more in the sense of an addition to the scheme under Part I. and Part II. The House may know that the Milbank Estate, which is being rapidly developed, is to go to those persons who have been displaced, under the schemes known as Part I. in this Act, in other parts of London. Up to this point Part III. has been more or less excluded, and has not been brought into operation. Within the last few months, however, the London County Council and the Housing Committee of that body, recognising the extremely grave condition of affairs in London, the fearful state of congestion, the continuous increase of population, and the difficulty of accommodating the people, have taken what may be termed a new departure, and that a very drastic one. The result has been that the London County Council have committed themselves to a new and very extensive policy, which is not merely to continue to clear the areas and rebuild under Part I. of the Act on a large scale, and under a smaller scale under Part II., but, finding that they have been unable to replace entirely the number of people they have displaced under Part II., they have now committed themselves, for better or

    719
    worse, to a very extensive exercise of Part III. of the Act. Part III empowers a county council to purchase—
    Attention called to the fact that there were not 40 members present. House counted, and 40 members being present, Debate resumed.
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: Before 1890 every local authority that exercised Part III. had first to obtain the sanction of the Home Office. The Act of 1890 did away with that sanction, and every local authority which desires to exercise Part III. now is able to do so without asking any leave whatsoever. That Part enacts that local authorities may purchase land, but it is also laid down that the local authority, having purchased land, is obliged itself to build upon it, and to manage the buildings it erects. The reason why I move my Amendment is that I am quite sure, although in former years Part III. has not been much used, that it is now to be used considerably, and it is not in a properly equipped condition to enable it to be used to the benefit of the metropolis as a whole. If the indiscriminate purchase of land is to be carried out in London there should be further safeguards in one direction, and further extensions in another. With reference to safeguards, a Government authority should be called into requisition to give its sanction, both as regards the purchase of land, and also as to the plan of the buildings to be erected on it. There is, however, another important point in my humble opinion, which is that if this Part is to be exercised very largely throughout the metropolis there should be an extension allowed—namely that, having purchased the land, the local authority shall have full power to sell it as long as it is handed over to some company or society that is prepared to build working-class dwellings on it. In the case of Part I., a clearance having been made, the sanction of the Home Office has to be obtained before the local. authority may build on it, and I should like some such regulation brought into operation with reference to Part Ill. If not, there will be in London in the future many districts in which land will be managed and controlled by the municipalities. In past legislation the principle has been laid down that it is not in the best interests of the metropolis, or of the
    720
    private enterprise and industry which have made this country prosperous, that municipalities should have the control of property on a large scale in the metropolis. To such art extent has that principle been laid down that Part I. of the Housing Act provides that at the end of 10 years after the clearance, unless the sanction of the Home Office is obtained, the land must be sold by the municipality. Ten years have now nearly elapsed since the Act became law, and I hope the Government Department will stand firm and say that the land must go back to a private individual or to a society. There is great danger in front of us in working Part III. on an extensive scale. Land has enormously increased in value in the metropolis; the price of building materials and labour has also enormously increased, and the result is that the officers of the London County Council have found out that it is practically impossible if land is purchased in the central portions of London to erect on it dwellings according to standard without finding a financial loss at the end. This is a very grave question, and, as I have said, the London County Council is committed to a very drastic policy in this direction. A very large section of its members in, their enthusiasm for meeting this great difficulty, are quite prepared to commit themselves to the principle—which is most dangerous and fallacious—that if you cannot build at a financial profit you should go to the rates for the deficit. That is undoubtedly the policy which the Progressive members of the London County Council contemplate. It is a policy against all the laws of political economy.
    MR. STUART:The hon. Baronet has not adduced any proof of that statement.
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I can adduce my own knowledge of members of the Council who have considerable standing, and who advocate that policy.
    MR. STUART: There is no ground for saying that that is the policy of the Progressive majority of the Council.
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I will not weary the House by entering into a controversy with the hon. Gentleman. If the London County Council exercise Part III. on an extensive scale, they will

    721
    find it absolutely impossible to do it at a profit. The effect of the proposal in the Bill is that the thirty borough councils in London may have the opportunity of exercising Part III.—in other words, the power of buying land without the sanction of any Government Department, and of erecting dwellings on it. Until the law is amended, this is a very dangerous departure, and I would strongly urge on the Government, in the face of the great difficulties we have to meet, that before they insert Part III. in the London Government Act, they should remodel the Housing Act, especially on the point indicated. The County Council has a very clear and definite policy, which is to buy land in the outskirts of London in order that the people who have been displaced in the central portions may be housed. Particular attention is being given to the purchase of land in proximity to railway stations and tramways, to enable the working classes to get to their work. That policy can only be carried out by the central authority, and I think it is better that the general housing of London should be left in its hands. Even if the Government will not give way on this point, I would ask them to give some kind of pledge that Part III. of the Housing Act will be amended in the direction I have indicated.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 20, to leave out lines 26 and 27."—(Sir John Dickson-Poynder).
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. PICKERSGILL: As the hon. Baronet has moved an Amendment which stands to my name, I would like to state why on reconsideration I decline to proceed with it. The question is a difficult one, and one on which it is quite possible that two opinions may be held. At present the London County Council has power under Part III. of the Housing Act to provide houses for the people, and the proposal in the Bill is, not that that power should be taken away from the County Council, but that while it remains with the Council concurrent power should be conferred on each of the new municipal bodies. From one point
    722
    of view that may he regarded as a somewhat dangerous proposal, but my point of view is different from that of the hon. Baronet. The difficulty I saw was that if the proposal were carried there would probably be a tendency in each district to provide dwellings for its own poor, and there would be less pressure on the central authority to carry out the power it now possesses. I am strongly of opinion that the provision of dwellings for the poor is a purpose the cost of which ought to fall on the whole of London. These poor are not the poor of Bethnal Green, or Battersea, or Shore-ditch, but of London, and therefore the cost of making necessary provision for them ought to come out of the common purse. At one time I felt so strongly that I was inclined to vote against the proposal of the Government. There are, however, graver considerations on the other side. I do not desire to belittle the work of the County Council in regard to the Housing Act. The Council has undoubtedly done good work in clearing away rookeries, but it is only fair to say that it has done more in pulling down than building up. The Council has made provision for a considerable number of persons, yet it has not solved the great difficulty. It has not provided accommodation at a rent which a workman earning 20s. or 21s. a week can afford to pay. The housing question in London at present, I do not hesitate to say, is a gross scandal which earnestly presses for a satisfactory settlement. We have a condition of things under which a man in employment and earning fair wages has not been able to get accommodation, and has been obliged to send his family to the workhouse. That is a scandalous condition of things, and reflects the greatest discredit on the community. Considering that the question is a burning one, and in view of the communications that have reached me to the effect that the poorer localities of London desire to have this power, I decline to accept the responsibility of depriving them of the opportunity which the Government proposes to put in their way. For many reasons I shall support the Government proposal.
    *MR. LOWLES: It is the first time, either by voice or vote, during the de-

    723
    bates on this Bill, that I have supported any contraction of the powers to be conferred on the local authorities. I think the House ought to know that the hon. Baronet has the honour to be the chairman of the Housing of the Working Classes Committee of the London County Council, a position he fills with credit to himself and advantage to London, and he therefore speaks with special knowledge of the question. I myself was a member of the same committee for three years, and may claim some knowledge of the question also. It is proposed to give this power to the new boroughs, but you limit the exercise of it in each district strictly to its own area, thereby perpetuating the evil which the County Council is now trying to remove, namely the settling down of people in congested districts in the heart of London. The policy which the Council has pursued for years has been to get people to live out in the suburbs, and it has approached railway companies and has obtained possession of tramways in order to induce workmen to live where they can get better surroundings for their families. If we give these local authorities power to erect dwellings and limit its operation to their own districts, we will tempt them to buy land at exorbitant rates. Take that part of my constituency that adjoins the City. Every year land is becoming more valuable; small houses are being pulled down and are being replaced by warehouses which bring a larger revenue to the parish. I venture to say that an enthusiastic local body with perhaps Socialistic tendencies would disregard not only the loss of money but also the considerations of health in putting into force the power it is proposed to give to the municipal boroughs, and I therefore, in the interests of public health and from considerations of economy, support the amendment of the hon. Baronet.
    MR. STUART: As I am interested largely in the County Council, I support the proposal in the Government Bill, because, at a meeting between the local authorities and the County Council, the Council, after a full consideration of the arguments brought forward by the local authorities, decided that it would be willing to concede to them the concurrent powers now included in the schedule. So far as I can speak for the County Council I say that it adheres to its undertaking.
    724
    That is the clear and simple position. It does not enter into the arguments; it is merely that, the arguments being considered on a previous occasion and a decision taken, the Council is prepared to abide by it. I admit the great respect in which the hon. Baronet opposite and his work are held by every member of the County Council, and although I differ from him on this particular I have the highest esteem for the work he is doing on the County Council. I must, however, take exception to the position which he incidentally took up with reference to the Progressive majority, and his suggestion that that majority would act in some remarkable manner. All I will say is that the hon. Baronet is himself chairman of the Housing Committee of the Council, and that is enough on that subject. The County Council has carried out Part III. with very considerable success and very considerable advantage to London. The hon. Baronet has pointed out the lines on which the Council is proceeding under his guidance, and I think there can be no hesitation in believing that the Council is endeavouring to house the poor of the metropolis under conditions acceptable to all parties in the Council, and to the views entertained throughout all parts of the metropolis generally. But we have had the representations of the local authorities before us, and, they being desirous of having this power, and the Council having decided to give it to them, that decision must be adhered to. I notice in all the Debates on questions of the transference of powers an underlying mistake. Many Members appear to assume that the new local authorities will be more Conservative and less Progressive than the County Council. I have no doubt that it will be found that their character will be very much the same, and that their method of dealing with the housing of the poor will be on very similar lines. That question is one of the most absolutely important questions for this metropolis, and the spirit in which the County Council is dealing with it is shown by the fact that whereas there is a great Progressive majority on the County Council, the hon. Baronet opposite is Chairman of the Housing Committee. I venture to believe that the new boroughs will deal with this question in a similar spirit, and I have as much confidence in putting the necessary power

    725
    into their hands as I have in retaining it in the hands of the Council. I wish to support the proposal in the Bill on the main ground I have mentioned.
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are thoroughly agreed as to the extreme importance of this question of the housing of the poor, and I am sure also that we all recognise the work which has been done in this direction by my hon. friend who moved the Amendment, and that he speaks with special knowledge on the subject. At the same time I cannot but feel that many of his arguments were directed to the point that the power given under the Housing of the Working Classes Act should be supplemented. There is a great deal of force in many of my hon. friend's observations, and I am perfectly certain they will receive careful consideration. But the question before the House is whether, under the Housing of the Working Classes Act in its present form, the power with reference to Part III. should not be extended to the borough councils. I would remind the House that this power is enjoyed by other municipal boroughs throughout the country, and I would ask why the metropolitan boroughs should not enjoy it also. There is very great cogency in one observation of the hon. Member who has just spoken, namely, that it was agreed at a conference between the local authorities and the County Council that this power should be extended to the borough councils. My hon. friend who moved the Amendment made some criticisms upon the policy of the County Council which I gather did not meet with acceptance in all parts of the House, but I would remind my hon. friend that whatever may be the policy of the majority of the County Council it does not at all follow that the policy of the borough councils will be the same. Under this Bill, when it becomes law, the power of exercising Part III. will only extend to the limit of each borough. My hon. friend said that it was desirable that those workmen should he provided with houses in the suburbs where they could easily go to and from their work. Of course, I recognise that it is very desirable, where it can be done, that we should find them accommodation so near a railway that they could get up to their work with convenience to themselves. But in many
    726
    boroughs this is not always possible. Where they can do so, well and good; but under the circumstances, where they cannot, the borough council surely may be trusted only to put these powers in force within the borough where there is a legitimate demand for working men's houses within the borough. I do not think myself it would be abused, and I hope the House will agree to give these powers to the boroughs of London.
    MR. CAUSTON: I have great pleasure in hearing the right hon. Gentleman express his determination to give this power to the London boroughs. From time to time I have received communications from Judge Addison, of Southwark County Court, giving most harrowing descriptions of the trials that the people of South London have to undergo in respect to want of dwellings. I think that the new local authorities ought to have power to deal with these matters if they so desire, because they know the local requirements and the difficulties which the working men have to contend with, especially those who have to go very early to their work. An hon. Member talks about the working classes being transported to the outskirts of London by railway. But when you talk of transporting the working classes, that means additional expense to them; and the working classes, or certain of them, such as the Borough Market and waterside labourers, are not remunerated by a very high wage, and when you ask them to go outside London by train or tram you impose on them an expense which they cannot bear. I think the local authorities should have power to deal with these matters even in the event of the County Council not seeing its way to do so, because they possess local knowledge which the County Council cannot be acquainted with.
    *COLONEL HUGHES: I should like to inform hon. Members that in the County of London there is plenty of room to build houses for double the population. There are numerous districts not yet covered where there is plenty of room. There are 3,000 acres at Plumstead, and there are other places, like Eltham, with 3,800 acres, where the population is only one and a-half persons

    727
    per acre. As regards the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I was before a magistrate to-day at the police-court—["Hear, hear"]—on business—and a man was brought before the magistrate charged with living with his wife and family in a disorderly house. The man said he was sorry that his children had to live in such a disreputable neighbourhood, but he was unable to find another house. In another case a man had to put his wife and family into the workhouse, where he paid for their maintenance, because he could not find a place in which to house them. In another case a woman was looking for apartments who had a child with her, and she was asked how many children she had, and she said, "I have one here and five in the churchyard," but when she got the apartments that same night there were six children there. Her statement was quite true, because while she went to look for apartments she. left five children to play in the churchyard. That is the sort of subterfuge to which these people have to resort. We do want the County Council to build in these places where the population is only one and a half person per acre, but if they will not the borough councils can do it themselves, and do it cheaper than the London County Council; we can always get land that we want for our own benefit at a fair price, but directly the London County Council comes along the price goes up enormously. Then there is another thing: the people themselves do not like the barrack system which is adopted by the London County Council, which is undertaken at so large an expense; but you can build cottages in a borough like Woolwich, which has thirteen square miles. There is no difficulty. We have land there, and for the last ten years we have waited for the County Council to build municipal property. They have failed to do it, but in the last few months they begin to see that something ought to be done. The County Council will be able to undertake these buildings, outside boroughs without building land, which the local authority has not power to do; but the local authority can erect these small houses, which in their own knowledge are desirable, where they have land available within their own borough.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: It is pleasing to note on all sides of the House a desire to
    728
    grapple with the housing problem, which is a most serious question. On this occasion I am a devoted supporter of the Government as against some supporters of the Government who sit below the gangway, who consider there is a serious risk in remitting to the local authority this power. I admit the risk, but I believe the housing problem is so serious that that risk must be incurred and undertaken. I believe that the Government have done wisely in putting into their Bill with regard to the housing problem a suggestion that the local authorities should have concurrently the same power as the London County Council enjoys. It seems to me that we ought to examine the argument of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Chippenham Division. It is trite he was chairman of the Housing Committee, and he is to be congratulated on the congenial way in which he discharged his functions, but he has no mandate from his committee for the nervousness which he has shown to-night. He is Under the impression that if the local authorities have these powers they will immediately embark in some wild scheme or other for which there is no justification. But these local authorities are very conservative in their views, and I think we can safely leave this power to them. When the hon. Member for Woolwich says that the County Council procedure is expensive, I venture to tell him that there is not another body in London, not even the Corporation, who could buy the immense number of acres of land which the County Council has bought within 12 miles of London at the price which it paid, which is £38 an acre. It is evident that something should be done to prevent the scandalous overcrowding both on the part of the local authority and the County Council, and I sincerely trust the Government will not listen to its supporters below the gangway, and I trust the borough councils will have the power which the Government desires to give them.
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: After the observations which have fallen from hon. Members of this House, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: The last schedule in the Bill, I notice, gives the borough councils power to make bye-laws. Of course, borough councils would have power in the ordinary course to make bye-laws for a specific purpose, but the schedule which we are now considering is something quite different; it authorises them to make bye-laws for the good government of the borough, and it is at once obvious that these words are exceedingly vague. There is given to the thirty local authorities who are to be created by this Bill power to make bye-laws for the "good government" of the borough. It is true that they must not be in contradiction to the bye-laws of the County Council. So far so good. But there is nothing to prevent the bye-laws of one borough being absolutely contradictory to the bye-laws of another. It would be ridiculous to have a bye-law affecting one-half of a street and an absolutely contradictory byelaw the other half. There is a great tendency to make use of this power of making bye-laws for all purposes. The old Court of Queen's Bench was a great safeguard in this matter, but all that has now been completely changed, and the trend is quite the other way. At present it is safe to say that the Judges, instead of scrutinising very closely as they did in old days these particular matters, will sanction almost anything that comes before them in the shape of bye-laws. Considering how serious the result is, it is especially important from the point of view of the poorer parishes, considerably more than in the case of the rich, because a man of good circumstances, in the event of his breaking a bye-law, pays the fine, and there is the end of it, and the poor man earning perhaps a precarious livelihood is unable to do so, and goes to prison. No fewer than 75,000 persons are in prison now, not because they have committed a crime, but because they have done something for which the proper punishment is a fine, and they have not the money with which to pay. Under the circumstances I think you ought not to unduly extend this bye-law making power.
    Amendments proposed, in Schedule 2, page 20, to leave out lines 26 and 27, and to leave out lines 28 to 30.—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist in his Amendment. My objection, in the first place, is that we have in this Bill gone on the principle that the powers that are agreed to be transferred from the County Council to the borough councils shall be transferred under this Bill. I do not see that there is any real force in the objection made by the hon. Member. There are a great many cases in this country where there are two areas which are coterminous with each other and are not easily distinguished, which are under two separate systems, and all those boroughs have the power of making bye-laws. And yet it is said that such a principle would be inconsistent in connection with these boroughs in London. It is absurd to suggest that the borough of Poplar and of Mile End would require the same bye-laws as, for instance, say, Kensington. London north of the Thames and London south of the Thames have different circumstances to consider, and I think they should be allowed to decide the bye-laws which they require for themselves. What I have said applies rather to the first Amendment, but I hope what I have said is sufficient to enable the hon. Member to withdraw both his Amendments.
    *COLONEL HUGHES: The bye-laws must be sanctioned by the Local Government Board, and it is very much better that these borough councils should have the same powers as other boroughs have. They do not want to be under the County Council, they want to be under the laws of the country at large, and I think you may fairly leave it to the Local Government Board, and be quite satisfied that they will not allow bye-laws in contradiction to each other. The safeguards are quite sufficient.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: When this question becomes merely a local matter, then I think you ought to have elasticity, and under the circumstances I cannot support my hon. friend's Amendments.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: Under the circumstances I do not press my Amendments.
    Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
    Other Amendments made.
    Bill to be read the third time upon Tuesday next.

    FINANCE BILL.
    Order road, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed (6th June) on consideration of the Bill, as athended:—
    And which Amendment was—
    "In page 2, line 27, after the word 'enumerated' to insert the words 'and tested.'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Question put and agreed to,
    Other Amendments made.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 5, line 27, after the word 'form,' to insert the words 'but does not include any County Council or Municipal Corporation bills repayable not later than twelve months from their date or any overdraft at the bank or other loan raised for a merely temporary purpose for a period not exceeding twelve months.'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. P. SMITH: I think that no corporation could wish to keep raising money permanently in a matter of this sort. I would suggest that the words "for a period not exceeding twelve months" should be left out, although, under the circumstances, I will not move any Amendment.
    MR. CALDWELL: I desire to point out that the Stamp Act refers to bills of exchange and promissory notes. In this Amendment you are not adopting any definition of the word "bills." I have no doubt whatever that the object which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in view is that promissory notes shall be included as well as bills of exchange; but under this short description by saying "corporation bills" it is not defined, and it has no corresponding term. It seems to me that there is a little ambiguity, and
    732
    in order to make it clear I would suggest to him that after the word "bills" he should add the words "of exchange or promissory notes."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
    "In line 2, after the word 'bills,' to insert the words' of exchange or promissory notes.'" (Mr. Caldwell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): The hon. Member was good enough to call my attention to this point some little time ago, and I noticed that he had included in his Amendment the words "promissory notes." I thought I had convinced the hon. Member that the inclusion of these words is quite unnecessary, for I notice that, as his Amendment now stands on the paper, the words "promissory notes" are omitted. I have looked into the matter and taken the advice of the Inland Revenue, and I have been assured that these words are not only unnecessary, but that they would also be misleading. A promissory note is a loan raised for a period not exceeding twelve months, and consequently it is covered by these words.
    *MR CALDWELL: Whilst I still think that it would be better to follow the phraseology of the Stamp Act, 1891, and use both terms— "bills of exchange and promissory notes," yet, having regard to the explanation just given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which will appear on the Records of the House, that promissory notes are included in the term "bills," I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original question again proposed.
    SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I think it is necessary to leave out the words "for a temporary purpose," because if money is temporarily applied to some permanent work the

    733
    borrowing body might be called upon to pay duty twice upon the same money. I do not think it is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tax these loans twice, and I have put down a couple of Amendments intended to obviate this. In other respects the Amendment is fairly satisfactory.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
    "In line 3, after the word 'raised' to leave out the words 'for a merely temporary purpose.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I believe that these words are necessary for the purpose of the clause, and if they were omitted it would be possible for a corporation to borrow for twelve months, and to continue that loan borrowing for an indefinite period of years and practically make it a permanent loan. I think the hon. Member will see that such a process would be very unfair.
    SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I should like to know what is meant by "a merely temporary purpose." My constituents hold that the words might be held not to apply when the temporary loan is applied to permanent work.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That is not so.

    AYES.

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Harwood, George

    Richardson. J. (Durham, S. E.)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Hedderwick, Thomas CharlesH

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Burns, John

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Burt, Thomas

    Humphreys-Owen. Arthur C.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Caldwell, James

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumbland)

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Spicer, Albert

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Leng, Sir John

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Colville, John

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Strachey, Edward

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Davitt, Michael

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Dillon, John

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Weir, James Galloway

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Maddison, Fred

    Williams, John Carvell (Notts

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

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

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

    Wilson, JosH(Middlesbrough)

    Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

    Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J.

    Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Sir Charles Cameron and Mr. Provand.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    SIR CHARLES CAMERON: That being so I will not press this Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Words inserted.
    SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have any objection to my next Amendment, which simply makes the meaning of the clause more clear.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 5, line 22, after tile word 'called' to insert the words: 'But provided that the duty under this section shall be paid by a local authority only once in respect of the exercise by them of borrowing powers, and shall not be paid in respect of money reborrowed by them to replace money borrowed which may have been paid off otherwise than by means of a statutory sinking fund.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: I think the hon. Baronet will recognise what my right hon. friend said with regard to temporary loans. If these words are added they will introduce a totally new principle, which in practice would be most mischievous.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 168. (Division list No. 182.)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Morton,ArthurH.A. (Deptford

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

    Mount, William George

    Arnold, Alfred

    Flower, Ernest

    Murray,RtHnAGraham(Bute

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Folkestone, Vicount

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Balfour, Rt.Hn.A.J.(Manch'r)

    Garfit, William

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Balfour,RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H. (City of Lon)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Gibbs, Hon.Vicary(St.Albans)

    Pease, Herbert P. (Darling'n)

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Giles, Charles Tyrell

    Penn, John

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bristol)

    Goldsworthy, Major- General

    Pilkington,R. (Lanes, Newton)

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

    Gorst, Rt Hn G J (St George's)

    Priestley,Sir W.Overend(Edin

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Bigwood, James

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Purvis, Robert

    Billson, Alfred

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Rankin, Sir James

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hardy, Laurence

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. SirMatt. W.

    Carlile, William Walter

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

    Heath, James

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Robinson, Brooke

    Cecil, Ld. Hugh (Greenwich)

    Henderson, Alexander

    Rothschild,Hon. Lionel Walter

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

    Round, James

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.)

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'h'm)

    Chamberlain,J.Austin(Wore'r

    Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Houston, R. P.

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Charrington, Spencer

    Howell, William Tudor

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Clarke, SirEdward(Plymouth)

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

    Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Stock, James Henry

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Kemp, George

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cook, Fred Lucas (Lambeth)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

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

    Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

    Kimber, Henry

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Ed. T. D

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Cox, Irwin Edw. B. (Harrow)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Curzon, Viscount

    Long,RtHnWalter(Liverpool)

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-L.)

    Denny, Colonel

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Maclure, Sir John William

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

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R. (Bath

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

    M'Killop, James

    Wylie, Alexander

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V

    Maxwell,, Rt Hn.SirHerbertE.

    Wyndham, George

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Milbank, Sir Powlett C. John

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Fellowes,Hon.AilwynEdward

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Younger, William

    Fergusson,Rt.Hn.Sirj.(M'nc'r

    Monk, Charles James

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Finch, George H.

    Morgan,Hn Fred. (Monm'thsh.

    Sir William Walrond and

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Another Amendment made.
    Bill to be read the third time upon Tuesday next.

    COLONIAL LOANS FUND BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1:—
    Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
    *MR. CALDWELL: This clause practically contains the substance of the Bill. I therefore propose to take this opportunity of stating my objections to the measure. The clause confers the right to give loans to the Colonies, and it prescribes the whole regulations. I admit that according to the clause any

    737
    loan to a colony must first of all receive the sanction and approval of Parliament. There must be a previous voting of the money. The objection which I take is practically to the Bill itself, in so far as it gives any facilities whatever for the Colonies to borrow money on the credit of the Imperial Exchequer. I object altogether to giving these facilities. I fear that if we thus become enormous creditors of the Colonies, we shall find it will not be beneficial to our relations with them, and it may turn out very greatly to our disadvantage. I may point out that this Bill leaves the amount of interest to he fixed by the Treasury, instead of deciding on the minimum, as is done in the case of loans to local authorities.
    MR. DILLON: The whole Bill is founded on this clause, and for my part I cannot find in any of the speeches which have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer any justification whatever for starting this new fund. The Bill proposes to create a new stock on exactly the same lines as the Local Loans Fund, and the stock will be placed on the market as a guaranteed stock bearing interest the amount of which is not fixed in the Bill, but which is to be fixed by the Treasury. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced this measure last year he said it was not only intended to be of assistance to the Colonies, but also to open up a new means of investment for Post Office Savings Banks deposits, and thus while they were helping the Colonies they would be aiding a class which they all desired to assist, viz., the thrifty, industrious people who deposited money in the Savings Banks. Now the real meaning of this is that, in order to keep up an expensive Savings Bank system, and to enable the Government to continue to pay a larger interest than can be earned under the present system of investment, a new stock is to be deliberately started. One of my chief objections to the Bill is based on that ground. Another is that you are starting machinery for lending money to the Colonies, as a result of which there will be a continuous pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lend improvidently. We all remember how, in the Debate last year, when it was alleged that the real object of this Bill was to
    738
    help the West Indian Colonies, the Chancellor of the Exchequer denied it. But the pressure of circumstances began to operate almost immediately, and it is already in contemplation to lend money to these Colonies under this Bill. If ever there was a period in the history of this country when the policy of lending money to the Colonies ought to be most jealously watched it is now. The extension of the Colonies has been so enormous, and the demands of the gentlemen popularly called Imperialists, inflationists, or extensionists are so excessive, that I confess I am inclined to look with great jealousy on any proposal for facilitating the lending of money to the Colonies. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a former occasion, to what colonies this Bill would apply, and he indicated that it would apply to many African colonies, including Rhodesia, British Central Africa, East Africa—it may be the Soudan, but as to that I am not quite certain. However that may be, the prospect of opening up temptation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lend money freely to these African colonies appears to me to involve the adoption of a false policy and of a most vicious financial system. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that one good point about the Bill was that it gave Parliament a more efficient control over the finances of the colonies to which these loans were made, and he mentioned that there would be an annual and complete Return to this House on the same lines as that which embodied the loans to local authorities in this country. But I do not see the efficacy of these Returns at all, and therefore I do not look on that as in any way an argument in favour of the Bill. I think it would be far safer to continue the present system of making these loans. At present they are granted under special Acts, and in the long run many of them are wholly or partially remitted. I cannot see what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to gain by devising machinery which will have the effect of applying

    739
    pressure to the Treasury to grant loans more freely. If we are going to set up a new system, I would suggest that the money for these Colonial loans should be found, not by starting a new stock, but out of the cash at the disposal of the Commissioners of the National Debt. In any ease the loans made under this Act will have to be a charge on the Consolidated Fund ultimately, and as any loss must eventually be borne by the taxpayers of this country, I think that the money might as well be advanced directly.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have explained on several occasions, I am afraid without success in the case of the Member for East Mayo, the effect of this measure. But he certainly does not seem to realise the intent of the Bill. If its effect were to facilitate pressure upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make loans to the Colonies, I should never have proposed it. The safeguard of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these matters is the fact that a loan made to the Colonies must obtain the assent of Parliament, and as under this Bill that provision is carefully inserted I do not think there is any ground for the hon. Member's alarm. What happens now is that if a Crown colony has good credit it goes into the market, through the Crown Agent, and obtains a loan. Anybody who chooses to look down the list of securities in the market can see that many of our Crown colonies have very good credit. The object of this Bill was, not that we may lend to what has been described as insolvent colonies, but that we may secure for the investors in our savings banks the chalice of investment in the loans of the more solvent colonies. We may, of course, also lend to a colony which has not been so prosperous as other colonies. By the machinery proposed under the Bill the Colonies will be assisted by being able to obtain loans at a lower rate of interest, while there will be an advantage to this country in
    740
    providing for deposits in savings banks a better means of investment than Consols afford. I quite admit that the principle of this Bill is contained in the first clause, and that therefore the hon. Member had a perfect right to raise this Debate.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, we have already discussed the principle of this Bill, and if the remarks of my hon. friend had been directed against the measure introduced last year I should have entirely agreed with all he said. But this Bill is totally different; the objectionable features found in the last measure have now been removed, and there can be no practical objection to the present Bill. I do not see how this Bill would in any way either prevent or encourage loans to colonies. It is purely a machinery Bill. Any loan to a colony must first come in the form of a Bill before this House, where it will be discussed on its merits. Should this House agree to lend money to any particular colony, it surely would be an advantage to this country, as well as to the colony, that the loan should be made under a properly regulated system. I therefore feel bound to support this Bill.
    MR. DILLON: I thoroughly understand that in each individual case of loans under this Bill the loan will have to be sanctioned by a separate Bill. But is the Chancellor of the Exchequer in earnest in saying it is seriously intended that these separate Bills shall be freely discussed? Do not we all know perfectly well that, 99 cases out of 100, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, with a great majority behind him, decides that such a Bill shall be brought in, the thing is practically done. My objection to this Bill is that it is no part of the business of the Government to bolster up an unsound banking system by making it a means of investment for funds that are accumulating beyond our present means

    741
    of investment. That I may point out is the view of the Economist newspaper, which is one of the highest authorities on these questions. If the right hon. Gentleman desires to obtain good security outside the United Kingdom for the investment of Savings Bank money, why exclude India? I understand that it is excluded under this Bill, yet we know that India has a larger stock, and could therefore give greater relief than all the Crown colonies combined four or five times over. It seems to me absolutely logical and irresistible that if you are going to set up this new fund and look upon it as a desirable investment for your Savings Bank deposits, you must go on mid consolidate the debt of all the Crown colonies, so as to reduce their interest. It is clear that to be of any effect this system must have large operation. The Bill contains within itself the germs of a great financial policy, and no one can see the extent to which it may be carried. It will, no doubt, enable the burdens of the Crown colonies to be enormously reduced, and I do not see why India should be debarred from sharing the benefits.
    MR. DALZIEL: I suppose that if this Bill is carried we shall have still another claim from the Government that they have done a great deal to knit more closely together the mother country and the Colonies. While I sympathise to a large extent with that desire on the part of the Government, I must say I do not think that this particular plan is calculated to have that effect. The policy of the Bill in the first place is to hold out a bait to our Colonies to the effect that they can obtain money from the mother country with less difficulty than in the past, and when I see the two front benches so unanimous upon the Bill I am inclined to look a little more closely into its merits. One point, I think, has not received sufficient attention.
    742
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of the past year, has refused many applications for public funds; but his difficulties will be increased in the future if this Bill is passed, for under it you are practically setting yourselves up as a great money-lending institution. The result to the Colonies will be disappointing, for the poorer ones, which most require the loans, will find the greatest difficulty in providing the necessary guarantees. You will also run the risk of raising a rivalry among the Colonies as to the amount of credit to he guaranteed, and the inevitable result will be to interfere with the friendly relations which now exist. I am afraid that if you now pass this Bill you will on some future occasion be told that the passing of it was intended to sanction the principle of granting loans to colonies; and thus, therefore, we are now being asked to anticipate sonic decision which may have to be taken after 12 o'clock at night some years later, and we shall then be unable to discuss the question on its merits.
    MR. DAVITT: I would support the Bill if I were satisfied that it would confer any real benefit on the Colonies. But from my own knowledge of the Colonies, and especially of Australia, I know they are already labouring under the disadvantage of having borrowed too much money. What they want in Australia and New Zealand is more population, and not more indebtedness.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: This Bill will only apply to Crown colonies.
    MR. DAVITT: Well, I say it is a bad policy to put temptation in the way of these colonies to borrow money. I think the better plan would be to lend this

    743
    money to county councils in England and Ireland, and to give those bodies compulsory powers to buy agricultural land and place labourers upon it. That would, I believe, prove a very good investment.
    MR. BARTLEY: It seems strange that there should be any debate on a proposal of this kind, seeing that the object is to relieve the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his great difficulty in investing satisfactorily the Savings Bank deposits. This is a very small matter, and it would surely be as well to try the experiment.
    *MR.HEDDERWICK: We are told we ought to support this Bill simply because it is a mere machinery Bill; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured to disarm opposition by informing us that even if be passed there will be a perfect check against possible abuse, inasmuch as before any loan could be granted under it a special Bill will have to he submitted to Parliament. Then what is the use of passing this Bill? Clearly the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to facilitate the granting of loans. The Bill obviously holds out an inducement to any colony that wants a loan to apply for it. If we provide the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the machinery he desires, it will be much easier for him to grant a loan to any colony that may require one. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman would not insist on having substantial securities; but we must remember that securities have a marvellous way of ceasing to be substantial, and therefore I think it would be better to withhold from him the dangerous power for which he asks.
    MR. CALDWELL: It may be true that before any loan is granted under this Bill another Bill will have to be passed; but my point is that the object of this Bill is to sanction the principle that the State is to provide loans out of Imperial funds in the manner prescribed by the Act. Once this Bill has been passed, when a Bill is brought in to sanction a particular loan it will be said that Parliament has already approved the principle, and we shall have hardly any chance of going into the merits of individual proposals, and I venture to assert that these Bills will be rushed through the House after midnight without practically any discussion. I should also like to point out that the Bill affords an opportunity of discriminating between one colony and another; and I venture to assert that when once you begin lending money to the Colonies you will open the door to all kinds of disputes, especially in regard to the amount of interest you charge. We know that in regard to local loans a large sum of money has to be written off yearly, because the authorities are unable to repay the amounts due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners. If they were not able to repay us, they would wish to be relieved. do not know anything which would more readily bring the Colonies and the mother country into collision than by giving these financial preferences. It would breed dissatisfaction amongst every other colony which was asked to pay more interest than the favoured one.
    SIR JOHN LENG: It might be inferred from what has been said that our experience as Members of Parliament is that the Treasury of this country is always ready to throw away its money without careful examination. The arguments which have been adduced show, first, distrust of those who have the control of the finances of the Colonies; second, distrust of the Treasury, represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and third, distrust of our-

    745
    selves as Members of this House. I do not share the feeling of distrust in regard to any of these parties. Anyone who has paid attention to the present state of our finances, especially to the large sums of money accumulating in the savings banks, and to the increasing difficulty of handling that money and finding a safe and reasonable outlet for it, must see that the time has arrived when it is desirable that the Government should find new channels for investment. My only regret is that the Bill does not include India in its survey. If the experiment with the Crown colonies is tried and proves successful, it will encourage the Government to go further.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I appeal to the Committee to allow a division to be taken. We have already discussed the principle of the Bill when I moved the Resolution, and during the debate on the Second Reading. I do not complain that the Bill has been discussed to-night, but I hope we shall now come to a division.
    MR. WEIR: I am not prepared to give a silent vote on this matter. I opposed a grant of £15,000 to Central Africa for making roads for men who are too indolent to make roads for themselves. I do not like the two front benches agreeing on this question. I have always found that something serious happens when this is the case. These loans, I fear, will be very much like the grants given away to the Northern Territories in Africa. It is said that each loan will be brought before Parliament; but what chance will we have of discussing them properly, if the front benches makes up their mind to back up any rotten colony? I admit that many of the colonies, like Canada and Australia, can borrow money at 3 per cent, and that their stock stands at over par; but are we, the British taxpayers, to provide money for these miserable bankrupt Crown colonies? I have too much regard for the poor people in the North and the starving crofters to agree to that, and I feel it my duty not to allow this Bill to pass in this House if I can help it. There has been a fall in Consols of 2 per
    746
    cent. within the last few days. Is that in consequence of the Government scheme to furnish money to these bankrupt colonies? It is not so long since Consols stood at 113½ and 114. Now I find to-day that they are down to 108¼. I cannot help thinking that that is in consequence of this Bill.
    HON. MEMBERS: The Transvaal.
    MR. WEIR: I do not think the Transvaal question has affected Consols at all. It is that investors are afraid that this country is going to guarantee these bankrupt colonies. I have no doubt that the bank deposits have gone up considerably, because people prefer to hold their money in hand rather than seek investments until they see what is going to happen. In regard to providing an outlet for the Savings Bank funds, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is anxious there are many admirable facilities for their investment in our own country. Let the hon. Gentle man arrange a scheme to lend money to county councils. I know in the constituency I represent there are tens of thousands of acres of land which might be used by the people of the Highlands if the County Council had the chance of lending money to the people for developing the land. There would be a splendid security and Consols would again bound up to 114. Here are seas teeming with fish, not small fish, but large fish—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is travelling very wide of the question before the House.
    MR. WEIR: Well, I will confine myself to the Colonial Loans Fund. The Secretary for the Colonies said this was simply a machinery Bill. We do not want a machinery Bill, and I, for one, object most strongly to money being expended for the purpose of enabling these colonies providing roads—
    It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    SUPPLY REPORT [5th June].
    Message from Her Majesty (Grant to Lord Kitchener),—Resolution reported.

    LORD KITCHENER OF KHARTOUM.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £30,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to be issued to Major General Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, G.C.B., K.C.M.G., as an acknowledgment of his eminent services in planning and conducting the recent Expedition in the Soudan."
    Resolution agreed to.

    EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Wednesday next.

    SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS (ENGLAND AND IRELAND) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1:—
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I wish to point out that this Bill is precisely the same as that for
    748
    Scotland, which passed this House unanimously, but was rejected by the Lords because it was confined to Scotland. This Bill is brought in for the rest of the United Kingdom, and if the House is pleased to adopt it, I should be prepared, on behalf of the right hon. Baronet the Member for London University, to include Scotland in its scope.
    MR. CALDWELL: I do not see why there should be the slightest difficulty in putting Scotland in the Bill.
    MR. TOMLINSON:I move to report progress.
    Committee report progress; to sit again to-morrow.

    EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
    Return presented relative thereto [Address 8th June; Mr. Jesse Collings]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 215.]
    Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve of the clock.