Commons Sitting of 16 July 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  DURHAM (COUNTY OF) ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  As amended, considered.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Culdwell.)
  MR. GALLOWAY: I objected to this motion when it was made on Friday, and the result of my so-doing is that the Bill stands now in the position it would have occupied if the motion had not been proposed. I do-strongly protest against special facilities being granted to these companies. I do not know why we should be asked to suspend Standing Orders. I cannot

  41
  understand why the promoters of this Bill should be in such a violent and hysterical hurry to get their Bill through. They have taken up a considerable amount of the time of the Committee, for I believe the Chairman and his colleagues sat nearly nine weeks upon the Bill to consider whether the preamble was proved, and in order to go through the measure line by line. I have seen a large number of statements put forward in support of the Bill containing grossly exaggerated and inaccurate assertions on matters as to which really the decision of the Committee has never been challenged. That decision has been loyally accepted by those concerned. I can only add that in another place individual towns will renew their opposition, and, therefore, under the circumstances, I do not intend to press my objection to a division.
  MR. EVELYN CECILsaid that on behalf of Hertfordshire he wished to join in the protest made by his hon. friend against the suspension of the Standing Orders in connection with similar Bills to this one.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  As amended, considered.
  MR. MACLEANstated that he withdrew his opposition to this Bill, as the representatives of the populations concerned had been met, and a perfectly satisfactory agreement come to.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now road the third time. — (Mr. Caldwell.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [Lords].
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [10th July], "That the Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords] be
  42
  committed to a Select Committee."—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)
  Question again proposed—Debate resumed.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid his motion was that this Bill be sent to a Select Committee. The House would be aware that under the ordinary procedure of Provisional Orders there was no possibility of inquiry into the merits of the question involved. The matter, unless petitioned against, went before the Unopposed Bills Committee, and the Order usually came back without Amendment. There was really no inquiry into the merits, nor could there be any inquiry into what were ordinarily considered to be the merits of the Bill, because the petitioners only had a locus standi if they were concerned in some injury to private property. Last year a Voluntary school, which thought it would be injured by one of the sites proposed to be established under a similar Bill, petitioned against it, and, after a hearing before the Referee, it was determined that it had no locus standi, because it had no property interested in the matter, and there could consequently be no inquiry into the merits of the Bill. Now, the motion he was making would enable the Committee to go into the economic administration of the School Board, and into the question of the necessity of the sites. It was quite possible that a perfect explanation might be forthcoming on those points if his motion were carried, but unless it was agreed to the matter could not be gone into. It was necessary to say that the School Board had adopted a different procedure for the purpose of arriving at the "places" in a school to that adopted by the Board of Education. The Board of Education considered that eight square feet was sufficient accommodation for a child, but the School Board took a higher standard, and said that they would only recognise eleven square feet as sufficient accommodation for a child, so that by a stroke of the pen the space in the schools had been reduced by 30,000 places. In order to cope with that they would have to build thirty schools, each to accommodate 1,000 children, and incur an expenditure of £300,000, because they went beyond what the Education Department considered necessary.

  43
  He never contemplated the proceedings of the London School Board without being astonished at their amazing impudence in the way they overruled the decisions of the Department of Education, which they did in a manner certainly not contemplated by the Act. The Vice-President of the Education Department had informed him, in answer to a question, that at the present moment there were being recognised by the Education Department 798,000 school places which actually existed, and 28,000 projected places in schools in. course of erection. In addition to that there were sixteen unused sites which the School Board had acquired under compulsory powers and never used, which were kept in reserve for no apparent reason. There was a certain discrepancy between the figures supplied by the Education Department and those furnished by the Report of about 55,000. The School Board had sixteen sites in reserve, and now they came forward for compulsory powers to acquire thirty more sites. Chief Inspector King had called attention to the decreasing number of children between the ages of three and thirteen years attending the schools, and according to the School Board's own reports there had been a diminution in the years 1897, 1898, and 1899 of no less than 8,000. Yet, with this diminishing child population, and with all these places, the School Board proposed to acquire thirty more sites. It was a ease for inquiry. They might be necessary, but that would have to be shown. The only reason which could be urged was that the number of children had not decreased really, but had removed to other districts; but if that were so, it was obvious that several City sites, which had been useful, had become useless, and the House ought to be assured that in that case the School Board had made proper provision for the sale of those sites and devoting the money realised to giving the new educational facilities that were necessary. Mr. John Taylor, who had devoted a great deal of time and trouble to investigating the question of sites, pointed out that the Religious Educational Union had successfully opposed the applications of the School Board on various occasions with regard to sites, and had in some eases caused them to be rejected. They further called attention to the extraordinary extravagance with which the matter of sites was carried out. The House was
  44
  aware the School Board proceeded by dividing London into blocks, and in each block they built a school. Then, if there was insufficiency of accommodation in the school, they applied for power to increase the accommodation. Such a test was unfair. The Education Department should first of all endeavour to find out what proportion of the population desired to go to the schools; then they should take a map of London and measure it off into districts with a compass, and then draw circles over the map showing the radius of each school. If that were done it would be found that the School Board had overestimated the amount of school accommodation demanded to an almost ludicrous degree. If the Bill was sent to a Select Committee there could not fail to be an interesting investigation. It might be that these schools wore required, but the School Board was often very extravagant in these matters. London had not complete control over its representatives in this matter, and it was in the highest degree important that London should be well governed locally, and if it could be shown that the School Board did its work extravagantly a considerable service would be done to the country.
  MR. FLOWER: In supporting this resolution I propose to take a somewhat different view to the noble Lord who moved. I quite agree with a great deal that has fallen from the noble Lord, but when one remembers, that London has 450 schools with an average attendance of half a million children, it will be acknowledged that the problem is one which may fittingly require the very careful consideration of this House. The noble Lord has spoken of the discrepancy between the figures, which may be described as the Return of the School Board, and those supplied by the Education Department. That is undoubtedly proved; and that discrepancy has been caused by the action which the London School Board has taken in what is called writing down the accommodation. With regard to new schools, I think that no one interested in education will object to it, but it is with regard to the older schools that this difficulty has more acutely arisen—more especially with regard to the competition with Voluntary schools, which has brought about an apparent deficiency of school

  45
  accommodation in the area covered by the London School Board. Whereas, if it was reckoned on the basis of the accommodation long ago accepted by the Education Department, that deficiency would not exist. I also support this motion on another ground. School boards do not acquire sites in the same way as a railway company or public bodies of that kind. What a school board does is to present to the Education Department generally two or three sites as alternatives. These sites are considered by the Department, and Her Majesty's inspector is sent down by the Department to see into the fitness of the alternatives and to report as to the suitability of one or the other. He is not. I think, authorised or allowed to hold what is called a public inquiry, but I believe that those bodies or individuals who object to particular sites have an opportunity of presenting their views before him. Then the Education. Department, or the Board of Education, as it is now called, has to express approval or disapproval of a site, and, if they approve, that site is inserted in the Provisional Order Bill. It is obvious that the cost of opposing the Order Bill in Committee is a very considerable one, and it does seem to me that a somewhat cheaper and more expeditious machinery ought to be devised, by which those who may think themselves injured, either as individuals by reason of their property, or injured as regards the position of the school affecting some Voluntary denominational school in which they are particularly interested, should have an wiser, quicker, and cheaper method of placing their views before us. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich has spoken of those sites which have been "reserved," as it is called, for possible sites for the erection of Board schools which are not now used. He suggested that the School Board for London should sell these sites, but if they did sell them it would be at a very considerable loss. Those sites are the result of reckless scheduling, and unless you can devise some machinery by which this reckless scheduling of sites may be avoided in future, you will be continuously confronted with the same thing. He has spoken also of the migratory character of the London population. That is undoubtedly true. Schools which were erected a few years ago have now been found, if not superfluous, at all
  46
  events too large for the purpose for which they are intended. I am afraid that it is an evil that will and must continue: but what is possible, I think, is to prevent reckless choosing of sites—choosing them sometimes almost without any regard for the deficiency of school places in the neighbourhood, but with a desire to injure and cripple the work of some Voluntary school. They are sites chosen, not from educational but from sectarian motives. Let us hope that this proposal of my noble friend will prevent the recrudescence of this evil, which under the present Board has assumed gigantic dimension. I have pleasure in supporting the motion.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): I wish to lot the House know how this Bill stands. The School Boards must have sites, or they cannot carry on their schools. The acquisition of sites is regulated by Acts of Parliament, and what I understand the noble Lord to desire is a revision of the various Acts which regulate the acquisition of sites by School Boards. To that the Board of Education could have no objection whatever, but I think it is I letter to initiate such an inquiry at the beginning rather than at the end of the session. If we were to refer this Bill to a Select Committee now, at any rate, we would lose the Bill for this session, because it is quite impossible to get hon. Members to attend a Select Committee, and to report upon a matter of this kind before the end of the session. Therefore what I would suggest to my noble friend is to withdraw the motion to-day, and in the next session he should move for an inquiry of this kind, and, as far as I am concerned and the Board of Education is concerned, we will throw no impediment in the way whatever, and if the Committee should report in favour of a change in the law we will give every facility to let a Bill pass through Parliament. I do not say that the law as it at present stands might not be improved. I do not know that there are any laws in existence which are not capable of some amendment, but a matter of this kind is not carried out quite as rapidly as the noble Lord supposes. The Board of Education is entrusted with a very important duty, and that is not to allow school boards in

  47
  any place—not only in London, but in every other part of the country—to build a now school until the necessity for it is made out, and for that purpose inquiry is always made before the sanction of the Education Department is given to the building of a new school. London is a very difficult place to deal with in matters of that kind. As the noble Lord has pointed out, there is no doubt that under the present system in London there are far more than enough school places for the children to be accommodated, but London unfortunately is a very large place, with a shifting population, and it is no use whatever if there is a deficiency of accommodation in Battersea to say that there is more than enough in Whitechapel. Generally speaking, it may be said that the population of London is diminishing with some rapidity at the centre; but on the other hand it is growing with enormous rapidity in Battersea, Hackney, and Peckham, and indeed all the parts which surround London. These are the places where workmen are going, and provision has to be made for the education of their children. The Board of Education have considered this difficult matter, and what it docs is to divide London proper into blocks. For example, one of the blocks is bounded by Oxford Street and High Holborn on the north, Farringdon Street on the east, Fleet Street and the Strand on the south, and Charing Cross Road on the west. There is another block even more familiar to Members of the House bounded by Oxford Street on the north, Piccadilly on the south, Regent Street on the East, and Park Lane on the west. In the same way the whole of London is divided into Mocks of this kind. What the London School Board does is to make out a petition stating that in one of these blocks it can prove that there is not sufficient accommodation for primary education of the children, and that there is a case for building, but even then further inquiry is made. Having ascertained that there is a deficiency in one block, inquiry is made how far it can be made up from superfluous accommodation in an adjoining block. I think it will be quite obvious to the House that it would be a very foolish thing for children south of Oxford Street to go for accommodation to schools north of Oxford Street. Nobody would say that it is desirable for children to traverse
  48
  that great thoroughfare when going to school; but in places where there is only a moderate amount of traffic on the boundary children may be allowed to go from one block, where there is deficient accommodation, to another block where there is superfluous accommodation. These inquiries are made before a new site is scheduled in a Bill, and no action is taken until the Board of Education has arrived at a satisfactory conclusion in the matter. It has to be fairly made out that there are children without school accommodation, and that no accommodation can be provided for them in the block in which they live, or in an adjoining block. I think to ask the House of Commons at the very end of a session to stop a Bill which is being carried out in accordance with the law, and entirely in accordance with unbroken custom, for the purpose of beginning what could only be an abortive inquiry, would be rather a strong thing for the noble Lord to insist upon. I hope this Bill will go in the ordinary way to the Private Bill Committee, before whom the people who object to two of the sites can be heard. The Private Bill Committee will inquire whether the Board of Education has been justified in authorising any site at all. I can promise the noble Lord that in the next session of Parliament I, at all events, will be only too glad to assist him in having the whole system of the legal provision of school sites inquired into, and if there is any way in which it can be better carried out, I hope the Committee will report to Parliament what they think should be done.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I understand that the Government are prepared to promise that there will be a full inquiry if I ask it at the beginning of next session. That is an exceedingly valuable concession which I asked in vain four years ago. I think, therefore, it will be unnecessary to press this motion.
  SIR J. GORST: I have no authority on behalf of the Government to make such a promise. All I said was that I would assist the noble Lord if he asked for an inquiry next session.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I understood that my right hon. friend spoke on behalf of the Board of Education, which represents the Government in this matter, and

  49
  after what he has said I will, with the permission of the House, withdraw my motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill committed.
  MR. CAUSTON: I am sorry to have to detain the House for a few minutes, but I wish to move, "that it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Plan No. 41 in the schedule.' The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich said just now it was customary for this Bill to pass through the House without opposition, but I find the only course open to me in order to carry out the object I have in view is to move this resolution. The plan I desire to have omitted is that enabling the London School Board to carry out alterations and additions to the Belvedere Place Board School, situated in the parish of St. George-the-Martyr, Southwark, the constituency I have the honour to represent. The school is one of the oldest of the London Board schools, and I am far from saying it could not be improved. That I am quite prepared to admit at once, but the Vestry of St. George-the-Martyr, the local authority of the district, altogether object to the plan suggested, and desire the scheme to stand over for further considerations. The objections I wish to enforce to the scheme are these: no further accommodation for additional children is required; the school is large enough to accommodate the children of the particular locality. It is a badly situated school, being under a railway arch, and therefore very noisy. In any case the area proposed to be taken is the wrong one. It is proposed to secure an area of 15,370 square feet, to pull down seventeen houses, to dishouse 230 persons belonging to the labouring classes in a neighbourhood where there is a great demand for workmen's dwellings, and under the existing law no provision will have to be made for re-housing those people. If twenty houses had been taken under the existing law it would have been absolutely necessary to provide accommodation for the whole of the dispossessed occupants, but as only seventeen houses are taken that necessity is avoided. I am not saying that in the part of London
  50
  I represent further school accommodation is not necessary; but if such further accommodation is necessary, it is not necessary to have it in this particular school. At the present moment 200 or 300 children are located in a temporary school some distance from this one, and the Vestry of St. George-the Martyr say that if it is necessary to have further accommodation, it should be in a new school on a different site, and on a site to which only two or three years ago the Board were giving consideration. The houses which are being taken down contain at present 230 persons; they are very substantially and well built; the rents are satisfactory; the sanitary arrangements are good; and the inhabitants would have very great difficulty in finding any similar suitable accommodation in the district. I am asked that this scheme should stand over until next year, and I may be asked if I have any alternative plan to suggest if that course is adopted. I have. The area now proposed to be taken covers nearly 15,400, and has a rateable value of £387. There is an adjoining piece of land which comes into the Borough Road, having upon it five shops in the Borough Road and a house and yard in Belvedere Place, and a tram shed, the area of which is 13,750 square feet, with a rateable value of only £278. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President has said that this Bill is going to a Committee of the House as there is opposition to it. Only one petition has been presented against the Bill, and that is the petition of the Vestry of St. George - the - Martyr. The Bill therefore, will go through as unopposed if the House will agree that this plan should be withdrawn for the present year. The managers of the school are all favourable to the alternative site. while, at the worst, it would only mean the deferring of the alternative for a year, and in the meantime I am sure the School Board and the Education Department would come to the conclusion that the alternative site is really the better. My plan is a very simple, just, and common-sense plan. This is not a party question, and therefore I may appeal to hon. Members on the other side, as well as to those on this, to support my motion. I beg to move.
  LOUD HUGH CECILformally seconded the motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords] to leave out Plan No. 41 in the; Schedule."-—(Mr. causton.)
  MR. FLOWERsaid that the speech of the mover of the motion had very aptly illustrated the value of the discussion on the motion of the noble Lord the hon. Member for Greenwich. It was quite impossible for the House as a House to determine the merits of the respective sites. It was beyond the comprehension even of Members acquainted with the district. and it was obviously altogether outside the limits of fair play for the hon. Gentleman to attempt at the eleventh hour to get a particular site adopted. The mover of the motion had secured the valuable support of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, and he trusted those Gentlemen would mutually support an improved process in the future for dealing with these questions. This site should be considered by a Committee in the ordinary way. As to the necessity for school accommodation, about which the hon. Member for West Southwark spoke with some diffidence, Her Majesty's Inspector, so far back as March, 1896, was disposed to think the best course would be enlargement of the Belvedere Place School in accordance with the proposal of the divisional Member, the divisional. Member being the member of the London School Board for that part of London. The inspector also suggested certain improvements and amendments, which were provided for in the plan now proposed. An alternative site was very carefully considered, and rejected by both the divisional Member and the School Accommodation Committee of the London School Board. The hon. Member had endeavoured to enlist sympathy on that side of the House by stating that the scheme would dispossess 230 persons, and that the School Board would be under no statutory obligation to rehouse. But as a result of a decision of last year, it would be open to the Committee to insist upon the rehousing of the dispossessed persons, even though less than twenty houses were taken. There were many points in connection with the site to which reference might be made, but the House could rest satisfied that the
  52
  matter had engaged the careful attention of the School Board, and having received the approval of the Board of Education, it might fittingly be allowed to pass.
  SIR. J. GORST SIR. J. GORST, in opposing the motion, said the case of St. George the Martyr had already been heard by the Board of Education. The Vestry were not satisfied with the decision, and petitioned the House of Lords, but with no better success.
  MR. CAUSTONpointed out that when the Vestry went before the House of Lords they were told they had no locus standi as a vestry, hut they could be heard as owners of property.
  MR. J. GORSTsaid that, in whatever capacity they appeared, they were, as a matter of fact, heard, and the House of Lords decided that no case was made out for the alteration of the site. If any injustice were done when the matter went before the Committee, the hon. Member would have an opportunity on consideration for bringing the matter forward, and he therefore hoped the motion would be rejected.
  MR. CAUSTON: I only wish it to be made perfectly clear that we have a locus standi before the Committee of this House. Certainly we had no locus standi in the House of Lords. In the case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, the learned counsel was under a misapprehension when he informed the Committee of the House of Lords that there had been a local inquiry, because there has not been a local inquiry. I shall divide the House now and take my chance in Committee.
  Question put and negatived.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid 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 which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be road a second time To-morrow.

  HAMILTON, MOTHERWELL, AND WISHAW TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to, with an Amendment.
  LEE CONSERVANCY BILL.
    NORTH METROPOLITAN RAILWAY AND CANAL BILL.
    Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  FALKIRK AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  WESTGATE AND BIRCHINGTON WATER BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  DEARNE VALLEY RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Not amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  GLYNCORRWG URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL GAS BILL [Lords].
    LONDON SEA WATER SUPPLY BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  WHITECHAPEL, AND BOW RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read, the third time.

  LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time— (Mr. Caldwell.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    MORLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
      SOUTHEASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
      Read a second time, and committed.

  NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  Ordered, That, in the case of the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill,
  54
  Standing Orders 84, 214, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously,de-posited.—(MR. Caldwell.)
  Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the third time.

  GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO.3) BILL.
  Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NO. 1) BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  EDINBURGH (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) IMPROVEMENT SCHEME PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    PAISLEY WATERWORKS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed.

    STANDING ORDERS.
    Resolutions reported from the Commitee:—
    1. "That, in the case of the Working-ton Railways and Docks Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to he dispensed with, on condition that the powers contained in Clause 131 to the London and North-Western Railway Company be struck out of the Bill, and that the powers to the Cleator and Workington junction Railway Company be also strack out of the Bill, unless it be proved before the Committee to whom the Bill is referred that the Bill has been submitted to and approved by the last-named company: — That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with".
    2. "That, in the case of the Crystal Palace Company Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:— That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
    3. "That, in the case of the Military Manœnvres Bill[Lords] the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with."
    First two Resolutions agreed to.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL [Lords].
    Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
    Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

    WORKINGTON RAILWAYS AND DOCKS BILL [Lords].
    Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
    Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

    MOTHERWELL AND BELLSHILL RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    ROTHERHITHE AND RATCLIFF TUNNEL BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to Amendments to —Edinburgh District Lunacy Board Bill [Lords], Falkirk Corporation Bill [Lords], Rhymney Railway Bill [Lords], Cork Electric Tramways Bill [Lords], without amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to authorise the sale of the chattels bequeathed and settled by the will and codicils of the late Sir William Augustus Fraser, Bart., deceased, and to declare the trusts of the proceeds of such sale; and for other purposes." Fraser Settled Chattels Bill [Lords].

    FRASER SETTLED CHATTELS BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
    PETITIONS.
      MILITARY MANŒVRES BILL.
      Petition of Belfast City and District Water Commissioners against dispensing with the Standing Orders; Referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
      SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
      Petition from Langley Moor, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
      SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
      Petitions in favour, from Twickenham (two); and Langley Moor; to lie upon the Table.
      SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
      Petitions in favour, from Kelton; and Stornoway; to lie upon the Table.
    RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
      Copy presented, of Thirtieth Annual Report of the Deputy Master of the Mint, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
      PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BOARD.
      Copy presented, of Twenty-fifth Annual Report (for 1899–1900), with Appendices [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 274.]
      SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
      Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 6th July, 1900, granting to Mr. T. G. Pinches, First Class Assistant at the British Museum, a Retired Allowance under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
      EAST INDIA (ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES, 1900–1901).
      Copy presented, of Explanatory Memorandum by the Secretary of State for India [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
      Copy presented, of Further Correspondence relating to Affairs in South Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
      POLLING DISTRICTS (WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE).
      Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire constituting Polling Districts and Polling Places in the Parliamentary Divisions of Shipley, Sowerby, and Colne Valley [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

      TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
      Copy presented, of Minute sanctioning the Subjects to be taught under Clause 8

      57
      of the Act, for the County Borough of Oldham (Seventh Minute), dated 2nd July, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

      RAILWAY RETURNS.
      Copy presented, of Return as to the Capital, Traffic Receipts, and Working Expenditure, &c. of the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
      TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL.
      Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 13th July; Mr. Ritchie]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 275.]
      MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
      Account presented, of the Receipts and Expenditure under the Seamen's Fund Winding-up Act from 1st January to 31st December, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 276.]
      NAVY (COURTS MARTIAL).
      Copy presented, of Return of the number of Courts Martial held and Summary Punishments inflicted during the year 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
      WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1897 (ARMY AND NAVY SERVICE) (MEN EMPLOYED).
      Return presented, relative thereto [Address 14th June; Mr. Woods]; to lie upon the Table.
      MEDICAL AND SANITARY ARRANGEMENTS AT THE CAPE.
      Return presented, relative thereto [Address 10th July; Sir James Kitson]; to lie upon the Table.
    QUESTIONS.

      CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK— RECENT NEWS —REPORTED GENERAL MASSACRE OF EUROPEANS IN PEKING—POSITION AT TIENTSIN AND TA-KU.
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEKMAN: I beg to ask whether the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
      58
      Affairs has any information to communicate on the subject of China; and not only as to events there, but as to the course which the Government proposes to take in regard to them.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey,): Although no positive information has reached us of the terrible calamity of which details have appeared in the public press this morning, we can hardly, I fear, dare to hope that in substance the accounts of the massacres in Poking are erroneous. Consul General Warren at Shanghai telegraphed yesterday evening that he learnt from a well-informed Chinese source that cannon were believed to have been fired on the Legations on the 8th of July, a massacre ensuing, the object being to effect an irreparable breach with foreigners. Official confirmation of this report was wanting, but Her Majesty's Consul General feared it to he true. The following telegrams have been received from Brigadier General Dorward, in command of Her Majesty's military forces at Tientsin—
      "Tientsin, 10th July.—Yesterday, 3 a.m., combined force 1,000 Japanese under the command of General Fokosima, 550 British troops, 400 British navy, 100 United States, 400 Russians under command of myself attacked enemy's position south-west of city. Positions were quickly captured. Enemy's loss 350 killed, four small guns (? captured). Combined force then attacked Western Arsenal outside South Gate, which, after a short bombardment, was rushed by United States and Japanese. Country to the west of Arsenal had been flooded by enemy, so no further movement in this direction was possible. Chief object of expedition, which was to clear away guns and enemy to the west of settlements', completely carried out. Day's honours rested with Japanese and Americans; Chinese regiment as escort to guns worked splendidly, getting over difficulties of swampy country. During the action British and French settlements heavily shelled by north-eastern batteries. Following casualties reported in action:—2nd Royal Welsh Fusiliers, 3044 Private Porter; Royal Marine Light Infantry, one private; one Chinese hospital attendant killed in action. Lieutenant Phayre, R.A., three men, 2nd Royal Welsh Fusiliers, one seaman, one man Chinese regiment, one Chinese hospital attendant wounded. No casualties amongst Russians and Americans. Following casualties reported during bombardment:—2nd Royal Welsh Fusiliers, 4034 Private Porter, one seaman killed in action. Three men, one seaman wounded. Yesterday's victory may result in withdrawal of Chinese troops from Tientsin, in which case fort and city will probably be attacked soon."

      59
      The following telegram shows that that opinion, however, was not justified:—
      "Tientsin, 11th July.—Three o'clock this morning, determined attack made by enemy on railway station, which is garrisoned by 100 British troops, 100 French. 100 Japanese. Attack repulsed with loss after four hours hard lighting; enemy's loss 500 killed; our loss, Hong Kong Regiment, 3 men killed 9 wounded; 2nd Battalion Welsh Fusiliers, I wounded; Royal Marine Light Infantry, 3 wounded; Royal Navy, 3 wounded. French and Japanese losses considerably heavier."
      We have also had a telegram to the effect that Vice-Admiral Seymour has returned to his ship, leaving at Tientsin only a sufficient number of the Naval Brigade to work the guns there. In a telegram, dated Ta-ku, 14th July, the Admiral states that he believes the allied forces have taken possession of every fort at Tientsin except one. It may be interesting to the House to know what forces are at Ta-ku. According to a telegram from Rear-Admiral Brace at Ta-ku, dated 11th July, the total of the allied forces landed and landing on the 10th July was about 20,700 men, composed as follows:

      Officers.

      Men.

      Russia

      149

      8,200

      Japan

      124

      5,100

      British

      175

      2,400

      French

      103

      2,400

      German

      36

      1,087

      American

      10

      l,305

      Italian

      Small detachments.

      Austrian

      Thus there are G04 officers and 20,700 men. The House is probably aware that considerable forces are now landed or are on their way, but the facilities for landing at Ta-ku are limited, and therefore the reinforcements cannot be landed as quickly as they arrive. I do not think I have any further information to give the House.

      MEASURES TAKEN FOR SAFETY OF PEKING LEGATIONS.
      MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect of the statement made by Count von Billow, German Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his circular note, that up to 10th June the English Minister at Peking, in agreement with the late Baron von Ketteler, considered the personal safety of members of the Legations had been sufficiently secured by the measures already adopted;
      60
      and can he state on what date Admiral Seymour was summoned to commence his march to Peking.
      MR. BRODRICK: Guards for the Legations were sent for on 27th May, and although the position was not free from anxiety, the first intimation of imminent danger to the Legations is contained in a telegram from Sir C. MacDonald of 4th June. He stated that the position was such that they might be besieged at any time with the railway and telegraph lines cut, and he asked that, should this happen, instructions might be sent to Admiral Seymour to concert measures for their relief with the officers commanding the various squadrons at Ta-ku. Her Majesty's Government gave Admiral Seymour unfettered discretion on 6th June to act in concert with other Powers, and he landed a force on 9th June. On 10th June, Sir C. MacDonald telegraphed to Admiral Seymour urging an immediate advance which had been in fact already commenced.
      MR. MACLEAN: Is there anything definite from Sir C. MacDonald up to 10th June as to the safety of the Legations?
      [No answer was given.]

      COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT.
      MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the despatch which has reached Her Majesty's Government purporting to come from the Emperor of China was handed to the Government by the Chinese Ambassador in the ordinary course; and when the Government will communicate the con-tents of that despatch to the House of Commons.
      MR. BRODRICK: The despatch was received from the Chinese Minister in the ordinary course. It will be laid with the Papers.

      COMMAND OF ALLIED FORCES.
      MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any General in supreme command of the allied forces at Tientsin; and, if not, whether any communications have passed between the Powers as to the appointment of a Commander-in-Chief.
      MR. BRODRICK: The instructions given by Her Majesty's Government to the senior naval and military officers on the spot are to arrange all matters in eon-cert with the commanding officers of the forces of other Powers. Communications are passing between the Powers on various points but we are nut in telegraphic communication with Tientsin, and I cannot make any further statement at present.
      MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has sanctioned any proposal to put the allied forces at Tientsin under the command of a Japanese general officer.
      MR. BRODRICK: NO, Sir; nor has any such proposal yet been made.

      CHINA PAPERS.
      MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state when the China Papers will be laid upon the Table of the House?
      MR. BRODRICK: They are being prepared as quickly as possible, but I cannot name any day at present. They will be laid in time for discussion before the Foreign Office Vote is taken.

      SOUTH AFRICAN WAR —HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL, ARRANGEMETS— COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the criticism to which the appointment of Professor Cunningham to be a member of the South African Hospitals Commission has been subject, he will now state to the House the grounds on which Professor Cunningham was recommended for the appointment by Sir William MacCormac and by Dr. Jameson, the head of the Army Medical Department, whose administration in South Africa will be the subject of investigation.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have nothing to add to what I have already told the lion. Gentleman on this subject; but I do not admit the basis of fact which he has assumed in putting the question.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Pardon me, it is no assumption.
      SIR. WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Likeston): Can the right hon. Gentleman announce the names of the two additional members of the Commission?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am very sorry that so much delay has occurred. No one deplores it more than I do; but I hope to be able to make a statement tomorrow.

      DESPATCHES.
      CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now prepared to state when the despatches relating to the following operations in South Africa will be published, namely, the action at Paardeberg, the advance to Bloemfontein, the siege and relief of Ladysmith, and the further operations in Cape Colony and Natal.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As, I think, I indicated, there are difficulties in the way of publishing these despatches at present, but I hope that the delay will not be very long.
      CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: Before the Supplementary Estimate comes on?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe not.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: When they are published, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that they shall be published as written, and shall not be re-edited as the Magersfontein despatch was?
      [No answer was given.]

      TRANSPORT RETURN.
      MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, having regard to the fact that the Transport Return (South Africa) was ordered on 6th February last, presented on 21st May, and ordered to be printed on 22nd May, will he explain why its issue to Members is so long delayed.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): I regret that there has been any delay in the production of this voluminous Return, involving the accurate checking of many details. The Return is now complete and will be in the hands of Members in a few days.

      MINISTERIAL CRISIS IN CAPE COLONY.
      CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the importance of the subject, and especially to the varying accounts thereof, he will now lay before Parliament Papers explaining the recent Ministerial crisis in Cape Colony, including any communications which have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Cape Colony.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Yes, Sir.

      MARTIAL LAW—ARREST OF MR. JACOBUS BOTHA.
      SIR WILFRID LAWSON: On behalf of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Northwich Division of Cheshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Mr. Jacobus Botha, a Member of the Capo Parliament, was arrested at Cape Town on 26th June without a warrant; and, if so, by whose authority the arrest was made; whether an application was made by him, and to what court, for his unconditional release from arrest, and whether that application was refused; whether he has been admitted to bail only on condition of taking his trial at Aliwal North; whether Aliwal North is one of the districts where martial law was in force; and whether he is to be tried by a court martial or by what tribunal.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed by Sir A. Milner as follows (in reply to a telegraphic inquiry): Botha was arrested for high treason at Cape Town on date mentioned, on warrant signed by resident magistrate Aliwal North. He applied unsuccessfully to magistrate Cape Town, and subsequently to Supreme Court, for release from arrest, but was afterwards admitted to bail by the latter on condition that he should return to Aliwal North and remain there during his preparatory examination, which is now being held there by civil authorities. Case will probably come for trial in due course before Special Commission. Aliwal North is a district under martial law.

      MARTIAL LAW IN CAPE COLONY.
      MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, since what date, in
      64
      the districts of Cape Colony where martial law was proclaimed, have the military courts ceased to take cognisance of offences, other than those committed by soldiers, against the Criminal Law of the Colony.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that since the middle of April no fresh trials for treasonable offences by the military courts have taken place—only preliminary investigations. This is all the information I have.

      COURT MARTIAL PUNISHMENTS.
      MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether persons sentenced by courts martial in the Cape Colony to terms of imprisonment or penal servitude are detained in civil or in military prisons; and, if they are detained in civil prisons, whether the warrants are signed by civil or by military officers.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information. The question should be addressed to the War Office.

      CIVIL SURGEONS AT THE FRONT.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of civil surgeons whose services have been accepted since the outbreak of hostilities in South Africa for the field hospitals and base hospitals, and the number of civil surgeons who are at present employed in these hospitals, and how many Army medical officers within two years from their entrance into the Army Medical Service have been sent to the war in South Africa; whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that of ninety-eight Army medical officers who are liable to be recalled to service, four only are employed in South Africa or in hospital ships, and that although many of them have requested to be sent to the scat of war their offers were refused; whether the authorities at the War Office are aware that the sending of Army medical officers without previous experience in campaigns, and the recognition of the services of civil surgeons while the services of retired Army medical officers have been rejected, has led to discontent and a feeling that the medical treatment of the troops will be wholly subordinate to purely military considerations; and will he cause inquiries to be made in the matter.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The services of 385 civil surgeons have been accepted, principally for base hospitals and general duty; of these 363 are now in South Africa. This does not include those locally employed, or attached to private hospitals or to the Yeomany or the Rhodesian Field Force. One hundred and seventeen Royal Army Medical Corps officers under two years' service have been sent out. Of the ninety-eight officers liable to recall, as has been already stated, eighteen hold permanent military appointments at home, and very few volunteered for service in South Africa. Nothing is known of any general discontent to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

      FEVER AT LADYSMITH.
      SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the statement that there have been 6,000 cases of typhoid fever among the troops at Ladysmith since the relief of that place; and if he can give the number of admissions to hospital for typhoid fever, and the number of deaths from that disease in the forces under General Buller for the twelve weeks ending 25th May.
      MR. WYNDHAM: I have no knowledge of the statement put forward, and I have complete Returns for the Lady-smith garrison only up to 18th May. The cases of enteric at Ladysmith from the date of the relief to the week ending 18th May amount to 799. Including the above the total admissions for all the forces in Natal during the twelve weeks ending 25th May were 2,380, and the deaths 550.

      TREATMENT OF DISCHARGED SOLDIERS—CASE OF ROBERT WEIR.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state on what grounds has the conclusion been formed that the mental infirmity of private Robert Weir, of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, who, on his return from the war in South Africa, was transferred from Netley to the workhouse at Enniskillen, where he is now a pauper inmate, was not due to the horrors and privations of the campaign in Natal through which he served with his regiment; and, seeing that Weir would be entitled to a pension if his mental infir-
      66
      mity was duo to his services in the Army, can he say by whom was the judgment formed that his madness was not directly or indirectly caused by these services, and to what supervision or control was that judgment subject.
      MR. WYNDHAM: This man became insane on the passage out, and twice tried to jump overboard; he was disembarked at Cape Town, and kept under supervision there for two months, and was then invalided home. Upon these facts the medical officer in charge of the hospital at Cape Town formed the opinion that Weir's madness was not the result of the campaign in Natal; that, opinion was confirmed by several medical officers through whose hands the man passed, and finally by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital.

      CASUALTY RETURNS.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what explanation, if any, has the War Office to give for the circumstances that the death of Sergeant G. French, of the Royal Warwick Regiment, which occurred at Bloemfontein on 26th May, and the death in the same place of Private Martin, of the same regiment, on 31st May, were not published by the War Office till 12th July; and can he say why have the families of these two soldiers, who died presumably in hospital at Pretoria, not been apprised of their deaths for nearly two months.
      MR. WYNDHAM: The information was not received by the War Office until Sunday, the 8th July, and after the usual verification was published on the 10th July.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the hon. Gentleman any reason to give for the long delay?
      MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member must be aware that it is only by means of a very elaborate system of triplicate returns that we are able to get the information we do at such an early date.

      IRISH MILITIAMEN AND THE HARVEST.
      MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the inconvenience and loss that may result to Ire-

      67
      land by having the Irish Militia Regiments in England while their labour is needed during the harvest in Ireland, he will consider the desirability of either disbanding them or giving them leave to return to Ireland to assist at the harvesting.
      MR. WYNDHAM: Instructions were issued on the 6th June to the general officers commanding in the United Kingdom that militiamen belonging to units embodied before the 6th March might be given furlough if they had satisfactorily completed their training and could be spared. The Secretary of State would have been glad to assent to a more general release of the Militia, both in the interests of the men themselves and in view of the widespread demand for labour, but, having regard to present circumstances, he has come to the conclusion that general leave or disembodiment would be inexpedient.

      CHELSEA HOSPITAL GARDEN.
      MR. MASSEY-MAINWARING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state by whose orders the garden of the Chelsea pensioners was lately closed at 8 p.m. instead of 9 p.m.; by whose orders this garden has been closed at 8.30 p.m. this week; and why the hour fixed for closing between the 10th June and 10th July, which has existed for many years, was altered, and at whose suggestion.
      MR. WYNDHAM: The gardens were closed at an earlier hour than usual by orders of the Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of the hospital to prevent disorderly conduct which, it appears, had been taking place in the dusk.

      ARMY LANCES—SERGEANT CART WRIGHT'S CLAIM.
      MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to an application from Sergeant Cartwright, late of the 16th Lancers, for some monetary recognition for his services in connection with his exhibition with the lance before a committee of generals; and whether, considering the fact that he was informed that upon his performance depended the retention of the lance in the Army, and taking into account the fact that Sergeant Cartwright was promised a commission, he
      68
      will consider whether it would be possible to accede to his request and make some allowance to him for the services rendered.
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): There are no records in the War Office showing that any promise of a commission was made to Sergeant Cartwright or which corroborate other statements made in the question. The Secretary of State for War has fully considered Sergeant Cartwright's application, and is not prepared to grant it.

      NAVAL CONSTRUCTION—INFLAMMABLE WOODWORK.
      MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that as a result of the experience gained in the war between China and Japan, and in the war between the United States and Spain, the woodwork in all men-of-war lately built and now building for the United States Government is made of non-flammable timber; whether he is also aware that the Russian Government are having men-of-war built in the United States in which all the woodwork is non-flammable; and can he say whether the wood used in vessels at present under construction for the British Government is rendered nonflammable.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The term "lately built" is indefinite. The woodwork for all men-of-war building for the United States Government will be non-flammable, armour backing and battens for electric wires excepted. Two ships are building for Russia in the United States. We have no special information on this point relative to these ships, but in all Russian ships now building orders have been given to use non-flammable wood for certain purposes. Wood not specially treated is to be still largely used. The use of nonflammable wood has been provided for in the specifications for several ships now under construction, but it has since been found to involve certain serious disadvantages, and further orders have been suspended until the best way of overcoming these difficulties has been ascertained by further experience.

      AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH — FIRST GOVERNOR GENERAL — OFFICIAL RESIDENCE.
      MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the nomination of the first Governor General of the Australian Commonwealth may be expected, and whether the official residence of the Governor General is to be located at Sydney pending the establishment of the permanent Federal capital.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will have seen from the announcement in the press on the 14th instant that Her Majesty has approved the selection of the Earl of Hopetoun as the first Governor General. The question of the Governor General's residence is the subject of communications now passing with the Colonies.

      INDIAN AND AUSTRALIAN MAILS.
      MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, owing to the under - staffing and various other causes, considerable quantities of Indian and Australian mails have recently failed to catch the steamers for which they were intended.
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): On several recent occasions it has not been practicable to include all the printed matter for India and Australia in the mails for which it was intended; but no letters have on any occasion been left behind. Several causes have contributed to the delay. The public have the habit of leaving the posting of their Indian and Australian correspondence to the very last moment—that is to say, till Friday evening; and the work has been enormously increased of late on that evening by the large number of letters and newspapers posted for the troops in South Africa. Further, there has not been room at the General Post Office for an adequate staff of men to deal with the outgoing foreign mails. Now that the provincial work of the United Kingdom has been removed to Mount Pleasant, steps are being taken to increase the staff at the General Post Office, and it is hoped that by this means the irregularity to which the Hon. Member refers will be remedied. This end, however, would still be the more easily attained if the public
      70
      would post as much of their Indian and Australian correspondence as possible earlier in the week.
      MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Continental railways that carry the Australian mails are liable to any penalty for needless delays caused by carlessness and inefficiency in their working arrangements; and, if not, whether the propriety of inserting such a provision in future contracts will be taken into consideration.
      MR. HANBURY: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Australian mails landed at Naples. The Postmaster General has no relations with the Italian and French railway companies which convey those mails; and he has no information as to the arrangements existing between them and their respective Governments. The payment for the transit of those mails is made to the Italian and French post offices, and is regulated by the Postal Convention of Washington. I understand that the inward mail from Naples is paid for by the Australian Government, who are content with the ordinary train service, whereas the English Government, deem it necessary to have a special train for the outward mail.

      ASHANTI — NATIVE RISING— INVESTMENT OF COOMASSIE.
      MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made by the Coomassie relief column; and will he state what number of persons escaped from the fort with the governor, and how many reached Cape Coast Castle.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: According to the latest information, Colonel Will-cocks was at Bekwai, about twenty miles from Coomassie, on the 12th instant. It will be seen, on reference to the telegrams from Sir. F. Hodgson which were published in the newspapers on the 7th and 10th instant, that the column which left Coomassie was 600 strong, including twenty-six Europeans, and was accompanied by 700 carriers, and that on the way to the coast seven men were killed, and two officers and some more men died of their wounds or were missing. The exact number of those who reached Cape Coast is not stated.

      INDIA FAMINE—ADVANCES TO LAND CULTIVATORS.
      MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what are the conditions laid down by the Government of India under which advances are made to the cultivators in the famine districts for restocking their farms; and whether such advances are by gift or by loan, and, if by loan, what are the conditions of repayment, and what is the total amount hitherto advanced or promised by the Government of India for that purpose.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The general conditions of Government advances to cultivators, for the restocking of their farms are (1) that they are to be free of interest; (2) that the first instalment of repayment will not be demanded for at least twelve months; (3) that the local governments may hereafter grant remissions in respect of these advances, thus converting them into gifts, according to the circumstances of the recipients. According to the last advices, the sum allotted by Government for those advances was £820,000. The hon. Member is of course aware that a large part of the charitable fund raised by subscription has been devoted to this same purpose.

      ST. PETERSBURG HERRING TRADE.
      MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg has yet been able to secure improved facilities for the discharge and storage of herrings at that port.
      MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg was informed by the Russian Government in September last that arrangements had been made for the erection of the buildings and execution of the works which were urgently needed for the discharge and storage of herrings at that port. No further complaints of defective accommodation have been received since that date.

      TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION IN THE CHANNEL ISLANDS AND THE ISLE OF MAN.
      MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
      72
      Home Department if he has been able to arrange to introduce the non-contentious Bill, involving no charge on the Imperial Exchequer, extending the Teachers' Superannuation Act to the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles this session.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY, Lancashire, Blackpool): Yes, Sir; I hope to be able to introduce the Bill, or, rather, Bills—one for each island that desires it—to-morrow.

      VACCINATION PROSECUTIONS—CASE OF F. J. CHATTING.
      MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mr. F. J. Chatting was imprisoned for not paying a fine for non-compliance to an order for vaccination; that the warrant for his arrest was for Pentonville, but that he was taken to West Ham police station, then taken to Stratford police court, and kept without food from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on 7th July:. and that on his arrival at Pentonville, instead of being treated as a first class misdemeanant, his clothes were taken from him, and that he was forced to wear a prison suit, and that he was subjected to other treatment which the Act does not permit; and whether he will take such steps as will prevent a recurrence of such proceedings.
      SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Chatting was not arrested till about 8.40 p.m. on the 6th. It was then too late to take him to Pentonville, so he was taken to West Ham police station, and thence on the next morning to the police court, in accordance with the ordinary practice, in order that he might go on to Pentonville by the afternoon van. He had breakfast at the station, and might have had lunch at the police court, but on being twice asked whether he wanted anything replied in the negative. At Pentonville the reception officer made a mistake and treated him like an ordinary prisoner. For this mistake he will be duly dealt with by the Prison Commissioners, and it is not one which is likely to recur.
      MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: Is no compensation or apology even to be made to this man?
      SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have not. considered the question of compensation.

      LONDON SCHOOL BOARD RE- HOUSING SCHEMES.
      MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the School Board for London propose to discharge their obligations under their Provisional Confirmation Act of last year to re house persons of the labouring class displaced in the neighbourhood of Wood Street, Bethnal Green, by erecting dwellings in Parnell Road, Bow; and, if so, whether, as the proposed dwellings will be useless for the purpose of rehousing the persons so displaced, he will withhold his approval from the scheme.
      SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The scheme indicated by the hon. Member forms only a part of proposals which have been laid before me by the London School Board, and are now under my consideration. I cannot yet say whether or not I shall approve them. But as regards the rehousing of the actual persons displaced, I may say that the buildings in Wood Street were demolished more than a year ago.

      DORKING RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL.
      MR. CUBITT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the 23rd. the Dorking Advertiser contained the copy of a letter sent by the Local Government Board to the Dorking Rural District Council, which that council had previously refused to make public pending further negotiations with the Board; and whether it is the custom of the Board to supply a copy of such letters to anyone who applies for them without reference to the authority to whom they were originally written; and, if not, if he will take steps to deal with the official who was responsible for the disclosure in this case.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): It is not the custom of the Local Government Board to supply as a matter of course a copy of a letter which they had addressed to a local authority to anyone applying for it. In the present case the letter was one which they had sent to the district council in sanctioning a loan for sewerage, and
      74
      application for a copy of it was made by a ratepayer, with whom the Board had had some correspondence in connection with the loan. There did not appear to be any sufficient reason for refusing the application. The Board have no information as to the facts referred to in the first paragraph of the question.

      DEVIZES PRISON— WARDER HAR-GRAVE'S PENSION.
      MR. GOULDING: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now state the decision of the Treasury in reference to the pension of Henry Hargrave, late warder of Devizes Prison, and whether the whole of the pension awarded to him by the Treasury should have been apportioned between Imperial and local funds.
      MR. HANBURY: The Treasury, in October, 1898, awarded to Hargrave a pension of £44 12s. 2d. on the scale allowed by the Superannuation Act, 1859. In the following month the Home Secretary forwarded to the Treasury a resolution by the late prison authority (the Court of Quarter Sessions of the County of Wilts) asking that the pension might be increased to two-thirds of Hargrave's retiring salary, and stating that they were ready to pay the difference between the pension as already awarded, and the amount of such two-thirds. To this the Treasury assented, and the increased rate asked for was awarded. The Local Government auditor of the county accounts has now reported that the quarter sessions has no power to fulfil their undertaking, and Hargrave can thus receive only the amount of the original award. The words of the Prisons Act, 1877, will not allow the Treasury to pay the excess for which the quarter sessions made themselves responsible. The case of Hargrave and other prison officers whose pensions are affected by this decision appears one of hardship, and I hope that a Bill may be passed early next session giving the local authorities power to pay the excess pension which they have always desired to do.

      RAILWAY PASSENGERS' FREE LUGGAGE.
      SIR CAMERON GULL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Midland Company has given notice

      75
      that from an early date the amount of free luggage that will be allowed to passengers will be 150 pounds first class, and 100 pounds third class, and whether he will communicate with the other companies with the view of urging them to adopt a similar limit.
      MR. HANBURY (for Mr. RITCHIE): The Board of Trade are in correspondence with the Railway Association on the subject of excess luggage, and will consider the expediency of raising the point made by the hon. Baronet in a subsequent communication to that body. The Board of Trade understand that several other important companies have adopted the increased scale, and it is to be hoped that the example will be followed by others.
      MR. TREVELYAN: Will the Board of Trade lay upon the table the correspondence up to date?
      MR. HANBURY: I will consult my right hon. friend as to that.

      PILLAR BOXES IN THE METROPOLIS.
      MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state how many pillar letter boxes there are in the metropolitan area; how many of these are divided into two compartments; how many of these latter are within the E.C. district; and, what is the reason persons posting in one part of London are obliged to sort their letters, under pain of having the delivery delayed, while no such obligation is imposed on persons posting in other parts of London.
      MR. HANBURY: The number of wall and pillar letter boxes (other than those in use at post offices) in the metropolitan area is 2,988. In the Eastern Central district there are 156 boxes, ninety-nine being pillar and fifty-seven wall boxes. Of the ninety-nine twenty-six have two compartments, and of the fifty-seven twenty-three are double boxes, i.e., two placed side by side and counting as one box. The duplicating arrangement will be extended as rapidly as possible in the Eastern Central district. The reason why it is desired that letters for (1) London and abroad, (2) provinces, should, so far as the Eastern Central District is concerned, be posted separately, is that
      76
      the two classes of letters are now dealt with in different buildings a mile apart, and that at the busiest parts of the day each class is taken direct to the office appropriated to that class. When they are not posted separately a certain portion of them must necessarily be taken in the first instance to the wrong office, and then it is sometimes impossible to avoid a delay.
      MR. COHENasked whether it was intended to extend the system of duplicate boxes to the whole of London.
      MR. HANBURYreplied that the Eastern Central District must first be dealt with on account, of the enormous number of letters posted in that district, and owing to the fact that room could not be found to deal with them at St. Martin's-le-Grand.

      PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—WORKS DEPARTMENT—EMPLOYEES' GRIEVANCES.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether lie is aware that for the last thirty years the men of the Works Department have had an outing on the first Saturday of July, and that on the occasion they have been in the habit of coming to work on the morning of the day, and withdrawing at about 8.30 a.m., and have received pay for one half day, paying for the outing themselves; and will he explain why they have been this year deprived of this half-day's pay.
      THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent,. St. Augustine's): The facts are as stated in the hon. Member's question. The practice referred to has applied, I understand, only to the works contractor's men employed about this building, and it-is proposed to substitute some more satisfactory arrangement. Meantime the half-day's pay this year will be made good.

      FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE REGULATIONS IN NORFOLK.
      MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the resolutions with reference to foot and mouth disease passed by the Norfolk County Council on the 7th instant; and: whether, in the event of another out-

      77
      break, the Board of Agriculture will adopt the suggestions put forward in those resolutions.
      MR. AKERS DOUGLAS (for Mr. LONG): I have received a copy of the resolutions to which the hon. Member refers. I shall be glad to give them my very careful consideration, but I could not properly enter into any undertaking as to the course which it would be my duty to adopt should any further outbreak of the disease unfortunately take place.

      SANITATION IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
      MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the medical officer of health for Ross and Cromarty in his report for last year states that, in a town- ship in the Island of Lewis, there were forty-one cases of typhoid fever in a population of 300 within a period of six months, and points out that, although an isolation hospital is urgently necessary, the local authorities are powerless to provide one owing to the rates for the various parishes throughout the island being ill ready so high; and, in view of the insanitary condition of many of the parishes in the island, will he consider the expediency of either urging the Treasury to provide the requisite funds for the erection of an isolation hospital, or introduce legislation at an early date such as will admit of the Congested Districts Board applying a portion of the funds at its disposal for the erection and maintenance of isolation hospitals where urgently needed in the congested area.
      MR. WEIR: I beg also to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that the last report of the medical officer of health for Ross and Cromarty shows that if the Sanitary Clauses in the Public Health (Scotland) Act were strictly enforced in the Island of Lewis a large number of the inhabitants would be homeless; and will he state what steps he proposes to take in order to place the island on a satisfactory sanitary basis.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): In reply to Questions 23 and 24 as to the sanitary condition of the Island of Lewis, I must point out that the enforcement of the new
      78
      provisions of the recent Public Health Act can be undertaken only gradually and with caution, both for the reason adduced by the hon. Member himself and because of the reluctance which he must know exists in the Highlands to removal and to isolated treatment of infectious cases. The Local Government Board are not inactive, and I know from official and other channels that progress is being made and that in some districts the present conditions compare very favourably with those observed not many years ago. I am informed by the Local Government Board that they are at the present moment in communication with more than one local authority in the island districts regarding new hospital accommodation, and plans are in hand for an hospital in the Carloway district. The Secretary for Scotland is not prepared at present to undertake legislation in connection with the matter.

      SCOTTISH FISHERIES—AVOCH (ROSSSHIRE) HARBOUR.
      MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Fishery Board have now under consideration a proposal for improving the harbour accommodation at Avoch, Ross-shire; and can the Board now see their way to make a grant in aid of the work.
      MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: An application for a grant towards improving Avoch harbour has been received by the Fishery Board, and has been remitted to a committee of their number for a report, on receipt of which the Board will be able to arrive at a decision.

      DEPORTATION OF PAUPERS TO IRELAND.
      MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Camberwell Board of Guardians intend sending Joseph Jones to Ireland against his will, although he has spent forty years in London; and whether, pending a change in the law, he can arrange that Joseph Jones can be retained in Camber-well.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): My right hon.

      79
      friend has asked me to reply to this question. I do not know how long the pauper referred to has resided in England, but I understand that he has previously been twice removed to Ireland, and that an order was obtained by the Camberwell Guardians on the 6th instant for his being again removed to that country. The pauper has, however, now' given additional particulars as to his residence in Camberwell, and the guardians are causing further inquiries to be made. If the result is to show that he is settled in Camberwell, the order will not be proceeded with; but there is no power to require the guardians to abstain from removing the pauper to Ireland pending any alteration in the law on the subject, assuming that he is legally removable.

      GREYSTONES (CO. WICKLOW) FORESHORE.
      MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade is he aware that since the Board of Trade declined to prohibit the removal of gravel from the foreshore below high-water mark at Greystones, county Wicklow, English steamers are engaged in taking cargoes of it to Liverpool; whether the gravel is being sold; and, if so, by whom; whether the landlord of the foreshore above high-water mark has consented to the removal of the gravel; and whether the removal of the gravel will endanger the safety of the Wicklow Railway line; and whether he will make an inquiry into the matter.
      MR. HANBURY (for Mr. RITCHIE): Gravel is to some extent removed from the foreshore below high-water mark at Greystones, but the Board of Trade do not know by whom, or whore it is taken to. I understand that the owner of the beach above high-water mark allows gravel to be removed there from. The safety of the railway line is primarily a matter for the railway company, who have made no complaint on the subject, and at present the Board of Trade see no reason for an inquiry, as suggested by the hon. Member.
      MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Is it not the duty of the Board of Trade to see to this?
      MR. HANBURY: No the Board of Trade is not responsible, so I am informed.
      MR. FLAVIN: Who has control, then, over the removal of the gravel?
      MR. HANBURY: I can only give the answer which has been placed in my hands.

      LISTOWEL-BALLYBUNION RAILWAY.
      MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any information as to the approximate cost of the railway from Listowel, county Kerry, to Ballybunion, a seaside watering resort, which railway is built on the Lartigue single rail system.
      MR. HANBURY (for Mr. RITCHIE): The railway company state as follows—
      "The Ballybunion Railway cost thirty-three thousand pounds, including purchase of land, rolling stock, and everything connected with it."
      This amount is shown in the annual Railway Returns laid before Parliament as the total authorised share and loan capital of the company, the whole of which has been paid up and raised.
      MR. FLAVIN: Is this the only railway on the Lartigue system to be found in the United Kingdom?
      MR. HANBURY: I cannot say.

      GREEVEGUILLA (CO. KERRY) MAILS.
      MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that dissatisfaction prevails in the western portion of Greeveguilla, situate near Killarney, county Kerry, owing to the fact that there is not a daily delivery of letters in that district; and whether, seeing that the Killarney Rural District Council passed a unanimous resolution in favour of a daily delivery of letters, and having regard to the representations made and the inconvenience caused, the Post Office authorities will take steps to remedy the grievance complained of.
      MR. HANBURY: Applications have been received from persons residing in the townlands of Toornanonagh and Leamyglissane, which are in the neighbourhood of the Greeveguilla Post Office, for a delivery of correspondence on six days a week instead of four, as at present. In November last the delivery of letters

      81
      in the neighbourhood was increased in frequency from two to four days a week in some cases, and from three to four days a week in other cases, and fresh returns are now being taken of the correspondence for the places in question, with the view of ascertaining whether a delivery every week day is now warranted.
      MR. FLAVIN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say it is under consideration whether the application shall be acceded to?
      MR. HANBURY: Yes, that is so.

      IRISH CATTLE SENT TO THE PORT OF LONDON.
      MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state by what authority and for what reason cattle sent from Irish ports are prohibited from landing at the Port of London, although up till about thirty years ago such landing was permitted.
      MR. AKERS DOUGLAS (for Mr. LONG): There is no prohibition, so far as I am aware, against the landing of cattle from Ireland in the Port of London, but they could not, of course, be brought to the Deptford Foreign Animals "Wharf, which is devoted exclusively to the reception of foreign animals.

      MONAGHAN PETTY SESSIONAL APPEALS—CASES OF M'GUIGAN AND HUGHES.
      MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the case of M'Guigan and Hughes,. sentenced at the Monaghan Petty Sessions Court to long terms of imprisonment, and denied the right of appeal on a technicality raised by the Crown, whether he will advise the reconsideration of the sentences with a view to their mitigation.
      THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): It is not for me to act as suggested in the question. Any memorial from the prisoners, or on their behalf, praying for a mitigation of sentence, should be addressed to the Lord Lieutenant, in whom alone is vested the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.

      BELFAST LAND COMMISSION— INCREASES OF RENT.
      MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recent increases of rent made at Belfast by the Land Commissioners, and to the statement of Mr. Commissioner O'Brien as to the effect which these decisions are likely to have on rents in South Antrim and North Down; and whether, in view of the feeling produced amongst farmers in Ulster by the proceedings at the Commission, rules will be framed for the future guidance of the sub-commissioners.
      MR. G. W. BALFOUR: My attention was only called to this matter by a newspaper cutting which I received from the hon. Gentleman on arrival at the House this afternoon. With respect to the second paragraph, the framing of rules is entirely one for the consideration of the Land Commissioners themselves.

      IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT—RATE ADJUSTMENTS.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that in many electoral divisions in Ireland, under the adjustment order of the Irish Local Government Board, a rate which has accrued due in past years before the passing of the Local Government Act is about to be levied; whether the Irish Local Government Board have refused the application of several county councils in Ireland to permit the payment of this rate, which must now be borne exclusively by the occupiers, to be discharged by instalments, on the ground that such a course would be in contravention to law; and whether, having regard to the fact that the landlords are now exempted from contribution to this rate for the payment of half of which they would have been liable had it been levied when it accrued due, any steps will be taken to relieve the occupiers of a greater liability for the payment of this rate than that to which they were originally subject, having regard to the fact that the responsibility for the delay in the levy does not rest with them.
      MR. G. W. BALFOUR: This question presumably refers to an adjustment order, declaring in respect of each union the

      83
      balances due from electoral divisions to the union, and from the union to electoral divisions. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. As respects the last paragraph, no stops can be taken to relieve the occupiers of any portion of the rate for the adjustment of the balances due from electoral divisions to the union, nor on the other hand can any allowances be made to the landlord where a credit balance has been carried forward to a division by the order owing to the last rate made by the board of guardians on that division having been unnecessarily high. The debits and. credits to be adjusted are, generally speaking, insignificant.

      IRISH LOAN FUND BOARD.
      MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the sixty-second annual Re-port of the Loan Fund Board for Ireland, which state; that the existing statutory powers of the Board are not sufficient to enable them to control effectively the operations of loan fund societies; and seeing that the House of Commons Committee of 1855 unanimously reported that legislation giving the Board greater powers of control was necessary, whether he can state why nothing has been done to carry out this recommendation of the Committee, and when the Government propose to introduce a Bill dealing with this subject.
      MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. As respects the second paragraph I am unable to answer for my predecessors for the forty years following 1855. As the hon. Member is aware, a Bill has passed through all its stages in Parliament during the present session which meets the most pressing of the difficulties and hardships of the existing position; but the larger question of how to deal with the loan fund system generally is one respecting which I am not prepared at the present moment to make any statement.
      MR. DILLON: But why has nothing been done?
      MR. G. W. BALFOUR: We endeavoured to pass a Bill last year, but were prevented by the action of the hon. Member and his friends. We have passed one this year.
      MR. DILLON: That Bill does not deal with the point raised in my question.

      BELFAST RATES.
      MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether, having regard to Sub-section 9 of Section 54 of the Local Government Act of 1898, the public health charge of 7½ d. in the £ in the city of Belfast is a rate for which immediate lessees are proportionately liable under any Act at present in force.
      THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. ATKINSON,): The rate of 7½ d. in the £ referred to is not a public health charge within the meaning of Section 54, Subsection 9 and Section 57 of the Act of 1898, because Belfast is an urban sanitary district. It is the portion of the borough rate levied for defraying the expenses incurred under the Public Health Acts in Belfast in pursuance of Section 226 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, and the occupier has not by law any right of deduction in respect of the borough rate.

      GLEBE LOANS ACTS.
      MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Treasury is making a profit out of the loans under the Glebe Loans Acts; whether he is aware that the Treasury admit that circumstances of hardship are suffered by glebe loan borrowers; and whether, in view of the fact that the Government are making a large reduction in the tithe-rent payable by Irish landlords, he can see his way to recommend the Treasury to make a substantial reduction in the annual instalments payable by glebe loan borrowers, in Ireland.
      MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I understand the statement in the first paragraph is disputed by the Treasury. The second paragraph presumably refers to the pas-sage in Sir David Barrel's letter of the 6th May, 1898, which expressly points out that, in the opinion of the Treasury, any hardships suffered by present incumbents are not of a kind calling for relaxation of the terms of the loans to borrowers. The whole matter has been fully placed by the Irish Government before the Treasury, and any further

      85
      questions on the subject should be addressed to that Department.

      INSPECTOR GENERAL ROYAL, IRISH CONSTABULARY.
      MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to fill the position of Inspector General of Royal Irish Constabulary by the promotion of an officer serving in the force, or whether it is the intention of the Government to fill the position by the appointment of an officer not belonging to the force; and, if so, what are his qualifications for the position.
      MR. G.W. BALFOUR: The position of Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary has been offered to and accepted by Colonel Neville Chamberlain, at present in South Africa. In the opinion of the Irish Government he possesses the qualifications of experience and capacity which Lit him for the position.
      MR. DILLON: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that this gentleman has any experience whatever of police duties?
      MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Not directly of police duties, but he has had plenty of experience—in South Africa, for instance.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Has he ever served an hour in the Irish constabulary? Is it because he served in South Africa that he is going to be appointed over the heads of other officers?
      [No answer was given.]

      CASE OF EDMUND CARMODY.
      MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Edmund Carmody, of Cuss, county Kerry, who was convicted at the Cork winter assizes in December, 1898, and sentenced to three years penal servitude, was mainly the support of his father and mother; and whether, seeing that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has received a petition, largely signed by magistrates, clergymen, and the general public, praying for the release of the prisoner, who has now served more than half his sentence, he will recommend the consideration of his case.
      MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have no information as to the first paragraph. The case of this prisoner has been twice before the Lords Justices on a memorial for a mitigation of sentence —the last occasion so recently as April of this year; but it was decided that the law should take its. course. It is not my province to take the action suggested at the conclusion of the question.
      MR. FLAVIN: May I again ask why the same clemency has not been extended to this man as was given to Lord Ken-mare's bailiff?
      [No answer was given.]

      IRISH COUNTY C0URT ADMINISTRATION.
      MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he intends to introduce a Bill to amend the grievances complained of by traders in connection with the administration of the County Court Acts (Ireland).
      MR. ATKINSON: I beg to call the hon. Member's attention to the County Courts (Ireland) Bill, introduced by the Lord Chancellor for Ireland, in another place, and which is down for the Committee stage to-day.

      SUNDAY OPENING OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.
      MR. MASSEY-MAINWARING: I beg to ask the first Lord of the Treasury why catalogues cannot be purchased in the National Gallery and other public galleries in London, although catalogues are procurable on Sundays at the Wallace Collection at Hertford House and at the National Portrait Gallery.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed, with regard to the National Gallery, that the demand for catalogues was so small when the gallery was first opened on Sundays that the sale was discontinued when the police took charge of the Sunday opening. At South Kensington I learn there was practically no sale, as every object is described on labels. As to the other places named in the question catalogues are on sale.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now make a statement of the intentions of the Government as to the legislative business of the remaining weeks of the session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise to make, in obedience to the promise which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman a week ago, my statement as to the future business of the session, and I think it will be convenient if I divide the Bills now on the Paper into a series of classes, and take each class by itself. The first class consists of those measures introduced since the Government asked for special privileges as regards time. With regard to those measures, I promised the House that if they proved controversial they should not be pressed; and of course that promise will be rigidly adhered to. The Government Bills introduced since the period I have named I believe are three small Departmental ones—the Bill of my right hon. friend the Home Secretary, the Isle of Man Bill, which, I believe, is wholly uncontroversial; a small Bill introduced a few days ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealing with oil in tobacco—a Bill of which I confess myself quite ignorant, but which I understand meets with the general approval of those interested in the matter; and the third Bill is that introduced by my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Naval Reserves Bill, the object of which is to make it possible to embody sailors and marines after their first period of twelve years service in the Reserve. I earnestly hope that the House will think fit to pass that Bill, which, I am convinced, will add materially to our naval defences and the strength of this country.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It has not yet been introduced.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No. It is a very short Bill of one clause. If opposed it cannot be passed, but I hope it will not be opposed. There are some other Bills which I hope to pass with regard to which no pledge has been given and which cannot pass if they are opposed. They are the Larceny Bill, two Local Government Board Bills for Ireland, a Poor Relief Bill for Ireland, and the Diocesan Records
    88
    Bill. I have no ground for thinking that these Bills will meet with opposition in any part of the House, but if they do they will not be pressed by the Government. The third class contains the two annual Bills which the House has to deal with every session—namely, the Public Works Loans Bill and the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. These are Bills which the house will have to put on the Statute-book. Then I come to the fourth class, which includes small Departmental Bills, which I think can easily be dealt with in the interstices of more important or at all events of more far-reaching measures, and which will not, I think, actually prolong the session—the County Courts Investment Bill, the Inebriates Amendment Bill, the Post Office (Sites) Bill, the Elementary Education (England) Bill, and two Irish Education Bills, which I believe are desired by hon. Members opposite. That is the list of Departmental Bills. Then there are four Military Bills on the Paper which have come down to us from another place. Of these one is, I am sorry to say. destroyed by the fact that it does not technically comply with the Standing Orders of the House— that is, the Manœuvres Bill. I need say no more about that. There remain the Volunteer Bill, the Reserve Forces Bill, and the Military Lands Bill. The Volunteers Bill is a short Bill. It is designed to carry out two objects unanimously recommended by the Committee which sat in 1894, and which it is exceedingly desirable should be carried out. The Reserve Forces Bill is to do away with a defect which the recent mobilisation of forces in this country has brought to light. It appeared that in order to carry out the present law it was necessary to mobilise no less than 8,000 men, and as soon as they were mobilised they had to be given leave of absence. It would be, I think, very important that we should put that measure on the Statute-book. The Military Lands Bill is one which I think—from all the conversation which reaches me and from discussion in the public press in regard to the necessity of increased accommodation for ranges and for the purposes of training in shooting— is really most important and ought to become law. It makes workable two Acts which this House has already passed, but which, for reasons it would not be proper for me to enter into now, are rendered absolutely ineffective by technical defects.

    89
    I refer to the Acts of 1892 and 1897. I believe that when my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War has an opportunity of explaining this Bill to the House it will probably be felt that it is a Bill which we ought to pass without any further delay. There is one clause in it which has led to a great deal of controversy, and as to which considerable difference of opinion prevails. It is the clause providing for the use of the machinery of the Allotments Act for the compulsory leasing of lands to be used for military purposes. There are obvious objections and difficulties both to the object of the clause and the method by which it seeks to obtain the object in view, and the Government do not propose to press that clause on the House. With that reservation, I hope that the Bill will not excite hostility in any quarter of the House. Then there are two Bills still before the Grand Committees—the Companies Bill and the Money-lending Bill. It would not be proper for me to make a final statement now as to Bills which are not absolutely before the House at this moment, but I have every hope that both Bills may become law before the end of the present session. As regards the Companies Bill, the details have no doubt excited a great deal of commentary and animadversion upstairs, but as regards the general principle we are generally agreed; and I hope that the modifications which have been introduced upstairs or promised for the Report stage are such as will mitigate or altogether remove the objections which may have been felt to the details. As to the Money-lending Bill, I remember that, when I was making a parallel statement to this last session, the Leader of the Opposition then expressed his regret that we had found it necessary to abandon the further consideration of that Bill. I think he singled it out from among other measures as one over which he dropped a pious tear; and therefore I trust he will assist us in our attempt to pass the Bill now.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I may have another tear to drop.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I need not mention the Irish Tithes Bill and the Agricultural Holdings Bill, because they have reached the Third Reading stage, and the House will naturally expect them
    90
    to pass with no undue delay. We propose to drop the Factories and Workshops Bill, the Lunacy Bill, the Youthful Offenders Bill, the Savings Banks Bill, the Dogs Bill, the Sea Fisheries Bill, the Palatine Court of Durham Bill, and the Reformatories and Industrial Schools Bill. We cannot hope, either, to proceed further in the present session with the very important English educational measure which has recently been introduced in the Lords by the President of the Council. There is also a Scotch Education Bill about which I fear I must say the same thing. This Bill is one which we were particularly anxious to pass, but I have taken some trouble to inquire what views are held with regard to it; and though I believe that in Scotland generally it meets with a very large measure of support, yet it does raise move than one point of controversy, and is not popular in one or two districts in Scotland. In those circumstances, a Bill of that magnitude and importance can hardly hope to pass at the end of the session, but I earnestly hope that no long delay will occur before it is reintroduced and passed into law. I have now gone over the whole list of Bills now on the Paper, and it only remains for me to speak with regard to Supply, as to which also the right hon. Gentleman has, I believe, a question on the Paper. If the House grants, as I do not doubt that it will, the three additional days which I am about to ask for, we shall have four days remaining for Committee of Supply, as well as one day for Report. But in addition to the Supply which has been asked for in the ordinary Estimates of the year and in addition to any Supplementary Estimates of the ordinary kind, it will be necessary for my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War to introduce a. very important Estimate—important both as to its amount and as to the subject with which it deals. Among other services that Estimate will provide for what, I hope, are the final payments for the South African War and. the cost of the military operations in China, as well as some other very important items of Army expenditure. That is a Supplementary Estimate, but it appears to me that when an Estimate of that magnitude and dealing with topics of that importance is introduced at this stage of the session it is only fair to the House that it should not be one of the counted days.

    91
    in Supply, and therefore I shall endeavour to make such arrangements as will allow the House to have one day's discussion on it, without trenching on the twenty-three days allocated under the Standing Order. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will also have to ask the House before we separate to make further financial provision to meet the additional expenditure which is required in the main, but not wholly, by the Supplementary Estimate to which I have referred. I hope I have been clear, and that my statement will commend itself to the approval of the House.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I would venture to suggest that the most Convenient course for discussing the statement of the right hon. Gentleman will be on the motion to be subsequently moved. It is always unsatisfactory to attempt to do so by means of question and answer. I have no doubt that hon. Members on both sides will find that the more convenient plan for giving expression to their views.
    MR. COURTNEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some information which might facilitate the discussion? Will he say how he proposes to allocate the four remaining days of Supply?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend knows the principle on which the Government have invariably proceeded—that is, to consult the wishes and convenience of the House. I do not think it would be desirable for me to state at this moment how we shall allocate the days, because the course of events outside and other considerations make it inconvenient to settle the matter too long beforehand.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Have the Government power to give an additional day for the Supplementary Estimate?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, it is possible, if I put some other business down first.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Will a day be appropriated to the War Office Vote?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I should be reluctant to promise that, not
    92
    only on the general ground, but because I am not sure that one of the remaining days ought to be given to the War Office Vote. There must be further discussion of War Office affairs on the Supplementary Estimate, and the War Office has already had much discussion. The Vote has been held over in obedience to the very proper suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition in order that if unforeseen events occur there may be an opportunity of discussion.
    MR. CHANNING: Of the remaining days, will not two be given, as usual, to the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office Votes?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is the ordinary form of allocation, but I do not wish to be induced to go further than I have already done.
    MR. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman now fix the date for the discussion of the Indian Budget?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will certainly be next week. I trust that that will be satisfactory.
    MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in round figures what is the amount of the Supplementary Vote for South Africa?
    The question was not answered.]

    QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BOARD (JOINT COMMITTEE).
    Report, with Minutes of Evidence, from the Joint Committee, brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 277.]

    FIRE BRIGADES.
    Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 278.]
    Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No. 278.]

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—Workmen's Compensation Act (1897) Extension Bill, with an Amendment.
    That they have agreed to—Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Bill, with Amendments.

    RAILWAYS (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS) BILL.
    Lords Amendments to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 299.]

    THE IRISH LANGUAGE IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
    [PROPOSED MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.]
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the refusal by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to consider favourably the memorial presented to them by the managers of 1,200 National schools in Ireland praying that in Irish-speaking disricts a bilingual system of education should be adopted, and that in other disitricts Irish should be taught as a remunerated subject in school hours.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been good enough to hand me a copy of his motion, and I think that this is a question which I ought not to submit to the House under Standing Order No. 17 as one definite and of urgent importance. The alleged grievance is in itself rather a general and a continuing one than of sudden urgency. What, however, principally influences me is the fact that the First Lord of the Treasury has stated to the House that the Irish Education Estimates will be taken on Friday; and it is not only in accordance with the proper construction of the Standing Order, but in accordance with precedents, that where there is an almost immediate opportunity for discussing a matter of this kind that opportunity should not be anticipated. I feel bound, therefore, to say that I ought not to submit this motion to the House.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will not think I desire to dispute your ruling in any way if I ask for permission to point out that only one remaining day is left for Irish Estimates. A new scheme of primary education covering a multitude of points must be discussed on that day, and it is impossible to hope that during one sitting of the House the whole of that scheme could be discussed, and, in addition, this grievance about the Irish language. Therefore, it is perfectly impossible that the Irish education scheme can be fully discussed. Upon a point of order, I respect-
    94
    fully submit that the possibility of a discussion taking place on some future date does not exclude this matter from the interpretation of the Standing Order, and I wish to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the interpretation which you have yourself given on this very point. On the 6th of April last you said †—
    "The Standing Order presents some difficulty in interpretation. When I came to the Chair I found the practice of the Speaker had been to deal with the question of definiteness himself."
    I wish to point out that this is not a general grievance, but a definite act— namely, the refusal of the Commissioners to accede to a particular memorial upon a particular point. You went on, upon the occasion I alluded to, to further state—
    "But as regards the urgency and public importance of the subject they have practically always been left to the decision of the House by the rising of at least forty Members in their places. I say 'practically,' for certainly I do not understand that the Speaker is bound to put a question as one of urgency and of public importance if it is obviously ridiculous or frivolous, or so obviously unimportant that the Speaker ought not to put it."
    I submit that unless you, Mr. Speaker, take the view that this subject is "ridiculous or frivolous" it is in order under your ruling, which I have just quoted.
    MR. SPEAKER: On the occasion to which the hon. Member refers I was suddenly asked a general question, and I do not pretend that the words I used contained a considered or exhaustive definition of all the grounds upon which the question of leave to move should not be put from the Chair. The words "ridiculous and frivolous" were, probably, too strong. On the present occasion I have considered the matter carefully, and I must adhere to my ruling not to submit the motion for the adjournment to the House.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: It is impossible for me to contest the matter further, although I am led to hope that an opportunity will be forthcoming. I beg to give notice that on the Second Reading of the Primary Education Bill I shall move—
    "That this House declines to give any additional powers to the Commissioners until they have amended their code of rules and regulations so as to provide for the teaching of Irish in the schools under their control."
    † See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxi, p. 1427

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
    Ordered, That three additional days be allowed to the Business of Supply.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS).
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That, for the remainder of the session, Government Business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House; and may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed, and that at the conclusion of Government Business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put." — (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think that we have any reason to complain of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, but there is one point on which I think the House expected to hear a little more. It is the point which governs to a large extent the whole of his statement—and that is, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect that the House will be relieved from its duties? It is clear that if the House is going to sit well on into August it will be able to transact a larger amount of business than it can undertake if it is interrupted at an earlier period, and, therefore, though the right hon. Gentleman's statement is satisfactory so far as it goes, he has not told us what his views are on that question. Those views affect not only the Bills, but also the important question of Supply. There are certain Votes which must be taken, and on which it is only right that the House should have a full opportunity of discussion. I would name, for example, in such a year as this, the Colonial Office Vote. It embraces not only the whole of the South African question, but the question of Ashanti and other questions. Then there is the Foreign Office Vote, upon which the whole situation in China has to be considered. These two Votes appear to me to require a day for the discussion of each of them. Then the right hon. Gentleman passed somewhat lightly over the War Office Vote. There was force in the inquiry of the hon. Member for West Belfast, when he asked whether a day would be granted for a discussion of it. Although it is true that the War Office Vote can be suspended, as it wore, and put
    96
    off until an advanced period of the session in order that we may have an opportunity of considering the military questions generally, yet there are this year in the minds of hon. Members many topics connected with that Vote and the conduct and disposition of business by the Secretary of State himself, which will surely require a considerable time for the discussion which may be needed on that important subject. There are fifteen Bills which are more or less non-contentious, but a non-contentious Bill, I need hardly say, is not a definition which always maintains itself. Even in the course of half an hour since the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, one of those Bills apparently has transferred itself to the category of being a contentious measure, because notice of an Amendment has now been given to it, which transfers it from one list to the other. On the whole, however, I see no reason to dispute in the main the classification of the right hon. Gentleman. But then we come to one or two Bills which come from the House of Lords, mostly military Bills. With regard to these, I say at once that I think the House may very well be called upon to consider and to pass the Reserve Forces Bill and the Military Lands Bill, which, as the right hon. Gentleman says, carry out the intentions which are already expressed in the regulations in regard to the organisation of the Army. It can hardly be denied that the Volunteers Bill involves or may involve a serious alteration in the character of the Volunteer force. It accepts as a permanent condition of service for Volunteers a kind of service which has never-been contemplated hitherto. But I would appeal to the Government on broader grounds. I think it is most undesirable at the end of the session to make a material difference in the constitution of the Volunteer force, or indeed I may say in any other branch of our military forces. We are all impressed with the necessity of doing everything we can to strengthen the defences of the Empire and to increase military efficiency, but that is not a thing to be done in a hurry. Many of those who are best qualified to advise the Government on. such a matter are at present engaged in South Africa, and surely it would be better to defer the matter. What is to be gained by forcing the Bill through the

    97
    House under pressure? The Bill ought to be reserved for fuller and wider consideration on the part of those who are responsible for advising Parliament on the subject. On all these grounds I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not persist in the Volunteers Bill. If he does, I am afraid that there will be a considerable amount of time spent on it, and that it will evoke a considerable amount of opposition also, although it is not so much on the ground of that opposition as on the broader grounds I have mentioned that I would appeal to him. Then the right hon. Gentleman recalled the fact that I had last year personally expressed some regret that the Money-lending Bill was lost, but I would point out that an expression of regret at the way the Government have arranged their business is quite consistent with a perfectly good disposition towards the Bill itself, and when I expressed some doubt a few days ago, it was on the ground that the Bill had become so pushed towards the end of the session that it was almost hopeless to get it through its stages now. There are one or two other Bills not mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and which, I suppose, from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has taken no notice of them, are also to be regarded as lost.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not speaking of Government Bills. Is there no hope for other than Government Bills? Is not this a strange arrangement, that we have had Bills examined with the greatest care by Standing Committees, considered, amended, and thrown into better shape, and then dropped without a word of regret, and without any possibility of making use of the pains, find labour, and time lavished upon them? There are two Bills not affecting this House which I have in my mind, and surely it is most desirable that some corner should be found for them. They are both Bills which would be extremely well received in the colonies, and now we are all speaking of a closer connection with the colonies and our desire to show a better feeling towards them. One is the Copyright Bill, which has passed the House of Lords, and which I believe has a clause embodying an arrangement which Canada has been
    98
    struggling for years and years, and which has now been licked into such a shape as to give perfect satisfaction to the Canadian people. I hope there may be means found of passing that Bill. Then there is the Colonial Marriages Bill, which has had a chequered career. It has now gone triumphantly through the House of Lords, and I believe it is unanimously desired by the colonies. Yet the Government, who are prating every day about their desire to consider the views. of our colonial fellow-subjects in every way, now propose calmly to give the cold shoulder to this important Bill and proceed with those comparatively unimportant measures of which the right hon. Gentleman has given a list. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be able to modify in some measure what he has promised; but I think what above all others would facilitate Government business and would be likely to put the House in a sympathetic mood, would be if the right hon. Gentleman could state now when, according to his estimate, the remaining business can be finally disposed of.
    MR. LEIGHTON: I hope my right hon. friend will adhere to his statement regarding the Bills by which he intends to lighten the ship; but he referred to a certain Bill which he said would not be proceeded with if it were opposed. I mean the Diocesan Records Bill, which is opposed by at least two hon. Members on this side of the House. There are two notices of motion against, and so far as it has been discussed it has been by no means favourably received. I was very much surprised to hear my right hon. friend say that he proposed to push it through. I feel sure it will be opposed very seriously, and I hope my right hon. friend will not force: it through the House of Commons at one o'clock or two o'clock in the morning.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I have heard with great regret that it is proposed once more to abandon the Lunacy Bill, because it is urgently required, alike for the insane as well as for the protection of the public. We have been told on no less an authority than that of the Lord Chancellor that grave abuses have taken place. This Bill would provide safeguards against those abuses, and it also contains provisions which are

    99
    absolutely necessary for the proper execution of the principal Act. The Bill was originally introduced into Parliament in 1897. From that time it has been regularly introduced at the beginning of every session, and having passed through all its stages in another place, has been regularly abandoned in this House at the end of every session. I think that is very much to be regretted. The Government have treated this question, which is one of great social importance, with contemptuous indifference, and I think it is a public scandal that a Bill of this kind should be abandoned year after year, especially when we know that lunacy is unhappily increasing by leaps and bounds. There is an additional and very strong reason why this Bill should fee proceeded with during the present session. We have been startled recently by revelations as to a practice which has been proved to exist in two metropolitan unions, and which I believe to be widely prevalent, under which poor law officers—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to me to be discussing the Bill.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I will, of course, submit to your ruling, Sir; but I think that I can show that my observations are strictly in order, and for this reason: The other day the Lord Chancellor gave a pledge that a clause to deal with this particular matter should be introduced into this Bill, and therefore, if this Bill is abandoned,† the special mode of dealing with the public scandal to which I have referred, which was indicated by the Lord Chancellor, will fall through. I think, under the circumstances, we are justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman, if this Bill is to be abandoned, what steps he proposes to take to give effect to the pledge of the Lord Chancellor? I hope this important matter will receive the attention which I think I may fairly claim for it, and that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reconsider the decision he has just given.
    MR. DILLON: This motion was never made with less justification than on the present occasion. It is a recognised custom, when the Government asks the
    † See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxiv., page 1064.
    100
    House of Commons to make what is really a very great sacrifice, for the House to examine into the use which the Government have made of their facilities during the session. During the many years I have been in close attendance in this House no Government have made such a bad use of the time at their disposal, and have been less entitled to ask the House to make this sacrifice than the present Government. We have had many organised counts-out by the Government during the session. We had to adjourn for a garden party—a thing unheard of in the history of this House. In fact throughout the session there has been displayed—
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. The debate on the particular Bill he refers to was adjourned, but Government business was proceeded with.
    MR. DILLON: Important Government business on that occasion was interrupted for the purpose of the garden party. The Government then put forward a non-contentious Bill, and afterwards organised a count-out, which was successful. I believe it would have been more honest had the Government made the motion for the adjournment of the House. I allude to this matter as an illustration of the way the Government have used the time of the House at their disposal during the session. An impression has been created on my mind and on that of others on this side of the House, that the Government were in the same chronic position as the Irish judges who tried to persuade the public that they had something to do—a task of enormous difficulty. The Government have had little or nothing to do, and what they had to do they did not do, Instead of devoting time to discussing the misdeeds of the great public Departments, to the scandals at and mismanagement of the War Office, and matters of real public interest—such matters as are concerned with the proceedings of the Executive Government itself—they have frittered away the time of the House in very uninteresting business. And now, at this period of the session, they come down, as if they had been a hardworking and industrious Government, and put us in the position of being at their mercy to keep us every night to three or four in the morning. In my opinion they have

    101
    established no claim, by their conduct during the session, to that indulgence at the hands of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House told us that it was the intention of the Government to pass the Companies Bill and the Money-lending Bill, besides a number of other small Bills, including some Irish Bills, which he said were non-contentious. Some of these non-contentious Bills, I am afraid, he will find out are contentious when we come to deal with them; and I presume they will be dropped. But I do not believe that there is any prospect of passing the two important Bills the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—the Companies Bill and the Money-lending Bill. Having the misfortune of being on the Standing Committee on Law, I protest against the Government doing now what they have done before—introducing Bills at this stage of the session they have no real intention of passing, and at the same time retaining Members locked up in the Committee rooms upstairs, where the atmosphere is atrocious, when there is no reasonable prospect of the Bills on which so much labour is expended being passed into law. I repeat it is most unreasonable to ask us to sit after twelve o'clock on the pretence that the Companies Bill and the Money-lending Bill are to be passed into law, when at a later stage the Government know they will be thrown overboard. But there is another ground on which I am entitled to oppose this motion, and that is the abuse of the time at the disposal of the Government in connection with Irish questions. Irish business, this year and last year, was chiefly concerned—as it generally is, except when some great Irish measure is brought forward—with the administration of the Executive in Ireland, and I protest against the custom of the Government in limiting and narrowing the opportunities for discussion of the conduct of the Executive Government in Ireland. What has been done this year? The Government have deliberately offered us only two nights for the discussion of the Executive Government in Ireland, while they have occupied nearly five nights of Government time in endeavouring to drive through the House one of the most iniquitous and scandalous Bills ever submitted to the House of Commons. I ask, is that a just or a reasonable way to deal with Ireland? We are told now that of the time which still remains to us we are to have only one
    102
    further night to discuss Irish Supply, making three in all—a number utterly inadequate and insufficient. The result will be that this, as last year, more than half of the most important of the Irish Votes—not to speak of the minor details of Irish expenditure—will be closured or passed without any discussion. I think that is one of the greatest invasions on the true province and rights of the House ever attempted in the history of Parliament. For these reasons I am, for my part, entirely opposed to the motion before the House. I think this indulgence ought not to be given to the Government as a matter of course. It only ought to be granted when the House is convinced on examination that the Government have fairly and properly conducted the business of the session and put the time placed at their disposal to a fair and proper use. Finally, I think that the Government on the present occasion, when they are asking for greater facilities for sitting so late, ought to have told us at all events the proximate date at which they intend to bring the session to a close.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the most important matter announced by the Front Bench was that of the now Estimates. He called them new Estimates because they were practically now and raised new matters of policy. He would call attention to the provision of an order in the Business Paper which stated that any additional Estimates for any new service or matter not included in the original Estimates of the year should be submitted for the consideration of the Committee of Supply on any date not later than two days before the Committee closed. He was very anxious that that order should be observed, for there could be no question that in fact these wore new Estimates, and would raise very serious questions which might even become more serious before the Committee discussed them. He congratulated Her Majesty's Government on having abandoned several Bills to which he himself had given his most determined opposition, including the Dogs Bill, the Savings Bank Amendment Bill, and the Undersized Fish Bill, his opposition to which had become historical. That Bill, which was the invention of the opposite side, had been introduced in different forms on six different occasions, and

    103
    had been too lightly adopted by the present Government. He congratulated the Government on having, for the sixth time, abandoned an attempt to prevent the people from getting cheap food, and he hoped the attempt would never be renewed. He thought the motion of the Leader of the House was a very reasonable one. The First Lord of the Treasury had mentioned thirty Bills which might conceivably be passed, and which the right hon. Gentleman hoped might be passed before the end of the session; but he had sacrificed half a dozen of them, and more certainly would have to go. He believed that both the Companies Bill and the Money-lending Bill would also have to go. In the meantime the right hon. Gentleman had sacrificed three Bills in which he was particularly interested, and he expressed his gratitude to and admiration of the right hon. Gentleman for his sound discretion.
    MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid that one of the measures which the First Lord of the Treasury proposed to proceed with was the Companies Bill. He would ask why a measure of such great gravity was not introduced at an earlier period of the session. The Bill was still being discussed upstairs, and it was most unreasonable to ask the House, when the measure came down there, to consider Amendments which involved very important variations of the permanent law of the country in regard to one of the most important branches of jurisprudence, in the small hours of the morning. If this measure was to receive adequate discussion it should be debated at an early period of the evening.
    MR. CHANNINGprotested against the motion. The fact that it had to be moved was a condemnation of the conduct of business by Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman had to put to his credit a very important reform in the conduct of the business of the House— namely, the allocation of certain days for the discussion of Supply. He desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the present state of business the fact that he asked the House to sit up to any hour of the morning to discuss Bills of great importance was an indication that he and those who worked
    104
    with him had not given sufficient consideration to the essential point that these Bills ought to have been introduced and discussed in the earlier part of the session. In recent years the earlier days of the session had been wasted in desultory discussions on Supply, which it would have been advantageous to have brought to an earlier conclusion. He hoped that the hon. Member for East Mayo would divide the House against he motion. he thought that instead of the House being asked at this time of the year to sit up to all hours to attempt to clear up important points and deal with important measures, as had been the case of late years, they ought to be taken earlier in the session. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that during the present session he had given members—and no doubt he had gained popularity in consequence—a much longer recess both at Easter and Whitsuntide. That was an altogether wrong principle, and it would have been much better if the House met earlier and forced important business through at an earlier date, and this portion of the session given over to lighter and more uncontroversial work. He wished to support the hon. Member for South Leeds with regard to the Companies Bill. It would be a very grave error of policy if that Bill were not proceeded with and passed into law during the present session. Both he and other Members of the House would be quite willing to form part of a quorum in order to help to carry such Bills forward, and they would deeply regret it if the Companies Bill was not passed. As an illustration of the way in which very important measures were rushed through, he drew attention to the fact that the discussion on the Third Reading of the Housing of the Working Classes Bill was curtailed and shortened in a manner which was very prejudicial to the interest of the great towns of this country. It was quite time that the way of ordering the business of the House, and the almost indecent manner in which it was conducted, was altered. All the labours of the Grand Committees with regard to the Companies Bill, and other important Bills, might now have to be thrown aside, and all the arrangements of the Government showed lack of consideration. It would be discreditable to the House if they did not clear up a creditable amount of work before they separated. He expressed a hope that in the future the work of the

    105
    session would be so rearranged as to enable the House to discuss the most important business in the earlier part of the session. With regard to Supply, he noticed the provision to take an extra day in order to consider the questions raised by the Supplementary Estimate. That was a reasonable concession to the interest of the public and the House; but he hoped they would have some assurance that the two most important Votes which had to be considered before the session closed—the Colonial Vote, which involved the conduct of affairs in Cape Colony and South Africa, which was of vital importance, and the Foreign Office Vote, for which two full days ought to be assigned—would be brought on at the earliest possible moment; and that the earliest possible day would be given to the Colonial Vote. It would be most unsatisfactory to the country and to the House if that course was not pursued.
    LORD BALCARRES: I am in charge of a Bill which has gone through this House, and also the House of Lords, which has made a few trifling amendments in it, and it now awaits the consideration of this House. The amendments are of a purely formal character, but as the motion now stands the chances of the Bill passing are nil. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could meet such a case as this, and other measures which are un-contentious, by allowing us to try and get them through after the Government business is concluded. By this motion the Government appropriate the whole of our time, and I wish to ask, on the conclusion of public business, that we private Members should be allowed to push forward our Bills. I suggest that we should be allowed fifteen minutes each day, otherwise, by the operation of the two words "I object," we shall lose some very useful measures.
    MR. LLOYD - GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): I cannot help thinking that the Government are dealing rather harshly with the Bills of private Members. I refer particularly to the Temperance Bills, one of which has passed first and second reading, and through Committee as well, and will now be sacrificed. All these Bills are based on recommendations of Royal Commissions appointed by the Government and two
    106
    of which were appointed by the present Government. Those Commissions, after sitting several years and after grave consideration, came to unanimous conclusions upon certain topics. The Government not being prepared to legislate upon them, private Members have brought in Bills dealing with one or two of the minor points, and the Government give them no facilities whatever. I hope temperance people will take into consideration that the Government now want to take all the remaining time, and they cannot find time for temperance legislation for the reason that there are six Military Bills, and the whole time of the House has been used for the discussion of military measures. Not a single hour can they find for temperance legislation, which would be carried through without a division. Then, with regard to the Companies Bill, I cannot understand why this Bill has not passed into law. I cannot conceive a greater insult to the House of Commons. A Grand Committee has been sitting for days, considering this Bill very carefully, and I do not believe that there has been any waste of time. The President of the Board of Trade does not suggest that the discussion has been unduly prolonged. The Government then go through the farce—for it is a farce unless it is proposed that we should carry it through—to suspend the Standing Orders to extend the time so that we may have an opportunity to carry it through. Is it to be expected that the Grand Committee should consider this very important Bill, sitting for an extra hour each day, when they know perfectly well that it is not proposed to give a Third Reading to the Bill? If that is so, it inflicts considerable humiliation upon the Grand Committee. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to have asked them to consider it unless he proposed to pass it. Here is the most important Bill of the session, when one takes into account the interests with which it deals, and the changes it proposes to make in the existing law; and when one considers the complicated character of its provisions, it is a Bill that should be considered very carefully. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, it is a Bill as to the principle of which there is no difference of opinion, but that is exactly the kind of Bill that requires the most consideration. When a Bill is introduced, and there is a contention as to the principle, Amendments

    107
    are very often moved for the purpose of weakening it; but where the principle is agreed, Members join together in moving Amendments to strengthen the Bill, and this is the Bill which the Government cannot find time before twelve o'clock to consider. For this the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is responsible. He has managed matters in such a way that the most important Bill is introduced at the end of the session. It is then taken upstairs, where it cannot be disposed of until the end of this week, and it cannot be before this House until next week, when other Bills will prevent its being taken until after twelve. I support the appeal of my hon. and learned friend, that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury shall give us a pledge not only that the Bill shall be carried through, but that it shall be considered at a time when Members are able to apply their energies to it without distraction.
    MR. GALLOWAY, who was several times called upon to speak up, was understood to say that he would like to ask a question with regard to the Government proposals as to the widows and children of those who fell in the war. The right hon. Gentleman had said in answer to a question that it was the intention of the Government to deal with that matter. What he now wished to know was whether, before the House separated, the Government would announce to the country the proposals they had in view, and whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake that the Patriotic Commissioners would not be allowed to pursue their old tactics of accumulating the funds, which they had already begun to do. If the right hon. Gentleman could give an assurance on that point it would be of considerable importance to the country. He also desired to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to take the Companies Bill after twelve o'clock, for a reason which had not been put to the House. The Bill had come down from the House of Lords, and a great many points had been deferred for consideration, and if those important points were going to be raised at two or three o'clock in the morning a great deal of harm might he done to a very useful measure. He therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not
    108
    to ask the House to discuss these matters in the early hours of the morning.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I am much afraid if the right hon. Gentleman takes the advice of the hon. Gentleman behind him he will not pass the Companies Bill this session. It is a very important Bill, but we know that some hon. Gentlemen are not very desirous that the Bill should become law; but if it is to be passed I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to the appeal that has just been made. There is another Bill which has been sent down from the House of Lords, the Bill for the prevention of corruption, a most admirable Bill, which may be said to be a Governmental if not a Government Bill. It was brought in by the Lord Chief Justice. Now we know perfectly well that in the House of Lords there are a great many judicial Gentlemen of the very highest ability and reputation, and when a Bill has found favour with them we may regard its being sent here as an appeal by the Lord Chief Justice and the judicial bench of the House of Lords to the House of Commons to carry it through. This is a Bill which makes certain things frauds which are not frauds at the present time. I have before now expressed a not very high opinion of the House of Lords; but I always wish to be fair, and I think when the House of Lords does practical work we ought to give them encouragement by passing the Bills they send to us. Now, I should like to ask one or two questions as to Supply. It has been suggested that we shall have five days allotted to ordinary Supply and one day given to the Colonial Office Vote, and one each to the Foreign Office and War Office Votes; but I very much doubt whether one day will be sufficient for the Colonial Office Vote, because we have to deal not only with South Africa but several other matters—Ashanti, and so forth. With regard to the Foreign Office it is very desirable that some important discussion should take place before the House breaks up in regard to China. The right hon. Gentleman may say that we have the opportunity on the Supplementary Vote, and he also tells us that that is to cover money which is required for both China and South Africa. Such a discussion I do not think ought to be prolonged beyond twelve o'clock. The matter

    109
    is a large and important one, and we know very well that after twelve o'clock speeches are not reported, and the debate is somewhat perfunctory. If it goes over twelve o'clock, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consent to give it another day. There is one other question. I do not ask him to give the precise figure of the Estimate, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what his idea is with regard to the future, about what the amount is of the Vote that he intends to ask for, together with the amount that the Government has in hand, so that we might form an opinion as to whether we are going to have an autumn session, as is suggested in the press, or whether we going to have no further session of this Parliament. This is a very interesting question, and we should like to have all the light which the right hon. Gentleman can throw upon it. We do not wish him to tell us whether he is going to advise Her Majesty to dissolve the Parliament in the autumn; but if he will tell us about the amount of the Estimate and what the amount of the borrowing powers of the Government are we should be very interested, and it might help us to reason the matter out.
    COLONEL MILWARDsaid he required no information on the point just mentioned, because whether the dissolution came early or late he hoped that Ministers would be prepared to face the consequences. He desired to support the appeal of the hon. Member for South Leeds with reference to the Companies Bill, that it should not be brought on for Report unless there was time to consider it seriously. He quite appreciated the fact that the members of the Grand Committee, who had spent so much time upon it, would feel disappointed if it did not pass, and there were a great many others who would be equally disappointed. The hon. Member for Northampton suggested that there were certain Members who did not desire to see it pass. He was not one of those. He wished to see it pass, but after consideration and in such a shape that it would not be at once rendered a dead letter by the legal gentlemen outside Parliament, who were even now preparing to drive a four-horse coach through it. It was a Bill of enormous importance, even to the working classes of the Midlands, who at the time of the cycle boom, when
    110
    many bogus companies were promoted, put their earnings into various companies. The Bill was only introduced on the 26th of June, and it was impossible in so short a time to consider it as it ought to be considered, and to form such a Bill as ought to pass. The labours of the Grand Committee had not been wasted, and the Government would, after consideration, be advised to take up certain points, and he thought that another year, by taking up the Bill earlier in the session, a more complete and valuable measure would result from their efforts.
    Mr. BUCHANANdrew attention to the fact that on other occasions when this motion had been moved the right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to keep the House late every night. Although the right hon. Gentleman had given no such intimation on the present occasion he trusted that the House might assume that that was the case now. He understood that the House was to have Supplementary Estimates brought before them during the present session; but if that was the case, he apprehended they would be in a difficulty with regard to the Colonial Vote, because, as he understood the programme, three extra days had been given for Supply, The Irish Estimates were to be given one day, and if the Colonial Vote and the Foreign Office Vote took another day each, there would be no time left to discuss the War Office or any other Vote. Having regard to the importance of the foreign affairs all over the world, he hoped further time would be given.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Several questions have been asked and many pledges have been demanded from me, and while I cannot say that I shall be able to gratify all those who have made remarks, I shall endeavour as well as I can to go seriatim through the list of questions. The hon. Member who has just sat down says he hopes the sittings will not be unduly prolonged. I am very reluctant to put undue strain upon the House, but, although I hope there will be no formidable amount of business of Supply or of late sittings, I am not able to give any specific promise to the House on the subject. As regards Supply, I have said that I would so arrange that there would be one additional day outside the twenty-three allotted days. I hope to do that. May

    111
    I point out to the hon. Gentleman, as far as the Foreign and Colonial Offices are concerned, that there will not only be an opportunity of discussing them on the ordinary Votes, but there will be an opportunity of discussing, at any rate, very large and important sections of these questions upon the Supplementary War Estimates which concern the granting of money for South Africa and money for China. In addition to these opportunities there is, of course, always the opportunity given by the different stages of the Appropriation Bill; and I am bound to say that that seems to me sufficient, even in view of the exceptional circumstances in which the House finds itself. I think the Leader of the Opposition was a little unjust when he suggested that an inadequate time had been already given to the discussions of the War Office Estimates. The immense amount of time given to those discussions this session must have escaped his attention. It has not been an undue amount, I agree. Undoubtedly the War Office has been the office above all others before the public, and on which discussion may seem most legitimate. But I have done my best to add up roughly the number of nights given to War Office discussions, and I cannot make them out to be less than seventeen. To give seventeen days in one session to the discussion of one Department is surely not an fair even in the eyes of those most greedy of discussion and most anxious to probe the War Office questions to the bottom. In this annual debate the Leader of the House finds himself a sort of target to be shot at from many different quarters. There are the gentlemen who say that all the Bills which have been passed are trumpery and trifling measures, and that it is the Bills about which there is any doubt which are the important measures, and measures which it would be monstrous to drop. Then there are those who say, "Though the Government's Bills may be all very well, look at the private Bills abandoned by the Government! Let the Government press on with those and the House will be satisfied." Then there is a third and the commonest class of all, who say, "Above all do not sit after twelve o'clock." And there are others who say, "However important it may be to pass this Bill or that, it is most important of all to give us an early holiday." All these appeals excite my sympathy, but they cannot all be grati-
    112
    fied, if hon. Members will go to bed when the clock strikes twelve, if they will be up on the 1st of August, and if they will pass these great measures; these aspirations are evidently mutually contradictory and cannot all be satisfied even by the most ingenious arrangements of public business. And if they are contradictory aspirations and cannot all be satisfied, as manifestly they cannot, I do hope the Leader of the House may not be supposed to be in fault because he cannot make such arrangements as will enable hon. Gentlemen both to eat their cake and have it also. The hon. Member for Northampton wanted to know what the amount of the Supplementary Estimate was. My hon. friend the Under Secretary for War is not in the House, but the Estimate will be soon in the hands of hon. Members. I am afraid, however, that a disappointment is in store for the hon. Member for Northampton. The amount, even if I could give it down to the minutest fraction, would throw no light on the problem which interests him. The amount would be the same if the House of Commons were scattered to the winds in the next fortnight, or if it were to drag out a lingering existence to the last day allowed by the law. The Estimate has been framed wholly apart from those Parliamentary considerations which are so interesting to the hon. Member; and I am afraid that no light will be thrown upon them by the publication of the details for which the hon. Member is desirous. My noble friend the Member for the Ghorley Division has made an appeal in favour of a Bill in which he is interested, and which has passed this House and the other House with only two or three trifling Amendments. Another Bill which has passed this House and in which only very small Amendments have been introduced in another place is the Bill giving compensation for accidents to agricultural labourers. It is evident that Bills of that character ought not to be sacrified, and I think it is quite usual and invariable, when the Government has asked for these special privileges, that such non-controversial private Bills should be starred and therefore escape from the drastic and destructive effects of the resolution which I now ask the House to pass. I notice that there are two Bills in the list which I road, which I hoped were non-controversial in their character, but with regard to which strong opposition has been an-

    113
    nounced in the course of the debate. One is the Diocesan Records Bill and another is an Irish Bill with respect to which the leader of the Nationalist party has declared his intention of moving an Amendment. [Mr. DILLON: The four Irish Bills are controversial.] Then I suppose the four Irish Bills will have to be dropped. The hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Green reproached the Government with having dropped the Lunacy Bill. I greatly regret that it has boon dropped: and I quite recognise that there are important provisions which it is really most desirable to pass into law without delay. But the Bill is a long one. It contains a large number of miscellaneous administrative reforms which it is impossible to pass through the House without considerable discussion; and therefore it is with the greatest reluctance that I feel bound to adhere to the decision already come to not to press the measure on the attention of the House. I think I have dealt with almost every point which was raised, except the Companies Bill. I stated at the beginning of the debate that that is a Bill which I hope will be allowed to pass; and I see no reason why it should not pass. The right hon. Gentleman said that I had missed the most important element in my statement, because I refrained from giving any date for the probable adjournment of the House. That date can never be given with assurance, and it could be given with less assurance than ever this year, because there are not only the Bills which I have mentioned, but the financial proposals which have to be made, to be taken into account. I do not like to say within a day or hour—or even within several days—when the session will come to an end; but I shall be greatly disappointed if it does not end during the week beginning 5th August. I hope it will not be later than the ordinary time; it may be even earlier. I do not see why it should not, if the House sets to work in a businesslike fashion. It is true that the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, who is peculiarly violent in his criticisms of the conduct of public business, said that it was outrageous
    that we should have had such long holidays at Easter and Whitsuntide; and he desired that we should get up on 1st August. When the hon. Member is Leader of the House he will find that ideal, though a delightful one, is not easy to realise. It is possible to induce the House to take fairly long holidays at Easter and Whitsuntide, and especially when they meet, as this year they have done, in January; but it is not possible to induce the House to get up on 1st August.
    MR. CHANNING: On the contrary, I offered to stop longer, to help pass Bills like the Companies Bill. I thought the House ought to stop longer. My suggestion was that the great Hills should be taken earlier in the session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I demur from the hon. Gentleman on that point. The Bills we have taken earlier in the session are very important Bills—quite as important as any that remain, so that the only difference between us is that the hon. Member would have taken the Companies Bill before the Housing of the Working Classes Bill. It is a matter on which the hon. Member and myself are hardly likely to agree.
    MR. KEARLEY: What about the point raised by the hon. Member for South-west Manchester, with respect to the funds of the Patriotic Commissioners?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With all deference to my honourable friend, I do not think that it is very relevant to this discussion; but I think it is extremely likely that we shall be able to inform the House what our proposals are before the end of the session. But on that point I make no pledge. On the whole, I think the motion has not been unkindly received, even by the severest of our critics, and I hope that without a division we may now proceed to the ordinary business of the day.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 240; Noes, 114. (Division List No. 219.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Aird, John

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Balcarres, Lord

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Bristol)

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

    Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

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

    Bethell, Commander

    Bigwood, James

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Bill, Charles

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Percy, Earl

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Gunter, Colonel

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Pilkington, R. (Lancs., Newton)

    Brassey, Albert

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Brodriek, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hardy, Laurence

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Purvis, Robert

    Burt, Thomas

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Pym, C. Guy

    Butcher, John George

    Helder, Augustus

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Button, Sydney Charles

    Henderson, Alexander

    Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

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

    Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

    Carlile, William Walter

    Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee),

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Hornby, Sir William Henry-

    Robinson, Brooke

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

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Houston, R. P.

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Howard, Joseph

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm)

    Howell, William Tudor

    Samuel. Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

    Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hozier, Hon. J. H. C.

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Coddington, Sir William

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Codings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Keswick, William

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire).

    Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

    Kimber, Henry

    Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Sidebottom, William (Derbysh)

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Knowles, Lees

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Crombie, John William

    Lafone, Alfred

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

    Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Curzon, Viscount

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Leeky, Rt. Hon. William Edw. H.

    Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks)

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Leighton, Stanley

    Spencer, Ernest

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Llewe'yn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

    Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

    Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

    Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R.

    Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

    Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)

    Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M. Taggart

    Evershed, Sydney

    Lowe, Francis William

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Faber, George Denison

    Lowles, John

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred

    Strauss, Arthur

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manch'r)

    Macdona, John Cumming

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

    Finch, George H.

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    M'Ewan. William

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

    Marks, Henry Hananel

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Flower, Ernest

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.(T'nt'n)

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Mesey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

    Garfit, William

    Milward, Colonel Victor

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

    Gedge, Sydney

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Whitmore Charles Algernon

    Gibbs, Hn. A. G.'H. (City of Lond.)

    Monk, Charles James

    Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Morgan, Hon. F. (Mon.)

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

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Mount, William George

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

    Gorst, Rt. Hon Sir John Eldon

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

    Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St George's)

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Wylie, Alexander

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

    Wyndham, George

    Gourley, Sir Ed. Temperley

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Nicholson, William Graham

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Sir William Walrond and

    Green, Walford D. (Wed'sbury)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Mr. Anstruther.

    116

    117

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork N. E.)

    Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Pilkington, Sir G.A.(Lancs S. W.)

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Hogan, James Francis

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Ambrose, Robert

    Holland, William Henry

    Provand, Andrew Dry burgh

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Roberts,.John H. (Denbighs.)

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Bailey, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Joicey, Sir James

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Billson, Alfred

    Jones, David Brynmor (Swans')

    Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh

    Birrell, Augustine

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

    Blake, Edward

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Kitson, Sir James

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Labouchere, Henry

    Spicer, Albert

    Burns, John

    Langley, Batty

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Caldwell, James

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'nd)

    Strachey, Edward

    Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

    Lewis John Herbert

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sullivan. T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Clark, Dr. G. B.

    Lough, Thomas

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Colville, John

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

    Commins, Andrew

    MacDonnell, Dr. M. A.(Qn'sC.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Crean, Eugene

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Ure, Alexander

    Crilly, Daniel

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Wallace, Robert

    Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Leod, John

    Weir, James Galloway

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Maddison, Fred

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Dillon, John

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Whittaker, Thames Palmer

    Doogan, P. C.

    Mather, William

    Williams, John Carvell(Notts.),

    Duckworth, James

    Moulton, John Fletcher

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

    Dunn, Sir William

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Emmott, Alfred

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Wilson, John (Govan).

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

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

    Wilson, Jos. H (Middlesbrough

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    0'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Woods, Samuel

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co)

    O'Kelly, James

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Malley, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Palmer, George W. (Reading)

    Captain Donelan and

    Harwood, George

    Pickard, Benjamin

    Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Ordered, That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House; and may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed, and that at the conclusion of Government Business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put.

    TITHE RENT - CHARGE (IRELAND) BILL.
    Order for Third Heading read, and discharged.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re committed in respect of the New Clause (Exclusion of certain annuities and rent charges), and the Amendment to the Schedule."—(Mr. G. W. Balfour.)
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONthought they had a right to complain of the way the House had been treated in respect of this Bill. When it was introduced it was understood that there
    118
    would be a Report stage. There had been notice given of Amendments in respect of the matter on which it was now proposed to recommit the Bill. It was distinctly understood then that the Bill would be taken in the ordinary way on Report. There never was a Bill which more required to be subjected to the usual procedure of the House, for it was one of the most technical they had seen in this or any session of Parliament. he wished to refer to the point in regard to which it was proposed to recommit the Bill. It was a point on which the right hon. Gentleman got entirely into a mess when the Bill was in Committee. After refusing to accept his Amendment, the Attorney General for Ireland consented to consider the question before the Report stage. Now there was to be no Report stage. If they were to go into this question at all the House should have an opportunity of considering whether they preferred to keep the schedule intact and to strike out Clause 4, or to proceed in the way the right hon. Gentleman now proposed. For his part

    119
    he would prefer the schedule intact, because it specified the words of the Act of 1872 to be repealed, while the repealing clause did not so specify the words. The House was to be reduced to this process if the Government would not consent to recommit the Bill indefinitely and generally, but he hoped that at least an Amendment would be consented to which would give the House an opportunity of deciding between the repeal clause contained in the Bill and the repeal portion of the schedule.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLmoved to omit all words after "recommitted," in order to recommit the measure generally. The motion of the Chief Secretary, though not out of order, was very much out of ordinary form and routine. The motion of the right hon. Gentleman was to confine the effect of the re-committal to one clause only, and that a new clause. The records of Parliament could be searched in vain for the recommittal of a Bill on a new clause, and a new clause alone. The procedure now proposed to be adopted was altogether unprecedented. There were many Amendments the Irish Members had intended moving on the Report stage, some of them of vital importance. There was one in particular which the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General promised to consider, and he gave the House to infer that his decision would be brought up on Report. But when a Bill passed through Committee without Amendment the Report stage as a matter of convenience was abrogated. That had happened in this case, but how? On the very first day on which the Bill was under discussion the hon. and learned Member for North Louth proposed several Amendments. Those Amendments were not accepted, but a pledge was given by the Chief Secretary that he would frame a clause and submit it to the House on the Report stage. The Bill was discussed at considerable length, and then at the last moment the right hon. Gentleman suddenly declined to move the Amendments standing in his name, thus avoiding the Report stage. Such a contrivance to bar discussion ought not to be used. The Government had resorted to an extraordinary process, which as a rule was used only when certain matters arose between the Committee stage and the Third Reading. What was useful for the Government should
    120
    also be useful for the Opposition, and therefore he hoped the House would agree to recommit the Bill in regard to all matters. The Bill—a very technical one —had throughout been conducted in a very high-handed manner. There had been twenty divisions, four of which were on motions for the closure. On the Wednesday when the discussion had been closured, he drew the attention of the Chairman to the fact that by the main question being put in the form it was two most valuable Amendments would be shut out of all discussion. The Chairman admitted that that would be so. If the Bill was recommitted generally those Amendments could be reproduced and argued, and it was therefore only fair that such a course should be adopted. One Amendment especially was absolutely essential, as it raised the tremendous question of the construction of the statute. The Government would not dare to apply the procedure now proposed to any other than Irish Bills; but the high-handed conduct of the Government would, to some extent, be remedied by recommitting the Bill as a whole. If the right hon. Gentleman agreed to this he could rest assured the Irish Members would not abuse in the slightest degree the power thereby given. Not a single reason could be urged against the Amendment except that the Government desired to burke discussion and prevent the bringing forward of arguments revealing the true intent of the Bill. The course the Government were taking amounted almost to a breach of faith, but he hoped the Chief Secretary would agree to concede the point now asked.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out the words from the word 're-committed,' to the end of the question."— (Mr. Swift MacNeill.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise strongly to support the Amendment, not merely on grounds particular to this Bill itself, but on general grounds relating to the procedure of this House. At a preceding stage of this Bill I felt it my duty to enter my most solemn and even vehement protest against the action of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure, and I assume that

    121
    the House appreciates the fact that the Government are to-night establishing an entirely new precedent. The motion that on the Third Heading a Bill should he recommitted is a motion not often made, but when the motion is made it is usually made in either of two contingencies— either when there is a general assent to the motion, or when the Government have found it necessary to make what is usually a literal correction in a Bill. There may be a third contingency in which such a motion would be justifiable, and that is when the Government find that through some oversight they have neglected to fulfil a pledge to any section of the House. But neither of these circumstances exists at the present moment. There is no unexpectedness in the matter; there is no more literal change to be made; there is no general assent. What the Government have done is to employ what, without using the word offensively, I may describe as a device, the object being to escape from one of those stages of investigation and examination to which the wisdom of many centuries has decreed Bills should be subjected. In other words, the Government have adopted this device in order to do away with the Report stage of the Bill. That is a stage which has for centuries been regarded as one of the inevitable and necessary stages of a measure. I know of only two occasions on which that stage has been avoided. One was when the present Leader of the House was able to get an Education Bill through Committee without Amendment. That was a small Bill in many respects, and I do not intend to go back on the controversy. The other occasion was when a Bill was passed without Amendment through a Committee upstairs by a Member sitting on these benches, the Report stage being thus avoided. But I believe there was scarcely an evening for three months on which that hon. and learned Member was not indicted by hon. Gentlemen opposite for the unusual, unprecedented, and it was almost suggested, the indecent course he had adopted in getting the Bill through without accepting any Amendments, and I believe that that very act contributed finally to the rejection of the Bill in another place, because it was argued that a Bill passed through Committee in this indecently hasty way, without the acceptance of any rational Amendment, must have been so inade-
    122
    quately and scantily discussed that really that Chamber was only fulfilling its duty as a revising assembly in refusing to carry the Bill into law. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the illustrious person who used this argument with such disastrous effect was the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but now the very course which was used as an argument for rejecting that measure is being adopted by the right hon. Gentleman himself. This Bill is to be recommitted for the purpose of putting in a new clause which stood upon the Paper for several days. If the right hon. Gentleman could come down and say, "I want the Bill recommitted, because, since it passed through Committee, it has suddenly struck me that an improvement might be made in it," we would have nothing whatever to object to. But the right hon. Gentleman is in no such position, because the clause was upon the Paper for several days, and, in fact, was put there in fulfilment of a pledge given by the Government. We are therefore in this position: the Government are asking the House to take this unusual and wholly unprecedented course for the simple purpose of avoiding the Report stage. I strongly support my hon. and learned friend in the demand that if the Bill is re-committed at all it should be re-committed in its entirety, so that we may have the same rights of proposing Amendments as. the Government now seek.
    MR. FLYNNcontended that something tantamount to a breach of faith had been committed by the Government. An undertaking was given across the floor of the House on the first night of the debate on this Bill that a new clause should be brought up later. It was not so brought up, but several days later it was placed on the Paper, and then at the last minute the Government forced the Bill through by a mechanical majority and amended their own hand. Instead of having the clause discussed in Committee they, in order to avoid the Report stage, had brought it forward in such a way that it could not be properly discussed. The arguments of the hon. and learned Member for North. Louth on the first clause were such that they convinced the Government, and the Leader of the House promised a clause which should, if possible, meet the views which had been expressed. The clause

    123
    duly appeared on the Paper, but to the surprise of everybody, after having suspended the twelve o'clock rule, the Government withdrew their own clause, and it was now brought in in its present form. Under these circumstances, he trusted the House would support the Irish Members in objecting to a course which was not only unprecedented in the procedure of the House, but which unquestionably was not in accordance with the spirit of fair play and equity towards a minority in the House. The Irish people were deeply interested in this Bill, because it affected an Irish fund, and therefore they were justified in protesting against the action of the Government as uncandid, unfair, and tantamount to a breach of faith, breaking the spirit, if not the letter, of their own promise in regard to the most controversial point in the whole Bill. The course suggested in the Amendment was one in accordance with Parliamentary procedure, and it was more convenient that instead of recommitting the Bill in respect of a single new clause, it should be recommitted in respect of all the clauses around which so much discussion raged, and in respect of which the Government had refused to accept any Amendments.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Although not an Irish Member, I think it right to join in the protest which has been made against what I deem to be the unfair treatment of the House by the Government in connection with this measure. The intention of the Chief Secretary was, no doubt, to move this clause in Committee, but he had been successful in securing the rejection of every Amendment proposed by the Irish Members, and I suppose it occurred to him then that, if he abandoned for the time this intended clause, he would succeed in getting rid of the Report stage. The temptation, I imagine, was too strong to be resisted, and now he comes to the House asking to enjoy an exceptional position, in submitting a clause which ought to have been moved in Committee, while the rest of the House are virtually deprived of the opportunity of submitting other Amendments which they might desire to propose. I think it right to call the attention of the House to the fact that this method of procedure, call it by what name you will, appears to
    124
    be part of the settled policy of the present Government. It has happened in previous sessions, and it is happening now. It is sought to abolish the Report stage of Bills, avoid discussion, and to prevent Members exercising the full rights of membership of this House. Notably is this the case in regard to Bills which come from Standing Committees. The anomaly is greater in such cases, because the whole of the Members of the House, with the exception of those who are Members of the Standing Committees, are deprived of all opportunity of moving Amendments to Bills which are before the House. It is a quite common process for the Government, or anybody else in charge of a Bill, to move an Amendment on the final stage of the measure, but in such cases usually all Members of the House are placed on a footing of equality. But by this method the Government are curtailing the rights and privileges of Members of this House, and I think it is high time notice were taken of it, and that steps should be taken to prevent the continuance of such a policy in the future.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it could not be imputed as a fault to the Government that they had succeeded in persuading the Committee of the whole House to pass their Bill without amendment. But although that complaint was not quite justified by all the circumstances of the case, he could see no good reason why Her Majesty's Government could not accept this Amendment. It seemed to him that having arrived at this stage, and the Government having found it necessary for their own purposes to recommit the Bill, he thought it was only fair that the recommittal should be a general one. He was most anxious that every one and even the smallest of the privileges of hon. Members of the House should be maintained, and should be brought into operation to show that they were being maintained. Perhaps hon. Members opposite might once again be in power, and then he thought the House might require every safeguard in case mischievous proposals were submitted. In regard to what had been said about Grand Committees, he thought that the practice of sending measures to Grand Committees was a great abuse. If a Bill was not good enough to stand the criticism of a Committee of the whole House, it was not good enough to introduce into the House at all.

    125
    He hoped the Government would agree to make the recommittal a general one. If they recommitted the measure for a specific purpose only they might find it necessary in the course of discussion to go into other matters. When he looked at the last line of the only clause in respect of which it was proposed to recommit the Bill, he found that it dealt with a matter of considerable importance. Subsection 4 of the new clause provided that—
    "This section shall not extend to a mortgage or a marriage or other family settlement or arrangement."
    If that was the only thing—
    MR. SPEAKER: These are questions which will be in order when the new clause is before the Committee.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he only mentioned that to show that other questions might arise. He saw no reason why Her Majesty's Government should not accept this Amendment.
    SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I do hope that if Her Majesty's Government do not accept this Amendment the House will carry it. I think it is quite a reasonable proposal, and Irish Members have great reason to complain of the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government in this respect. Three-fourths of the Members from Ireland are bitterly opposed to this Bill, and they represent the feelings of their constituencies. The Irish Members opposing this measure consist of three-fourths of the entire representation of Ireland, and they are the only people who ought to attempt to correct bad legislation or promote good legislation for Ireland. Three-fourths of the Irish representatives are opposed to this Bill, and throughout its various stages they have sought to make various Amendments. On the discussion of Amendments which were moved to the very first section of the Bill there was a great deal of argument, and it was pointed out that some gross injustice and some gross anomalies would follow from the operation of the first section of the measure as it was originally introduced Several hours were taken up in the discussion of that section, which struck very much at the root of the principle of the whole Bill, and in order to shorten the discussion and get rid of
    126
    the difficulty the right hon. Gentleman opposite stood up and said he would bring up a clause on Report which would meet the difficulties which had been raised. For my part, I confess that I was quite satisfied with that assurance, and I believe all my hon. friends below the gangway were quite satisfied. Then the Committee passed on to other Amendments, and to other clauses in the Bill. A discussion arose about repealing one section, and a difficulty was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee. Again to shorten discussion and to hurry this Bill through the House in the face of the opposition of three-fourths of the Irish representatives, it was suggested that an amendment would be proposed and a new clause would be brought in by the Government dealing with the point in dispute upon the report stage. We were also quite satisfied with that assurance. Upon the fourth night of the discussion of this revolutionary and confiscatory proposal what happened? In the first place the twelve o'clock rule was suspended. We all know that the suspension of this rule drives a great many reasonable men away from the House, and it is an effectual way of throwing a wet blanket over the business. I make no secret of saying that legislation in that manner after twelve o'clock upon serious matters is a mere farce and delusion. Having closured the Bill on the fourth night no new clause is brought up and no Report stage becomes necessary, and by this ingenious strategy —and I believe in calling a spade a spade —the report stage of a very contentious Bill was avoided by Her Majesty's Government in order to force this obnoxious Bill down the throats of the unwilling Irish people. And now the Government come up with this new clause and invite its discussion. For the sake of fair play to hon. Members from Ireland, I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will support the Amendment of my hon. friend the Member for South Donegal if the Government do not accept it, and thus allow Irish Members the benefit of having, as it were, a Report stage of this Bill.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I hope the Government will consent to make this recommittal of the Bill one of a general character. During the discussion of this measure we have seen the most reasonable Amendments

    127
    constantly rejected. Surely it is not right to lay down that whatever the results may be or whatever injustice may follow, a measure must be carried verbatim et literatim in the particular form in which it is presented to the House. What is the House of Commons for if it is not to be allowed to make even the smallest and most reasonable amendment in the Bill? I disagree with the hon. Gentleman opposite who has stated that there is not enough intelligence on this side of the House to draw up such an Amendment as may be necessary to improve this Bill. The fact of the matter is that it is not a want of intelligence on this side of the House, but the difficulty is a want of scruple on the other side of the House. Unfortunately, this is the case also with another Bill. It was only the other day that a Minister said upstairs that an Amendment should not be allowed because, if it were accepted, the Report stage would follow. Ever since the commencement of this Parliament the Government have tried to prevent Bills being altered in order to save the Report stage. I trust that the Government, from a sense of ordinary justice and fair play, will allow Irish Members to discuss the rest of the Bill in the light of this clause, for which it is now proposed to re-commit the Bill. It appears to me that we are entering upon courses that are dangerous and which are verging upon being of an unconstitutional character. Of course, the Government have acted according to the rules of the House in what they have done, but it is for them to consider and decide whether, in keeping themselves strictly in order, they have not transgressed the rules of fairness which ought to govern every Administration.
    MR. DILLON: I have to thank the hon. Member opposite for the support he has given us upon this Bill. The hon. Member for King's Lynn has reproached us in regard to our incapacity to persuade hon. Members opposite to support our Amendments, but how is that possible when hon. Members opposite were absent during the discussions, and only appeared when the division bell rang? I never met with a debater in Committee who was able to persuade hon. Members to forsake the smoke room, the tea room, or the terrace by the reasonableness of his Amendment, and we never
    128
    had any large body of hon. Members opposite listening to us when the Bill was discussed, except on the last night when the rule was suspended. On many occasions I counted the number of Members present on the benches opposite during the discussions, and they generally numbered about six. You cannot persuade the party opposite as to the reasonableness of any Amendments when there are only six of them present. It has been said that we have had a good many cases during the administration of the present Government of Bills being forced through the Committee verbatim et literatim for the purpose of avoiding the Report stage. In the case of this Bill a totally new practice has been instituted. In all previous cases, as far as my memory carries me, when a Bill was forced through the Committee without the alteration of a word or a comma, it was forced through on the ground that the Minister in charge maintained that no reasonable Amendment had been proposed by the Opposition. That was the only ground which could be put forward, What is the present case? That is not the ground in the present instance, because on the very first night of our debate the Government admitted that a reasonable Amendment had been proposed, and they promised to bring up a new clause during the Committee stage of the Bill. Although at a later date they refused all our Amendments, they admitted that upon this particular oceasion the point raised was worthy of their consideration, and would be dealt with during the Report stage. But what have the Government done now? In this respect they have started an absolutely new practice in this House. Having promised to meet these difficulties, when they saw themselves in sight of the promised land of no Report stage, they immediately withdrew their promises, and they sought by a dodge or a piece of strategy to sweep away and abolish the Report stage, because they saw that these Amendments could be put in by a recommittal of the Bill. I say that is an absolutely unheard-of practice. Hitherto, when the Government have admitted the necessity of an Amendment, they have been bound to deal with it in Committee or upon Report stage. This practice is one which may have very extraordinary developments. What is there to prevent a Radical Government doing the same

    129
    thing? What is there to prevent a Government admitting that five, six, or ten Amendments may be necessary in Committee, and saying they will consider them on the Report stage, and then forcing the Bill through without an Amendment, and thus escaping the Report stage by proposing a recommittal of the Bill? This is a deliberate attempt, for the first time in the history of the House of Commons, to cheat hon. Members, because we are a small minority, out of the rights which the Standing Orders of this House have given to us. That is a serious charge to make, but it is a perfectly true charge, and if this practice is persisted in it may be the starting point of an absolutely new practice. We have lost one or two stages of Bills already. The First Reading of a Bill is always taken under the ten minutes rule, and we are now threatened with a total abolition of the Report stage. If the present procedure is tolerated we shall soon be within measurable distance of a condition of things when there will only be the Second Reading and Committee stages of a Bill, with the possibility of a recommittal. I am surprised to sec Conservative Members and a Conservative Government taking such an active part in this mode of procedure. It has been said that a time may come when you will do what you accused the Volksraad of doing— namely, the flinging down of a Bill upon the Table of the House and passing a resolution, and then claiming that that resolution has the power of law. I shall not be surprised if I live to see the day when the Government will walk down to this House, place a Bill on the Table, and move "That this Bill be now made the law of the land." I think it is quite time that hon. Members of this House realised the position into which they are drifting. I do not think it will be in order now to deal with the nature of the recommittal, or discuss the question as to whether there ought to be a complete recommittal of the Bill. The Government motion is a curious one, and it reads as follows—
    "To commit the Bill in respect of a new clause, and an Amendment to the schedule."
    I think that motion is slovenly drafted, because we do not know what the Amendment is. I should like to know, when a Bill is recommitted in respect of an Amendment, are we entitled to move any other Amendment? Is the Bill recommitted entirely, or are we confined to the
    130
    Amendment which actually stands on the Paper?
    MR. SPEAKER: Discussion is confined to the clause standing on the Paper.
    MR. DILLON: What I am not clear about is whether after the Bill is recommitted we shall be empowered to move any other Amendment. Supposing we were to recommit the Bill in respect to a. particular clause, would it be open to us to move any Amendment to that clause? When we recommit this Bill in respect to a particular Amendment have we the right to amend that Amendment? What I have to say in reference to the nature of the Government proposal will, of course, more fittingly come when the proposal of the Government is made. I have only this further remark to make, and it is that I distinctly understood the right hon. Gentleman to promise that this matter would be considered and dealt with on the Report stage, and as regards the words of the Chief Secretary there is no mistake about them, for he distinctly promised that the new clause would be dealt with in Committee at the end of the Bill.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)said that the question referred to was the repealing of a certain clause under the Act of 1872, and what was promised was that if it was not already repealed a proposal to that effect would be made by the Government. Upon looking carefully into the matter he found that Clause 32 was repealed, and there was no necessity to introduce another clause.
    MR. DILLONsaid that what the Government had done on the present occasion had never been done in the House of Commons before, and upon that ground he strongly supported the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for South Donegal. He hoped they would obtain the support of all hon. Members opposite who did not wish to see the procedure upon Bills in the House deprived of certain safeguards.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I may say that my own personal view is that I do not like the practice of passing Bills through Grand Committee and then simply asking the House to pass the Third Reading, when the House as a whole has had no opportunity of doing

    131
    more than give its general assent. But it cannot be urged in the ease of this Bill that the House has had no opportunity of discussing its details. For four nights we have listened to the same old arguments, dressed up in the same old words, upon the details of the Bill, forming the most striking example of Parliamentary endurance that my recollection of House of Commons procedure furnishes. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have thought fit to attack the Government for what they choose to regard as something in the nature of a breach of' faith, or a violation of the privileges of the House. One would suppose that hon. Gentleman opposite were an oppressed minority, struggling against an unscrupulous and tyrannical Government; but the circumstances are exactly reversed. All the patience has been on our side, and all the wrong has been suffered by us. I do not wish to enter into any recriminations. I have had countless bargains across the floor of the House with hon. Gentlemen opposite when I was in much more acute political antagonism with them than I now am, and I have never had reason for complaint until the other night. I am perfectly certain hon. Gentlemen do not think they have agreed to and broken any bargain, or that they have any suspicion of an arrangement with the Government regarding the conduct of the Committee on this Bill; but the impression loft on my mind is that the hon. and learned Member for North Louth made a proposal which is now substantially embodied in the clause on the Paper, and suggested that, in consideration of the Government adopting his view, the proceedings on the Bill would be shortened, and he went so far as to suggest that they might even finish that night, and that the proposal of the Chief Secretary might be discussed on the Thursday. But the hon. Member for East Mayo then said, as was quite true, that the hon. and learned Member for North Louth had no right to bind the whole of the party. I then quite recognised that a too rigid interpretation ought not to be put on the suggestion of the
    hon. and learned Member for North Louth, and that the debate might go on on the Wednesday, and that we would be able to bring up the new clause at a convenient hour on Thursday. As far as I know, nothing more was said, and the matter was left there. I do not wish to use the word "obstruction" at all, nor to have any controversy with hon. Gentlemen opposite, but the very moment the arrangement or the supposed arrangement was concluded they began to discuss the Bill with an assiduity, a perseverance and a power even of repetition which carried the discussion of the Bill not only over Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday, but until about half-past two o'clock on the Monday night. Thus, in making our concession to the hon. and learned Member for North Louth the Government have got no consideration. We had no desire to see this Amendment introduced. We offered it for value, and we never got the value. Therefore, if there is any complaint, and I am very fur from making any complaint, it is on the side of the Government, and not on the side of hon. Members opposite.
    DR. AMBROSE: We have just listened to one of the most extraordinary speeches which the House has heard during this session. The right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to criticise the speeches of the Irish Members on this very important Bill, and to say that they were repetitions. I should have thought that the more honourable course for the Government to adopt would be, as preliminary to the dissolution, to make it known to all concerned that the Tory Government—the strongest and most intelligent ever seen in this House—were granting relief to the Irish landlords. That would be making a clean breast of it. I must protest against the manner in which the Government have endeavoured to avoid discussion on the Report stage of this Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 116; Noes, 81. (Division List No. 220.)

    AYES.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

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

    Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire)

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

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

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

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Bartley, George C. T.

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

    Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Bristol)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Cruddas, William Donaldson

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Charrington, Spencer

    Curzon, Viscount

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lowe, Francis William

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Flower, Ernest

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Monckton, Edward Philip

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

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Monk, Charles James

    Spencer, Ernest

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

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

    Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Morrison, Walter

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury)

    Mount, William George

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

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

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Vincent, Sir E. (Exeter)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Henderson, Alexander

    Percy, Earl

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Welby, Lt- Col A. C. E. (Taunton)

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Pierpoint, Robert

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

    Houston, R. P.

    Pilkington, R. (Lancs. Newton)

    Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

    Howard, Joseph

    Plate-Higgins, Frederick

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

    Purvis, Robert

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

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Pym, C. Guy

    Wylie, Alexander

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Wyndham, George

    Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn)

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Leighton, Stanley

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Sir William Walrond and

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Mr. Anstruther.

    NOES.

    Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

    Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

    O'Kelly, James

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Malley, William

    Ambrose, Robert

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Billson, Alfred

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Birrell, Augustine

    Harwood, George

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Blake, Edward

    Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Brigg, John

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Holland, William Henry

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Burns, John

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Burt, Thomas

    Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Caldwell, James

    Jones, William (Carnarvons.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Cawley, Frederick

    Langley, Batty

    Ure, Alexander

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb l'nd)

    Wallace, Robert

    Colville, John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Commins, Andrew

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Weir, James Galloway

    Crean, Eugene

    MacDonnell Dr. MA (Queen's C.)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Crilly, Daniel

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

    Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

    M'Dermott, Patrick

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

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Leod, John

    Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbro')

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Maddison, Fred

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Dillon, John

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Doogan, P. C.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Duckworth, James

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Captain Donelan and

    Emmott, Alfred

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Mr.Patrick O'Brien.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Bill re-committed in respect of the New Clause (Exclusion of certain annuities and rent-charges), and the Amendment to the Schedule.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.]
    A Clause—
    "(1) Section one of this Act shall not apply to any annual sum charged upon land the fee simple of which has after the creation of such charge and before the thirteenth day of April one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six been conveyed to a purchaser on a sale.
    "(2) Sections three and four of this Act shall not apply to any tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission out of hereditaments the fee simple of which has after the tenth day of August one thousand eight hundred and seventy - two and before the

    135
    twelfth day of May one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine been conveyed to a purchaser on a sale.
    "(3) For the purpose of showing that this section does not apply a statutory declaration or such other evidence as the Land Commission may require shall be prima facie, evidence.
    "(4) This section shall not extend to a mortgage or a marriage or other family settlement or arrangement."—(Mr. G. W. Halfour.)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
    MR. FLYNN: May I ask the Chief Secretary to explain what is meant by this clause?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The principle of the clause is that purchasers purchasing after certain dates may be supposed to have purchased with notice of change, and consequently they should not be entitled to benefit under the Bill. There are really three parties to be considered: the vendor, the purchaser of the estate, and the Church Fund. Strictly speaking, it is to the vendor that the benefit should go, but that is not possible, and it remains, therefore, to decide whether the Church Fund or the purchaser shall have the benefit. The clause provides that the benefit shall be given to the Church Fund rather than to the purchaser. The date mentioned in the first sub-section is the date on which the Land Bill of 1896 was introduced, when notice was given to all and sundry that the Government proposed to reduce the annuities to be discharged by the Land Commission from fifty - two years to forty - five. The second date mentioned in the second sub-section is the date of the introduction of the Tithe Rent Bill last year, which might be taken as notice to purchasers that the change we are now making by this Bill would be introduced. I think there is a great deal to be said for the proposal of the Member for North Louth, and I recognised that when I undertook to put down this Amendment; but I think it is rather doubtful if the additional gain to the Church Fund will be balanced by the introduction of a complicating provision.
    MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be awaking for the first time to the fact that the complications of this
    136
    Bill are a matter of some concern. The Bill is complicated from beginning to end. The proper way to have dealt with the subject would have been by a Bill of one short simple clause making a charge on the Church Fund of a million and a half of money to be expended among the Irish landlords. That would carry out the proposal in the present Bill without any complications, and that has been the practice adopted with reference to other charges on the Fund, such as the charge for Intermediate Education and the Congested Districts Board.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the whole Bill.
    MR. DILLON: I am not discussing the whole Bill. I am merely referring to the complaint of the Chief Secretary that a. fresh complication has been introduced. It is equivalent to suggesting that by throwing a bucket of water into the sea there is danger of creating a flood.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is reverting to a discussion of the Bill, which he says is complicated. He must confine himself to the one clause before the Committee.
    MR. DILLON: I have no desire to enter on a discussion of the whole Bill at all. I was pointing out, in reply to an argument used by the right hon. Gentleman himself, that really an additional complication is of no matter. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he has passed over altogether Sub-section 4, which I confess I am absolutely unable to understand. It says: "This section shall not extend to a mortgage or a marriage "—
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: "Or other family settlement or arrangement."
    MR. DILLON: I am still in doubt as to its purport. What has a mortgage got to do with a tithe rent-charge? The Attorney General for Ireland laughs scornfully, but I am only an ignorant layman and really I cannot understand the meaning of this sub-section. It is all very well for Gentlemen learned in the law to sneer, but any ordinary Member of the House of Commons is perfectly entitled to the explanation I now ask for.
    MR. ATKINSON: The sub-section provides for the exclusion of a mortgage: or a marriage or other family settlement

    137
    from this section. It would be ridiculous because a mortgage was made in 1872 that the owner of the land should be prevented from having his tithe fixed now, or that the existence of a family settlement should have a similar result.
    SIR J. COLOMBsaid he only rose to ask a question, but as the Ministerial Bench was empty he did not see the use of putting his question at that time, and would therefore defer it.
    MR. FLYNNsaid that as he understood the clause it would not apply to the annuities and tithe rent charges before 1896. It applied to the annuities and tithe rent-charges created after the 13th April, 1896. The exclusion could not apply to those who purchased under the Land Purchase Act, because the Act of 1886 made their position clear, but it did apply to a section of purchasers to whom attention had been drawn in the earlier stages of the Bill— namely, those persons who purchased the holdings over the heads of the tenants who were seeking to purchase under the 40th section of the Land Purchase Act. They got the benefit of the reduction of the tithe rent-charge, as also did insurance companies who foreclosed upon the estate of a tenant proprietor who got into difficulties and became the owners of it. Those surely should be excluded. There was another class of purchaser who ought also to be excluded. Oases like that of Lord Ardilaun, for instance, who would get all the benefit of the reduction of the tithe rent-charge, because he purchased his estate after the date mentioned in the section. But the estate was purchased subject to the tithe rent-charge, and with the full knowledge that that charge was a certain sum, and the owner never sup posed there would be another largo reduction of the tithe rent-charge. Yet it was intended to give this wealthy family—who purchased the property to obtain a status in the country, more than anything else—the full benefits of the reduction, or, in other words, to present them, out of the Irish Church Fund, with seven years tithe rent-charge. Was it reasonable that Lord Ardilaun should get the benefit of an Act which, whether it was good or bad, was certainly never intended to relieve people of that class? The tenant purchasers could not be interfered with, they were not damnified in any way, but there were many estates to which it was thought and hoped the
    138
    40th section would apply to which it had not applied, and the poor unfortunate tenants had been chivied from one place to another. There were some cases where the offer of the tenant had not been considered enough, and another person, having the knowledge of the amount the tenant had offered, was allowed to purchase the property over his head, with the full knowledge of what the tithe-rent charge was, and he also got the benefit of this Act.
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Mr. FLAVIN, Kerry, N.). House counted, and, forty Members being found present—
    MR. FLYNNsaid he was convinced that the clause did not meet the views of the hon. Member for North Louth, who had taken objection on the last occasion, and therefore he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that before the Amendment could be moved the clause must be read a second time.
    MR. FLYNNsaid that large landowners were certainly not entitled to the benefits of the Act which had been introduced for the purpose of assisting poor landlords, and under the circumstances he hoped the Committee would not pass the clause.
    SIR J. COLOMBsaid that he would now take the opportunity of putting a question to which he had referred earlier in the evening. The tenants who had purchased under the Ashbourne Act, and were paying the tithe rent-charge, would by the operation of this Bill be excluded from any benefit they would otherwise obtain if the clause passed, and if that was so they would not feel any obligation to hon. Gentlemen opposite through whose attitude the clause was initiated. If the clause was going to operate in that way he asked that it might be withdrawn.
    MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid that the hon. Gentleman had stated that any tenant purchaser who had purchased under the 40th Clause of the Land Purchase Act, and at the same time had not redeemed the tithe, would lose all benefit under the Bill. He did not know there were many of those cases, although undoubtedly there were some. The general practice had been to redeem the

    139
    tithe at the time of purchase. He had no desire to press the clause, which he had only brought forward because he had given an undertaking to do so. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were of opinion that there was no benefit in it he should certainly not press it.
    SERJEANT HEMPHILLthought the clause was a good one in principle, although, when it had been read a second time, there were one or two Amendments to which he should call attention. He believed there would be a great deal of disappointment in Ireland if the clause were to be withdrawn, and although it was not so perfect as he would have liked to have seen it he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would proceed to the Second Reading of the clause.
    MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid there was no use in proceeding with the Second Reading of the clause after the expression of opinion opposite.
    SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid as he understood the remarks of the hon. Gentleman below the gangway, he had no desire to withdraw the clause altogether.
    MR. FLYNNdisclaimed any intention to object to the clause. All he was doing was pointing out a few of its defects.
    MR. HERBERT LEWISwas of opinion that this was not a question for Irish Members alone. The clause as it stood increased the security of the British taxpayer. Though he should support the clause as it stood, he should also support the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Cork, for the reason that he failed to understand why those who purchased a month or two ago should be placed in a better position than those who purchased in earlier years. He thought that the clause might be accepted by everybody, but at the same time hon. Members had a right to endeavour to amend what appeared to be a very great blot upon it. Why should those who purchased within the last few months be placed in a better position than those who purchased ten or fifteen years ago? The dividing line ought to be the date of the Bill.
    MR. POWER MR. POWER (Waterford, E.), who was indistinctly heard, said very few of those who purchased under the Land Purchase Bill would be affected, for the reason
    140
    that it was the invariable practice of the Land Commission to take twenty years purchase for the tithes, and it was only in very few cases that the tenant proprietors were liable for the tithe rent-charge. With regard to the Amendments which had been made, they were naturally anxious to preserve the fund from being frittered away for purposes for which it was not intended.
    SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid he had given notice of an Amendment which was not on the Paper. His right hon. and learned friend would recollect that the Tithe Rent-charge Act applied not only to fee simple land but also to what was described in the Tithe Rent-charge Act as equivalent estates in land. The clause in this Bill as it now stood would only apply to fee simple land, and the object of his Amendment was to make it apply also to equivalent estates.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In line 2, after the word 'which,' to insert the words' or any estate equivalent to a perpetual estate or [interest within the meaning of I and 2 Vic, c. 109.' "—(Serjt, Hemphill.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ATKINSONsaid he did not see any objection to his hon. friend's Amendment, but at the same time the words of the Amendment would have to be altered.
    SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid if the right hon. Gentleman could suggest more appropriate words he would not at all object.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. FLYNN MR. FLYNN, in moving the Amendment standing in his name, said that he thought the insertion of the date was a matter that would give the benefits of the Act to those for whom they were not intended. Those who purchased after 13th April, 1896, would get the benefit of the reduction of the tithe rent-charge by seven years instalments. He was anxious to get to the Third Reading of the Bill, and therefore he would content himself with moving the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In line 2, to leave out from the word

    141
    'charge' to the word 'been,' in line 4."—(Mr. Flynn.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR,in opposing the Amendment, stated that a purchaser of an estate must be assumed to have had full notice of the charges upon it. In 1896 the principle was laid down that the term of fifty-two years would be reduced to forty-five, and those who purchased estates subsequently expected that reduction. That was a consideration which ought to be taken into account. It appeared to him that all the arguments that might be urged against the clause as a whole might also be urged against this limitation of the clause.
    MR. DILLONsaid the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman was very singular. He said that on the Second Reading of the Bill in 1896 be stated in the course of his speech that it was the intention of the Government to alter the condition with regard to the fifty-two annual instalments, and to knock off' seven years, and that therefore a purchaser coming after that date had due notice of the intention of the Government. A more preposterous objection never was submitted to the House of Commons. He would illustrate the absurdity of the position. He held in his hand the famous Treasury Memorandum with respect to tithe rent-charge in Ireland, which was issued on 19th August, 1895, and signed by R. W. Hanbury, the present Secretary to the Treasury. That was far more important than the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in that House. The Memorandum pointed out that it would be most unjust and un reasonable to expect that the fifty-two years instalments would be reduced. The thing was dealt with in an argumentative fashion, and the Treasury put down its foot and announced in a solemn form in a Memorandum that they would not reduce the fifty-two years instalments. The Treasury gave reasons, which he need not again read out, why it would be unjust and inexpedient to consent to this reduction. The position of the right hon. Gentleman was this: although the British Treasury issued this solemn Memorandum, the speech he subsequently made threw overboard the Treasury, and announced that the then Government
    142
    had the intention of reducing the instalments. That was a perfectly preposterous contention, and he could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman proposed to base so important a clause, or provision in this new clause, on such a flimsy argument as that. He knew himself two cases that would be affected by this clause, and there might be others. There had not been many sales of land on a large scale since 1896. The cases he referred to were connected with the estates of Lord Ardilaun and the Duke of Devonshire. This proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would have the effect of exempting Lord Ardilaun from the provisions of the section—in other words, of giving Lord Ardilaun the advantage of the clause. That was a very extraordinary thing to do for Lord Ardilaun, but it said a great deal for the Christian charity of the right hon. Gentleman. Lord Ardilaun was worth a million and a half of money.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: More than that.
    MR. DILLON: Say a couple of millions. He purchased a large estate in Killarney, but the extraordinary thing was that he also purchased the Daily Express with part of his money, and it was pouring out on the right hon. Gentleman the most vile abuse. The right hon. Gentleman was insisting on this proviso in spite of the fact that Lord Ardilaun devoted a large sum of money to opposing him. He (Mr. Dillon) trusted that his hon. friend would persist in the Amendment and go to a division upon it.
    SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid that this Amendment was really important. The Amendment could not possibly affect those who purchased under the Act of 1896, because their tithe rent-charge was fixed under that Act. Therefore, the section about reducing the term from fifty-two years to forty-five years would not apply to them, because they were not interested in annuities terminable at the end of fifty-two years. If they looked at the Act they would see how the matter stood. The Land Purchase Act of 1887, in Section 15, provided that the Land Commission might, if they thought it expedient, order the redemption of any tithe rent - charge at a, price to be fixed by the Land Commission, and that they might also order (Subsection 3) that any such redemption of

    143
    tithe rent-charge payable to the Commission should be made, without the previous consent of the Commissioners, to the Treasury. The Act of 1896, Section 37, provided that where the Land Commission, in pursuance of Section 15 of the Land Act of 1887, ordered the redemption of tithe rent-charge at a price of not less than twenty times the amount of such tithe rent-charge, the consent of the Treasury should not be required for such redemption. The Act further provided that the foregoing enactment should not apply to any annual sum payable under Section 32 of the Irish Church Act, 1869, and as amended by any other Act; but the Land Commission might order the
    redemption of such tithe rent-charge at a sum calculated on the basis of the annual sum, being for the term of forty-five instead of fifty-two years. That was where, he apprehended, the forty-five years period was got. Any tenant who bought under that Act had the tithe redeemed on these terms and was subject only to the annual charge, which was terminable at the expiration of forty-five years and not fifty-two years. he thought that completely disposed of any objection there could be to this Amendment.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 122; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 221.)

    AYES.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon Lord George

    Rankin, Sir James

    Arrol, Sir William

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Remnant, James Fanquharson

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

    Helder, Augustus

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

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

    Henderson, Alexander

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trott'r

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Round, James

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Houston, R, P.

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Bond, Edward

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

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Brassey, Albert

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.

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

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Sidebottom, T. Harrop (Stalyb.)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(C'rn.)

    Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Leighton, Stanley

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Colomb, Sir John Ch. Ready

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.)

    Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Spencer, Ernest

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Lowe, Francis William

    Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

    Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

    Lowles, John

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Cruddas, William Donaldson

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Curzon, Viscount

    Macdona, John Gumming

    Strauss, Arthur

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Finch, George H.

    Morrison, Walter

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Tn't'n)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Mount, William George

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Flower, Ernest

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

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

    Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm)

    Garfit, William

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Rbt. Wellesley

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

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Wylie, Alexander

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Wyndham, George

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Purvis, Robert

    Sir William Walrond and

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Pym, C. Guy

    Mr. Anstruther.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Burt, Thomas

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Billson, Alfred

    Caldwell, James

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Birrell, Augustine

    Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

    Ambrose, Robert

    Blake, Edward

    Cawley, Frederick

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Brigg, John

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Commins, Andrew

    Crean, Eugene

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Crilly, Daniel

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

    Langley, Batty

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Shaw, T (Hawick Burghs)

    Dillon, John

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Doogan, P. C.

    MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn'sC.)

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Duckworth, James

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Emmott, Alfred

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Evershed, Sydney

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Ure, Alexander

    Fenwick, Charles

    M'Leod, John

    Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Maddison, Fred.

    Wason, Eugene

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Williams, John Carvell(Notts.)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

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

    Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Harwood, George

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Hazell, Walter

    O'Kelly, James

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

    O'Malley, William

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon Charles H.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Holland, William Henry

    Pilkington, Sir G. A (Lancs S.W.)

    Captain Donelan and

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Mr.Patrick O'Brien.

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Provand, Andrew Dry burgh

    MR. FLYNNmoved to omit the words "the twelfth day of May one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine" in order to insert "the passing of this Act." The section was to apply to all rent-charges created since a certain date and before the 12th May, 1899. The reason given for selecting the latter date was that last year the Government stated their intention of bringing in a Tithes Bill, and therefore the benefit of the reduction of the tithe rent-charge should be given to all who purchased after that date. The announcement of the introduction of a Tithes Bill was made by the Chief Secretary, who was not even a member of the Cabinet; and surely it was stretching the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility much too far to argue that that was a sufficient reason for saying that those who purchased since that date should receive the benefits of the Act. How did the purchasers know the present Government would remain in power, or that, after their experience in regard to the agricultural rates, they would have the temerity to go on with such a measure as the present, which was nothing more nor less than taking money from a public fund and handing it over to the Irish landlords? The Nationalist Members desired to limit the harm to be done by the Bill as much as possible, and to give the benefits to purchasers since May, 1899, was an altogether unnecessary extension of the provision. The only argument put forward in defence of the proposal was that on that date the Chief Secretary made a speech in reference to a Bill which was not proceeded with But how many
    146
    people read the right hon. Gentleman's speeches? It was absurd to suppose that the whole of the population of Ireland read the speeches of the Chief Secretary, and, while the Bill bristled with absurdities, this topped everything. The Amendment was very reasonable and moderate, and should commend itself to the Committee, even if it did not to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In line 8, to leave out from the word 'before,' to the word' been,' in line 9, and insert the words 'the passing of this Act,' instead thereof."—(Mr. Flynn.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid the principle of the clause depended entirely on the fact that on a certain date purchasers of land received notice that it was the intention of the Government to make certain changes which were included in this Bill. It had been urged that he attached undue importance to his speeches, but when he made the announcement referred to he was expressing not merely his own view, but the deliberate opinion of the Cabinet on the subject. Under those circumstances it was absurd to maintain that purchasers of land would not purchase having regard to what the Government intended to do in respect of tithes.
    MR. DILLONcontended that the principle laid down by the Chief Secre-

    147
    tary, that the announcement of the intentions of the Government was to be taken as governing the price of a commodity, was one entirely unheard of. To say that if a Minister made an announcement of an intention of the Government that was absolute proof that that intention would be carried out was most extraordinary. The fate of Governments was very uncertain, and even the present Administration with its great majority had broken down in the attempt to carry out certain intentions they had announced with much more solemnity than was ever the case with regard to tithes. Not one in a hundred of the English Members of the House would ever have remembered that such an announcement had been made. In regard to the Education Bill an announcement was made in the early days of the Government, when they had the world before them, and a majority of 150 behind them, but although the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House pledged themselves to that Bill it was never carried into law. It was now maintained that because in the fifth year of the existence of the Government, when they were beginning to become decrepit with age, the Chief Secretary announced that a certain Bill would be introduced, every purchaser of land in Ireland was solemnly warned of the intention of the Government and increased his price. A
    more grotesque or flimsy argument had never been placed before the House of Commons in support of or in opposition to any Amendment. He was not supporting this proposal because it was one directed against the landlords. As a matter of fact, it would hit more tenant proprietors than landlords, but he supported it because he believed it was fair and reasonable. The right hon. Gentleman was exhibiting the same unreasonable, irrational, and cantankerous spirit that he had shown throughout the whole course of the debates. On a previous occasion it was said there had been an honourable understanding arrived at that the Committee stage should be obtained on a certain evening, and that he had been guilty of a breach of that understanding. That was not the fact, because at the time he pointed out that the hon. and learned Member for North Louth spoke only for himself, and that so far as he (Mr. Dillon) and his friends were concerned, the date would depend a great deal on the attitude taken up by the Government in regard to concessions. No concessions were made, and the debates were therefore prolonged. They were now being met in exactly the same spirit, and it was evident that no Amendment whatever coming from the Irish benches was to be accepted.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 140; Noes, 96. (Division List No. 222.)

    AYES.

    Arrol, Sir William

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Hardy, Laurence

    Atkinson. Right Hon. John

    Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

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

    Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Henderson, Alexander

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

    Curzon, Viscount

    Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Barry Rt. Hn. A H Smith-(Hants)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Houston, R. P.

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

    Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Bill, Charles

    Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William.

    Bond, Edward

    Finch, George H.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Brassey, Albert

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Knowles, Lees

    Bullard, Sir Henry

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Flower, Ernest

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

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

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Edw H

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Fry, Lewis

    Leighton, Stanley

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Garfit, William

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swan.)

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

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Lockwood, Lt. -Col. A. R.

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Charrington, Spencer

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Lowe, Francis William

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Lowles, John

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Macdona, John Gumming

    Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monmthsh.)

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Morrison, Walter

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Strauss, Arthur

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Mount, William George

    Round, James

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

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

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

    Welby, Lt.-Cl. A. C. E. (Taunt'n)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

    Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

    Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

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

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)

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

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Wylie, Alexander

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Wyndham, George

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Purvis, Robert

    Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

    Pym, C. Guy

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Rankin, Sir James

    Spencer, Ernest

    Sir William Walrond and

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset)

    Mr. Anstruther.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Kelly, James

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

    O'Malley, William

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Ambrose, Robert

    Harwood, George

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Hazell, Walter

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Hemphill Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Hogan, James Francis

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Billson, Alfred

    Holland, William Henry

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Birrell, Augustine

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Blake, Edward

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Brigg, John

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Joicey, Sir James

    Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

    Burt, Thomas

    Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Caldwell, James

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

    Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

    Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Commins, Andrew

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Crean, Eugene

    MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q'n's C.)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Crilly, Daniel

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    M' Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Ure, Alexander

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

    Dillon, John

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Wason, Eugene

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Leod, John

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Emmott, Alfred

    Maddison, Fred.

    Williams, J. Carvell- (Notts.)

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

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

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

    Evershed, Sydney

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Captain Donelan and

    Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Clause, as amended, added.
    Schedule: —
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 5, line 8, to leave out from beginning of line to end of schedule."—(Mr. G. W. Balfour.)
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked the right hon. Gentleman to explain why it was proposed to leave out these words. He wished the Committee to understand that this appeal which it was now proposed to exclude was identically the same in substance as the appeal in Clause 4. He put it to
    150
    the Attorney General in Committee whether the effect of Clause 4 was not to repeal the whole of Section 7, except in regard to the definition of the word "owner," which it was necessary to retain. He understood the Attorney General to accept that view as being correct. If that was so, what they did in the schedule was exactly what he suggested would be the effect of the original clause in the Bill. If there was to be any choice he thought the words of the schedule were the best.
    MR. ATKINSONreplied that this was simply a consequential Amendment

    151
    rendered necessary by the introduction of the new clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.): The English and Scottish Members of the House have been content for the most part to leave the discussion of the details of this measure to hon. Gentlemen who come from the other side of St. George's Channel; and if the Bill were confined in most of its provisions to the question of lay tithe, mischievous as I believe them to be in principle and indefensible in method, I for one should have been satisfied with recording a silent vote against the third reading. Lay tithe always has been, and is still, a variable quantity. It is for the most part, at any rate, a payment made by one set of private persons to another; and any scheme of readjustment is a matter in which the taxpayers of Great Britain have very little direct concern. But when we come to the provisions of the Bill which deal with the ecclesiastical tithe they present a totally different aspect. The admitted effect— and I take my stand on the statements made by the Chief Secretary himself—of the provisions of this Bill, in so far as ecclesiastical tithe is concerned, is that they will involve a considerable immediate and a much larger prospective encroachment on the fund of the Irish Church; a fund created by the Legislature, for the administration of which it cannot divest itself of responsibility, which was solemnly dedicated by Parliament to the relief of unavoidable calamity and suffering in Ireland, and which is at this moment the only security for very large advances made at the risk of the Imperial taxpayer out of the Imperial Exchequer. I am, therefore, under no necessity to apologise—although this seems at first sight a purely Irish question—for asking the attention of the House for a few moments to this aspect of the Bill. The Irish Church Fund will be invaded, and will be curtailed in two distinct ways if this measure passes into law. I apologise for repeating proposi-
    152
    tions which have been so frequently put to the House in the course of this debate. In the first place, where tithe rent-charge has been in effect redeemed, the Bill proposes to reduce the number of years during which the purchase annuity has to run from fifty-two to forty-five years, or in other words, by something like one-seventh, with the acknowledged consequence that after a certain lapse of time there will be a loss to the capital value of the Church Fund approaching 1½ million. This fact has been admitted by the Chief Secretary himself. How was the term of fifty-two years, for which it is now proposed to substitute forty-five years originally fixed? It was fixed by the Irish Church Act of 1869, and when the proposal was made by Mr. Gladstone that the Irish tithe-payer—which, of course, means practically the Irish landlord—should be allowed to redeem this perpetual annual charge by an annuity spread over fifty-two years, it was indignantly denounced, and by no one with more vehemence than by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, not because it imposed an undue burden upon the Irish landlord, but, on the contrary, because it involved a scandalous injustice to the Irish Church. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman that it was a unique combination of sacrilege and bribery—sacrilege, because it proposed to divert an ecclesiastical fund to the relief of the Irish landlords; bribery, because it proposed by that act of sacrilege to conciliate and buy off the opposition of the landlords to the disestablishment of the Church. Three years later, in 1872, when there had been the amplest opportunity for all parties concerned to consider the position, and if need be, revise it, the arrangement of 1869 with regard to the redemption of tithe, and the number of years over which the annuity was to be spread, was deliberately renewed by Parliament. And now, after the lapse of more than thirty years, when the land has changed hands over and over again, when those who were responsible as public trustees for the administration of the Church Fund had the best right to believe that they had a permanent basis of settlement, Parliament is asked to set the bargain aside. And upon what plea? Upon the most unsubstantial and illusory plea I have ever heard advanced in a serious discussion—namely, that not only the

    153
    parties immediately concerned, the landlords on the one side and the representatives of the Church on the other, but the Executive Government of the day and the two Houses of Parliament were, first in 1869 and again in 1872, the victims of a clerical blunder. I should very much like to know what would have been said if, instead of the proposal being to reduce the term of fifty-two years to forty-five years, it was, in consequence of some change in the rate of interest and the value of money, to raise the term from fifty-two years to fifty-nine years. Hon. Members opposite would have come down to the House clothed in the panoply of landlord logic, and declared that a more iniquitous interference with the rights of property and sanctity of contract had never been suggested, and the very foundations of the House would have been rocked by the storm of indignation which the proposal would have aroused. I pass from that feature in this measure to the second branch, that is the proposal for dealing with the ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge. More mischievous in principle, and certainly not less injurious in the result, is this second proposal—the project to make the annual payment of ecclesiastical tithe vary according to the scale of judicial rents. I must point out to the House the fact that prior to 1872 ecclesiastical tithe, like lay tithe, was a variable quantity; but in 1872 ecclesiastical tithe was by the deliberate act of Parliament transformed into a fixed annual payment. Am I to be told that that was not a liar-gain? I gather from some statements which fell from the Chief Secretary that he is prepared to dispute that proposition on the extraordinary and, indeed, unintelligible ground that there was hardly any debate on the Bill of 1872 during its pasage through Parliament. I say, on the contrary, that in the fact that this proposal, completely transforming the character of ecclesiastical tithe, passed in comparative silence through both Houses, you have the best possible evidence that the two parties concerned—the trustees of the Church Fund on the one hand and the tithe-payers on the other—had by negotiations come to an agreement which they proposed should be ratified in the form of a solemn statute. And there was good reason why both sides should have arrived at such an arrangement. On the one side the administrators of the Church Fund
    154
    may have thought it was an enormous advantage to them to have a fixed income which they could forecast five or six years in advance, instead of an income which was always fluctuating according to the prices of agricultural produce. On the other hand, the landlords had an equally-good reason for entering into the bargain, for the prices of agricultural produce had been rising, and continued to rise for four or five years after 1872, and there was every reason to expect that the prices would go on rising. Therefore a fixed charge on the land would be more favourable to them than a varying tithe. Whatever were the reasons which influenced the minds of the two parties to this arrangement, the arrangement was made with the sanction of Parliament, and it has lasted for thirty years, and has regulated ever since the transactions of all persons interested in Irish land. Why is it to be ripped up? What is the emergency? What the justification for rescinding after an interval of twenty-eight years a solemn statutory compact?. The Government are well advised in not. defending the proposal on the ground of the fall in prices. For the possible rise on the one hand and the possible fall OIL the other of agricultural prices are the very contingencies to guard against which this statutory arrangement was entered into. Supposing, instead of the price of wheat and oats, which are the two staple products according to which the tithe rent-charge varied, having fallen, prices had continuously risen and the Government had now proposed to tear up the bargain of 1872; on the ground that it had proved, injurious to the Irish Church Fund, what would have been the indignation of the landlords! In truth this proposal to relieve the Irish tithe-payer of the sum which he had contracted to pay is but the culmination and the climax of a series of measures, for which this Parliament is responsible, for the subvention and relief of particular classes and interests, at the expense of the community at large. The series began in 1896, when the English and Scotch landlords were relieved of half their rates. It continued in 1897, when a large bounty was given to denominational schools to enable them to compote in the race with the Board schools. It was further developed in 1898 when the Irish landlords, in order to buy their assent, which is not to be had for

    155
    nothing, to a scheme for the establishment of local government in Ireland, which Lord Salisbury had prophetically denounced as even worse than Home Rule, were relieved of their one-half of the poor rate. In 1899—these things occur under the present dispensation with the monotonous regularity of the seasons—there was the proposal to relieve the ecclesiastical tithe receivers in England. Now, in 1900, lest any session of this Parliament should be left undistinguished by one of these enterprises in which a particular interest is championed by the Executive Government and by the Parliamentary majority of the day as against the community at large, we have the proposal to relieve the Irish tithe-payer. Yes, but this Bill, although it has, in common with its predecessors, the common characteristic of relieving one class at the expense of the whole, has one development on which I must congratulate the Government—a peculiar-feature of its own. Hitherto in 1896, 1898, and 1899, when you have been granting these doles and endowments to particular classes—listening to the cries of the unfortunate or rather satisfying the clamours of the importunate—you have, in relieving your privileged class of the burden which it previously had to bear, made good to the fund depleted the loss which it would have sustained. You have made it good out of the Imperial taxation to the local rates. Far be it from me to suggest that the deficiency that is going to be created in the Irish Church Fund by the operation of this Bill should be met by Imperial taxation. That is not my proposition. I denounce the whole thing as an injustice, and as absolutely unnecessary and inexcusable. But the fact remains that this is the first occasion that the State has come and said as between two persons, the one of whom was a debtor and the other a creditor, the one bound to pay to the other by agreement and by statute in perpetuity £100 a year—has come and said to the debtor, "How much owest thou?" "A hundred pounds." "Write down £75." And that without a halfpenny of compensation, remember, to the creditor, whose income for all time to come is reduced by 25 per cent. At any rate, that proposal may have, and I think ought to have, one result—it ought to clear not only our minds but our debates of the cant—for cant it has become—about the inviolate sacredness of property and contract.
    156
    I venture to warn hon. Gentlemen who sit on that side of the House, and who are going to vote for the Third Reading of this Bill, that they are estopped by the Vote that they are going to give to-night from ever protesting again on the ground of principle against any invasion on the part of the Legislature of proprietary rights. I do not know myself any clearer case of what the Romans used to call novce tabulæ in the whole history of confiscation. How has that come about? One of my hon. friends, I think the hon. Member for the Border Burghs, in the debate on the Second Beading of this Bill, pointed out that there had not been a single argument used in support of this measure—in support, that is to say, of the diminution of the statutory payment chargeable to the tithe-payers in this case—that could not be used with equal force in favour of cutting down both the interest and principal of mortgages. What is the difference in point of principle between the claim of a mortgagee in the case of a private contract, and the claim of the Irish Church Fund in this case? There is no difference in point of principle, but there is a great difference in point of fact. Who are the parties to this bargain? On the one side you have the Irish landlords, an articulate and organised party, a class which, as we know by recent experience, is capable of inflicting on the Government the luxury of an annual defeat in the House of Lords. That is a peculiar prerogative of theirs which is not possessed by any other class. On the other hand, we have a public fund which has no organ of expression, of self-defence, of resistance, except the right hon. Gentlemen who sit upon the bench, and who are by the law and constitution of this country its appointed custodians and trustees. An hon. friend reminds me that as lately as last year, for this Bill was introduced last year and then withdrawn, owing to what is called the exigencies of Parliamentary business, a very prominent representative of the Irish landlords (the Duke of Abercorn) said in another place, "Why should this Government, the strongest in our time, not only in ability, but in votes, not support their friends who support them?" That was asked last year when this Bill was withdrawn; it is not going to be withdrawn this year, and those who support the Government are at last to

    157
    be supported. I pass to what I consider to be the crowning absurdity and injustice of this Bill. That is the proposal that in the future the tithe rent-charge is to vary according to the scale of the judicial rent. I should have thought that such a proposition as that would hardly admit of argument at all. Let the House consider for a moment what it moans. This matter is going to be arranged county by county. You are not going to make an average of the reduced rents over Ireland as a whole; you are going to deal with it piecemeal, and the amount by which the landlord's contribution as a tithe payer to the Irish Church Fund is to be reduced is to correspond with the amount by which the judicial rents in his county have been reduced. The result is that wherever the reduction in the judicial rent has been greatest the reduction of the tithe rent-charge is greatest. Therefore it is exactly in those places where, in the judgment of the Land Courts, the landlords have exacted rents which did not equitably or morally belong to them, but were based on tenants' improvements, that the greatest relief is given. There is one circumstance connected with the selection of this particular standard of judicial reduction—what I will call the standard of confiscation—which I think the House ought to bear in mind, because I believe it explains the whole of this Bill. The only ground upon which the Bill can be logically based is that it is an instalment of compensation to the landlords for the reduction of rents which have been made under Act of Parliament. I cannot myself see any other ground on which the fall in judicial rents should henceforth be treated as the basis on which tithe rent-charge should be reduced. I will refer hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly right hon. Gentlemen, to a speech of the Duke of Devonshire the other day. He pointed out that the actual economic fall in rents measured by experience in this country is as great as, and in many cases far greater than, the compulsory reductions which have been made by the land tribunals in Ireland. He might also have pointed out —his audience was particularly appropriate for the purpose—that so far as these excessive rents, which have been reduced by the operation of the law, were based upon the appropriation by a landlord of the value put by a tenant, through his industry and capital, into the land, they were morally and politically inde-
    158
    fensible. And, further, I will venture to say that the reduced rents now paid by the tenants and received by the landlord ought to be regarded as salvage from the social and economic wreck to which the landlords themselves have largely contributed. The rents which were charged prior to 1881, which appear in the contracts of tenants and which the landlords had a legal right to exact, were rents far in advance of what was the economic rent. What is more to the purpose is—and I again quote the authority of the Duke of Devonshire— they were rents which, in the then social condition of Ireland, not the whole force of the Empire of Great Britain could have made effectively recoverable from the tenants of Ireland, because the moral sense of the community of Great Britain would not have allowed you to use it. In so far, then, as this Bill is an attempt —I can find no other logical justification for it—to compensate the landlords of Ireland indirectly for the reductions which they have had to sustain in their rents, it ought to be repudiated by this House. I say it is a Bill which offends equally against the rules of common justice and sound finance. It tears up a statutory contract without adequate reason and without any compensation. It impairs, not only by what it does, but still more by the example it sets, the security of the Irish Church Fund. It introduces as the basis and standard of variation in tithe the fall in judicial rents, which is either wholly irrelevant or illogical. On these grounds the Bill is deserving of the condemnation of Parliament, and I beg to move that it be read a third time upon this day three months.
    Amendment proposed,
    "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.' "—(Mr. Asquith.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the question."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess that when the right hon. Gentleman rose to take part in the debate for the first time I was somewhat at a loss to conceive the reasons which induced him, at the eleventh hour, to intervene in this particular controversy. I am now no longer in doubt, and I think I can explain it before I sit down. The right hon. Gentleman, in the closing third of his speech, devoted himself to an attack on the Irish

    159
    landlords, whom he declared to be the spoilt darlings of the Government, and in whose favour we were prepared to ask the House to committ a gross injustice upon a public fund. I do not know that the occupants of this Bench or the Chief Secretary have any special reason to be grateful for the attentions which the Irish landlords have showered upon us. For my own part, I am the last person to criticise utterances which may well be put on one side. But I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought it worth while to make an impassioned and elaborate attack upon a class who are not very popular either in this country or in the other, in numbers not very great, in political influence not very great, but who at the hands of Parliament in times past have been subjected to a kind of legislation on which I am not going to comment now, but which certainly has no parallel in the legislation of any civilised country. In his attack on the landlords the right hon. Gentleman has not scrupled to insinuate, even to assert, that the reduction of their rents by the Land Courts is the measure of the spoliation which they have inflicted upon their tenants, a scandulous and outrageous attack which was refuted by the right hon. Gentleman himself in the latter part of his speech, for he quoted, with enthusiastic approval by his supporters, a statement made by the Duke of Devonshire in another place that, after all, although the reductions of rent in Ireland had been considerable, they were not more considerable, but even less, than the reductions of rent which have taken place in England. Are the reductions of rent in England the measure of the spoliation inflicted by the English landlords on English tenants? No, Sir, they are the consequence of a fact, so notorious that I need not bring it to the attention of the House—the extreme, unforeseen, and unprecedented fall in agricultural value; and when the right hon. Gentleman roundly accuses the Irish landlords of having put all the difference between their present and former rents upon the improvements of the tenant, he might have remembered that the fall of agricultural prices, which has so afflicted the landed interest in England and Scotland, had not been absent in Ireland; and, mark this, the part of Ireland where rents have fallen, perhaps in greater degree than in any
    160
    other part of Ireland, is that where the tenants' improvements were protected before the legislation of 1872 and 1881. It is in Ulster, where the tenants' improvements are protected by the Ulster custom, and adequately protected by the Ulster custom, that the fall in rents has been greater than in any other part of Ireland. Then, says the right hon. Gentleman, this is an act of spoliation so great, so flagrant and shameless, that no Gentleman who votes for the Third Reading of the Bill can ever again resist any act of spoliation passed upon a class or public funds. He compared it with the arbitrary diminution by Parliament of the interest upon mortgages. What resemblance is there between mortgage and tithe rent-charge? Mortgage never was a variable quantity. Historically, by general tradition, and universally accepted within a small compass of years, tithe has been a variable quantity, and why this House, dealing with a fund varying in its aspects, should not make its variations dependent on a rational plan, instead of on an arbitrary system, passes my belief. What is the right hon. Gentleman's desire? I suppose he thinks it would be fair to have variations determined by the price of wheat and barley and oats. Could anything be more absurd than fixing the variations of tithe in proportion to a crop which is hardly grown in Ireland at all? Over large districts it is wheat, and wheat alone, which determines the variations of the tithe rent-charge. That is the right hon. Gentleman's idea of equity, justice, and fairness. That is not all I have got to say against the right hon. Gentleman's accusation of spoliation. Has he ever heard of the alteration made in the annuities bought by the purchasers of glebe in Ireland? Those annuities were part of the assets of the Church Fund. They were bought directly under Parliamentary statutory contract by the glebe purchasers from the Church Fund. In 1885, Parliament, taking into account the great fall in the price of produce, consequently in the price of land, had mercy upon these glebe purchasers and diminished the amount of the interest on the annuities—in other words, reduced the assets of the Church Fund in favour of the glebe purchasers. Was that described as a dole? Was that described as a corrupt bargain? Was that described as a payment to a class? It was done by the common assent

    161
    of this House, with the assent of the hon. Gentlemen opposite and of the hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, not then so solicitous about the Church Fund as they appear to be now. And all this fine rhetoric which is now lavished when you are dealing with landlords was not heard of when you were dealing with tenants, and all these strong epithets were reserved for a more favourable and more popular opportunity. The truth is that the motive of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was sufficiently apparent when he gave his brief historic survey of what he called the annual dole which this Government gives to their supporters. [Opposition cheers.] I thought so. It is no particular love for the Church Fund, it is no burning anxiety to support hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, that has produced this unlooked for intervention of the right hon. Gentleman. He has taken occasion to make a speech, which, perhaps, he supposes may be an electioneering speech. He has travelled far outside the four corners of this Bill to excite prejudice on questions not even in the remotest manner connected with this Bill. I am not going to argue, I would be out of order to argue, about the amount of money given to rates in connection with the Local Government Bill for Ireland, or the half rates to farmers in England and Scotland, or the grant to Voluntary schools. But one word I think I may say on these three topics. I remember perfectly well when the first sketch of the Irish Local Government Bill was made in this House—because it so happened I was the person on whom the duty devolved to make it—an essential part of that scheme was to get rid of the natural, I venture to say just, or at all events the justifiable, objections which were naturally felt at so great a transfer of power from one class to another in Ireland, where, unhappily, divisions between parties had been so long and so bitter. How was that proposal met? Did we hear anything from the right hon. Gentleman and his friends about doles on that occasion? Not a word. I remember that that proposal, which was an integral part of that Bill, was met with a chorus of approval not alone from Members on this side of the House, but from gentlemen representing Ireland on that side of the House, and from their colleagues representing English constituencies.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: It was the bribe we had to pay for Irish local government.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman; but let me take him on his own terms. Is it fair to swallow a bribe and then express disapproval when you get what you want by it? So much for the dole connected with local government in Ireland. Now I come to the half rates, which the right hon. Gentleman says we gave to the landlords in England. We gave them to the farmers. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] Well, I am going to put a simple query to Members for agricultural constituencies in England sitting opposite. When they go down to their constituencies, and when they issue their addresses, is this dole to the farmers of England going to be represented as a monstrous abuse, and is there going to be any proposal that it should be repealed by the next Parliament? I shall be curious to have an answer to that question. I come now to the third dole, and that is the extra grant to the Voluntary schools. In that dole every single gentleman from Ireland supported the Government, and every single gentleman from Ireland voted against the Opposition. They were all for a policy of doles and subventions. Again I ask, are you going to the country to ask the country whether they are going to take away from the Voluntary schools the dole that has been given to them? And are you going to have the support of the Irish Members when the time for this inevitable policy arrives? It is all nonsense. The whole of this flimsy attack can be torn to pieces in a moment, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, plunging into a controversy with which I venture to say he is very little acquainted—[HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!]—judging from his speech, I think he is not intimately acquainted with the details, and that will come out before this debate concludes—I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have dragged these matters into a debate which is important because it is controversial, but which has really nothing to do with the issue he has tried to raise, with the irritation he has tried to stir up, or the passions he has endeavoured to inflame, and which might have been left now, as on the earlier stages of this Bill, to be debated between the representatives of the

    163
    Irish Government in this House and the representatives of Ireland.
    MR. DILLON: I think the tone of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman proves, if proof were needed, more than anything we have listened to in the course of this debate, the badness of the case of the Government. When the right hon. Gentleman denounced the right hon. Member for East Fife for intervening in this debate, he seems to have an extraordinary idea of the position of Irish Members in this House. As I have pointed out on previous occasions, we would always be glad if all English Members refrained from debate or division on Irish Bills or questions; but I protest against the doctrine that if the intervention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland who is not an Irish Member is to be accepted, we are to be denied assistance of hon. Members on this side of the House who are not Irish Members, but who choose to take up the cause of Ireland. I must say I am exceedingly grateful to the right hon. Member for East Fife for his speech, which tore to pieces, I do not say the arguments for, but the provisions of the Bill, and exhibited in a most powerful way its true inwardness. The right hon. Gentleman has fallen back on an argument given before by the Chief Secretary in the course of the debate. He reminded the House of the case of the glebe purchasers, and endeavoured to draw a most absurd parallel between the reduction of the interest granted to them and the reduction of the interest proposed to be given to the tithe rent charge payers. The glebe purchasers, it is true, were forced to buy their holdings at a time when land was greatly inflated in value, and the reason why very moderate concessions were made to them was that they were poor men struggling to make a living upon the land. What bearing has this in the case of men whose tithe rent-charge is only a very small charge on the land? If we were to accept the logic of that argument we should be carried irresistibly to the conclusion that because in Ireland there had boon reduction of rents to occupiers effected by a process of law, therefore you are bound to reduce every charge on the land—quit rents, Crown rents, and mortgages. I say that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman absolutely dis
    164
    appears on that ground. The Members in charge of this Bill have been extremely free and ready to hurl charges against the gross ignorance of those who oppose it. If any English or Scotch Member intervenes he is said to be grossly ignorant; but the right hon. Member for East Fife exhibited, in my opinion, great intelligence in discussing the Bill, and certainly in point of capacity and knowledge of the law he compares favourably with the Attorney General for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman got up, and from the box at the Table announced with vehemence that the rents had been reduced most in the province where the improvements of the tenants were protected by the Ulster custom. I should like to hear the opinions of the Ulster tenants on that point. Were the rents in Ulster and the improvements of the tenants protected by the custom before the Land Act was passed? Why, the custom gave no protection to tenants' improvements in Ulster, and that was the great reason why the Act of 1881 was passed. It was because the tenants in Ulster were pouring into the Land League, and the Government were frightened by the fact. If the improvements had been protected by custom, why did the Ulster tenants come into the Land League? I will tell the right hon. Gentleman one of the reasons, if he does not know it already, why the rents in Ulster had been reduced much more than in the South. It was because the tenants in Ulster, encouraged by the custom, and led to hope that they would have a saleable interest in the land, did make more improvements than the tenants in the South, and consequently their rents had been much more reduced. It is the fact, and the statement of the right hon. the Member for East Fife stands absolutely unanswerable, and cannot be controverted, that this Bill, in addition to all its other vices —God knows it has vices enough— actually proposes to put a premium on the bad landlords by graduating the amount of remission of tithe rent-charge in proportion to their badness. I know estates where there never has been a judicial rent fixed at all; and why? Because the landlords have been humane men, and met the circumstances of the time by reasonable remissions of rent. Now, supposing you could imagine—it is perfectly conceivable and legitimate to make the supposition—that there was

    165
    a county in Ireland in which all the landlords were good, reasonable men, and where no judicial rents had been fixed at all, what would this Bill do? it would give a reduction of 35 per cent. in the tithe rent - charge in a neighbouring county where ail the landlords were rack-renters, and not a penny of reduction in the county where the landlords were good, reasonable men. Could anyone imagine a wilder extremity of absurdity? But there is another absurdity underlying the vicious economic principle involved in the standard of variation introduced into this Bill. The tithes were originally one-tenth of the gross produce of the land. They never had, throughout all their history, so far as I have any knowledge of the question of tithes, any relation to the cost of production, or subsequently to the rent. By the Act of 1838, in consideration of the substitution of a rent-charge leviable from the landlord in place of a tenth of the produce, and of its becoming a prior lien on the land, the tithe-owners consented to an enormous reduction in the value of their tithe, amounting in some cases to 60 or 70 per cent. All this is to be taken into consideration in estimating the nature of the ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge. From 1838 to 1872 it was variable, but since 1872 it was invariable and a first charge on the land, having priority over all other charges, except quit-rents. You are now introducing a totally new principle of variation according to rents. I maintain that the variation of rent ought not, and as a matter of fact does not, bear an exact proportion to the variation of the prices of agricultural produce. Suppose the prices of agricultural produce had remained stationary, and the cost of the production had increased, rents would have been bound to go down. On the Second Reading of this Bill I said that it was a proposal as regards the main part of its provisions to subsidise the Irish landlord, and I ventured to suggest that it would be much simpler, more honest, and sounder, from an Irish point of view, if the Government would make up their minds how much money they wore going to distribute amongst the Irish landlords, and put it in the Bill, be it £1,500,000 or £2,000,000. That course, however, did not recommend itself to the Government. I venture to point out to the Chief Secretary that this system of bribery will produce no good
    166
    result. You are now proposing to plunder the Church Fund, which was put aside by Parliament for the Irish public, for the sake of bribing the Irish landlords, and you are now reaping your reward. I was not surprised at a certain bitterness of tone in the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury. At a great Orange meeting held on the 12th July, Lord Erne, Grand Master of the Orange Society, denounced the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as a pest and a nuisance, and declared that the brothers Balfour were the curse of Ireland. That is all the reward they get. These Orange gentlemen understand their proceedings perfectly well. They believe they have got this Bill by abuse, and the only result of the Government throwing their body to the wolves will be that the wolves will howl louder at their back than ever. One lamentable consideration which the House of Commons and the Government have got to hug to their bosoms is that, instead of getting any benefit whatever from any section by this pernicious Bill, it will be found that the Irish people are indignant, as they ought to be, and regard it as an act of spoliation; while the Irish landlords will denounce the brothers Balfour as the greatest pests which ever came to Ireland. After all the discussions on this Bill, I am only confirmed in the opinion that a more indefensible one was never introduced into this House. I desire to say a few words on a portion of the Bill which has been somewhat neglected in the course of the discussions—the portion which deals with those tithes which are private property. The discussions in Committee have, I think, fully justified the protest which I ventured to make on the Second Reading against the plan adopted by the Government of including in the Bill two subjects incompatible and unsuited to be dealt with in the same measure—one the payment made by the ecclesiastical tithe-payers to a public fund, and the other the payment made by the tithe lay impropriator; that is a payment made by one set of individuals to another, who are owners of what is really private property, just as much as Government stock is, and which, as a matter of fact, has been made a subject of sale in Ireland continually for over sixty years. Hardly a week passes that you do not see in Dublin newspapers advertisements of the sale of lay impro-

    167
    priate tithes as a portion of real estate. Now, these tithes have been variable according to certain standards, and by well ascertained methods; and for sixty-two years they have never been interfered with, nor has a suggestion ever been made to alter the standard of variation. About seven or eight years ago the Government made a blunder by discontinuing the publication in the Dublin Gazette of the tables of the average prices of wheat and oats as the necessary evidence of variation; and the result was that the lay impropriate tithes could not be varied for a period of seven years. But the Government might have recommended the re-publication of the average prices, and then, after seven years, these lay impropriate tithes might have been varied as they had been for sixty-two years. All that was necessary was to fill in this gap of seven years by a short Bill of one clause, according to the prices in the Reports of the Irish Land Commission. I cannot conceive why the Government did not concede that, except that they wanted a bit of oil or grease for other purposes. The Government, taking advantage of this excuse of a mistake in the publication of the Government Gazette, propose to alter the standard of variation which governs the relation of exclusive property between man and man. From whom has come a call for such a course of conduct? Has it come from the tithe-payers or the tithe-owners? The result of this arbitrary alteration of the standard of variation will be that some tithe-owners will be able to get a good deal more than they would under the old variations, and some will get a good deal less. I have never got an answer to the question, on what ground the Government have obtained the right to walk in between the owners of this private property and say, "Take this Bill for £50 and write it down £40"; or, "Take this Bill for £50 and write it up £60.'"What is the excuse or justification for that? I have here a very curious document in connection with this question. There is an association in Ireland of lay impropriate tithe-payers. I do not know whether the lay impropriate tithe-owners have an association. The lay impropriate tithe payers claim that the average prices of agricultural produce should be published, and their legal right restored of having their payments regulated by these average prices. They held a meeting last spring to con-
    168
    sider the proposals of the Government Bill of last year, which was exactly the same as the present Bill. In a speech at that meeting, made by Mr. Sandhurst, he said that they ought to appeal to the Government to introduce a Bill to remedy the great injustice complained of that they were not able to get their legal right of variation. And Mr. Sandhurst added that they did not consider that the Bill of last session met the case at all of the lay impropriate tithe-payers., nor could such a measure be accepted. The lay impropriate tithe-payers are not satisfied with this Bill, because it gives too much relief to some and not enough relief to others; in other words, because it arbitrarily alters the law without regard to justice. I assert positively that during my twenty years experience of the House of Commons no such proposals was ever made to interfere with the rights of property on any public or private ground. There was no necessity of any kind for it, except that the right hon. Gentleman said, when pressed, that it would make the law more symmetrical. That is a most favourable illustration of the spirit in which this Bill was drafted; and I think the Government have treated the House of Commons very unfairly in having mixed up the greater question of ecclesiastical tithes with this of purely private property, which might be dealt with by a Bill of one clause. Now, I turn for a moment to the proviso in Clause 1 by which the Church Fund is to lose £1,300,000. But before I say anything on the financial position of the Church Fund after this Bill passes into law, I desire to deal with the contention put forward two or three times, that the fifty-two years annuities were based upon, a miscalculation. The right hon. Gentleman seemed, on the Second Heading, to venture to doubt whether we would question his contention that this fifty-two years was a miscalculation. In that he was most audacious. Remember that if we destroy the theory of this miscalculation, we destroy the only justification for the first sub-section of this clause, which involves a loss to the Church Fund of £1,300,000.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: £1,110,000.
    MR. DILLON: How is the theory of miscalculation made out? In 1869, when Mr. Gadstone introduced the Church Bill

    169
    first, he proposed that it should be open to the payers of tithe rent-charge to buy their tithe rent-charge, either for cash, at twenty-two and a half years purchase, or to buy the gross tithe rent at twenty-two and a half years purchase, the Government lending them money on such terms that, by making an annual payment for forty-five years, principal and interest would be extinguished; and he stated that he calculated the annual payment would be 3½ per cent. of the gross tithe rent-charge. The original proposal was forty-five years instalments; but when the Bill came into Committee Mr. Gladstone himself moved an amendment to Clause 32, proposing to substitute fifty-two years instalments for forty-five years, and at the same time he agreed that the tithe rent - charge payers should have the right to deduct from their tithe rent-charge, before the price was calculated, the sum of the whole of the poor-rate, which was considerable. Again, he made a further concession. Whereas at the Second Heading of the Bill he proposed that the instalments should be at the rate of £4 10s. per cent. of the gross tithe rent-charge, in Committee he proposed that it should be £4 9s. per cent. per annum of the nett valuation, and that the instalments should be spread over fifty-two years. Now, that settlement was denounced by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer as sacrilegious bribery, and also by the chief Irish landlords. Oil a division, however, it was carried by the unanimous vote of the landlords in this House, despite the protest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Forster and the Radical party. Now the right hon. Gentleman has the audacity to get up and tell us that the whole of this transaction was based on an arithmetical miscalculation, a calculation which was first of all worked out by the English Treasury, adopted by Mr. Gladstone, and passed the test of prolonged discussion in this House. I admit that some exception was taken to it; but it was as being too favourable to the landlords. Neither Mr. Disraeli nor Mr. Gladstone nor the champions of the Irish landlords ever suggested the doctrine of miscalculation which is now advanced. Then a period of three years elapsed, and the whole question was re-surveyed in this House in 1872, and again the Irish landlords, who were largely represented in this House and in the House of Lords,
    170
    never protested, and the Bill passed through the two Houses of Parliament without a single word of criticism on their part. Therefore up to the Act of 1872 there was no suggestion whatever of a miscalculation. From 1872 down to 1881 and from 1881 to 1890 the whole intelligence of the Irish landlords as well as of the innumerable skilful lawyers who are attached to them in Ireland was devoted to searching and rummaging through the land legislation passed by this House in order to find a grievance. Yet this miscalculation was never heard of. Are we to be told that the Irish landlords and the lawyers who are their friends in Ireland would not have discovered during these years this arithmetical mistake, and the greatest that would ever have appeared in history if it existed? In June, 1894, Lord Belmore in his famous question started this doctrine. What set the Irish landlords on this theory of miscalculation? They were set on it because it had come to their knowledge that a great loan on the Irish Church Fund was to be paid off, and that when it was paid off a certain sum would be set free, and it occurred to the Irish landlords that they ought to get hold of it. It was really for that reason, and for no other reason that I can discover, that they invented this doctrine of miscalculation. Lord Belmore put a series of questions in the House of Lords, in the course of which this doctrine was started. He asked why did the Treasury in 1869 recommend the Government of the day to alter the terminable annuities from forty-five years to fifty-two, and also whether there was not a miscalculation made as to the term of years in which the principal sums with interest would be paid off? That involved the doctrine that Mr. Gladstone and the Treasury of that day were not able to calculate in what number of years an annuity would pay off a principal sum with interest. Lord Belmore was informed in reply that there was no miscalculation because no rate of interest was prescribed in the Act. After the lapse of twenty-eight years the Treasury on the motion of Lord Belmore again examined the question, and laid it down that there was no basis for the charge of miscalculation, and yet in face of that fact and the other facts I have cited the right hon. Gentleman states that the case of the landlords is perfectly clear. This is what

    171
    the right hon. Gentleman said on the point—
    "Objection to this provision of the Bill must therefore he made on either of two grounds: First, that a 3½ per cent. rate of interest is too low—which would be a bold assertion in the face of Mr. Gladstone's own statement, and of the fact that the rates of interest formerly paid by tenant purchasers of Church lands have all been reduced from 3½ per cent. to 3⅛ per cent. Or, secondly, that it is just that a terminable annuity for the redemption of a capital sum should continue to be paid for seven years after such capital sum can he shown by the rules of arithmetic to have been repaid."
    That is saying in so many words that Mr. Gladstone did not understand, and that for twenty-nine years the British Treasury were absolutely unable to grasp, the rules of arithmetic. That is a most extraordinary position for the right hon. Gentleman to take up, and yet it is the only ground on which he can justify this enormous drain on the Church Fund. I maintain after all these prolonged discussions that there is no shadow or shred of excuse for surrendering to the Irish landlords seven years instalments which they contracted to pay, and which in justice they ought to be compelled to pay as long as they retain their land. Let me turn for a few minutes to the effect of this Bill on the Church Fund, because that, after all, is a very important question, and one which we were not able to discuss fully in Committee. I thought we might have been able to obtain some more light on the matter. I have been endeavouring ever since the Bill of last year was introduced to obtain from the Government a really satisfactory calculation of what will be the effect of this Bill if passed into law on the Church Fund, and I have never been able to get anything but the most perfunctory and confusing answers. I think the Bill has been drawn in such a way that it is absolutely impossible to calculate with any degree of certainty what will be its effect on the Church Fund, and that alone would be a sufficient ground for rejecting it, because I cannot conceive any more vicious method of legislation than, as regards a complicated Bill affecting a great public fund, to be told by the minister in charge that it is really impossible to ascertain the effect of the Bill. This is the only statement vouchsafed to us during the discussions
    172
    on this Bill by the right hon. Gentleman as to its effect on the fund. He said—
    "I may say, generally, that the result of the calculations has been most carefully verified both by the Treasury and by the Land Commission; and I think we may take it that, as far as possible, accuracy has been obtained. At least, it is not tor want of trouble taken by one side or the other. Now, the reduction of the period of the currency of the terminable annuities will have the effect of reducing the Church Fund by a capital sum of £1,140,000; but this loss will not begin until the year 1917, when the earliest terminable annuities run out. What effect are the proposals of the Bill likely to have on the resources of the Church Fund? By the first proposal, that fund will ultimately lose a capital sum of about £1,140,000, but this loss will not begin until the year 1917. The second proposal of the Bill will result in the immediate loss of an annual sum of about £33,000. This loss will continue for the first fifteen years, and may increase in subsequent periods of fifteen years with any additional average reduction of judicial rents. The abolition of the right to redeem the tithe rent-charge will result in a gain to the Church Fund of a capital sum, the exact amount of which it is impossible to state, but which may conceivably be £3,500,000. This gain, however, will not begin to accrue for forty-live years from the present time. [Mr. DILLON: Is that based on the supposition that no sales take place?] Yes, that is so. By the fourth proposal of the Bill there will be a gain to the Church Fund of an annual sum of £6,000."
    We are told that if no land is sold in Ireland the Church Fund in forty-five years will gain three and a half millions, but land is now being sold in Ireland at the rate of about one and a half millions per annum, and there is a movement, which if I do not misunderstand it will result in transferring all the land of Ireland to the farmers certainly within the next twenty years, and probably within the next ten years. Therefore this calculation, on the strength of which we are to make this huge inroad into the Church Fund, is absolutely delusive. We are solemnly asked to look forward and to attach weight to a possible advantage to the Church Fund resulting from the abolition of the right to redeem, which will begin to accrue in forty-five years, and only begin if no sale of land takes place in the interval, whereas we all know that long before that period all the land of Ireland will be sold, and instead of three and a half millions I say that if the fund benefits to the extent of £200,000 it will be the outside figure possible. But the loss to the fund begins on the day on which this Bill becomes operative, and will continue and increase until the whole Church Fund will be dissipated. The

    173
    provision in the Act of 1896 could at least be plausibly defended, as it was inserted for the purpose of promoting the sale of land to the tenants. It might have been said, just as it was said when we swallowed the dole to the landlords in order to secure local government, that the landlords should be allowed to reap that advantage under the Act of 1896 as a reward for selling their land to their tenants, because everyone is anxious to got rid of this land quarrel, which has brought almost inconceivable evils on Ireland, and we are all prepared to make sacrifices to end it, on reasonable terms. Therefore when the clause in the Act of 1896 was introduced—although I am looked upon as irreconcilable in these matters, and I admit I am—I did not feel called upon to protest against it, just as I abstained from dividing against the Agricultural Grant in 1898, because although I did not approve of the principle, there was a great object to be gained, which I was willing should be gained, even at the cost of the Church Fund. But what do you propose to do by this Bill? You reverse that policy. You are now offering to the landlords who have refused to sell the same advantages and concessions as were given by the Act of 1896 to landlords who were willing to sell, and in that way also you are doing a great wrong. I think the First Lord of the Treasury was very ill-advised in throwing sneers across the House at the Irish Members who are working under very difficult circumstances to protect the interests of their constituents. He said it was very unfair of us to adopt the attitude we did adopt with regard to the Rating Act, and he said that we swallowed the bribe. We are obliged to endeavour to pass legislation for our own country in this House in circumstances of the most cruel difficulty, and we are obliged to submit to the conditions imposed on us by the strangers who rule us. We have never been able to discuss Irish matters on their merits in this House. You never deal with Irish measures on their merits. You deal with them either because of the disturbed condition of Ireland or because you wish a bribe to be distributed among a certain class in that country. When a measure of land reform or popular government is offered to us it is always tied up with some condition we strongly object to, but we are told that we must swallow the whole thing or get nothing. That is the
    174
    principle we are compelled to accept, and I am not a bit ashamed of our accepting it under the circumstances. But I warn the First Lord of the Treasury and the Irish Secretary that the course they are pursuing on this Bill will gain them neither authority nor respect in Ireland. The Chief Secretary has been five years in office, and has made flourishing speeches about killing Homo Rule by kindness.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It has been said over and over again that I used the words "killing Home Rule by kindness." I should be very glad to have the report of that speech produced.
    MR. DILLON: The phrase has been quoted by the right hon. Gentleman's supporters.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have had no opportunity of challenging the statement in the House before.
    MR. DILLON: My recollection is that the right hon. Gentleman had been charged with the intention of killing Home Rule by kindness, and that he said he would be very glad if he succeeded in doing so. What I would advise him to pursue would be a policy not of kindness but of justice. I resented that speech as it was reported at the time, because I do resent, as I think I am entitled to resent, Englishmen or Scotchmen coming over to Ireland and adopting a tone of superiority and condescension which the Irish people do not appreciate. If the right hon. Gentleman pursues such a policy as that he will never win respect from any section of the population. What we want in Ireland is fair play and justice, and if the right hon. Gentleman would embark on a policy of fair play—I do not say he would kill Home Rule, because he would not—he would win the respect of all sections of the Irish people. But the policy of bribery, the policy which has dictated this Bill, will have the effect of exasperating the Irish people who agree with us, and of arousing only the contempt of the section represented by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, while the Government are engaged in passing this Bill, does not use the same language as he would use at an Orange

    175
    meeting in Ireland. The Chief Secretary has now learned after five years administration in Ireland, although he has distributed hundreds of thousands of pounds as largess among the Irish landlords, that all he has got is to be denounced as a second "Dick Turpin," and to be told that he and his brother are the greatest curses ever sent to Ireland.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I only desire to occupy the time of the House for a few minutes in referring to matters not hitherto mentioned in the debate. First, as to the manner in which this Bill has been introduced—there are only two names on the back of it, namely, the Attorney General for Ireland and the Chief Secretary. I maintain that that is a a public scandal in a public Bill. This Bill is eminently a financial measure. It deals with an enormous amount of money to be transferred from a public fund to a particular class in Ireland, and it is a gross public scandal that the Finance Minister should not be publicly responsible for it. The Finance Minister is Chancellor of the Exchequer not only for England but for Ireland, and it was his duty to have explained this Bill to the House. Then the other Finance Minister, the Secretary to the Treasury, has not in the least intervened in the debates. The names of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury have been on the back of all the other great financial measures referring to Ireland, because they dealt with public money. The name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is absent from this Bill because he denounced its principle thirty years ago in language which has never been retracted. Probably the Secretary to the Treasury has also expressed his well-known opinions privately with reference to boodle of this kind. I say no Bill involving one and a half millions of money has over been presented to this House except on the responsibility of the Finance Minister. Let me remind the House that the Irish patriot party insisted, when the Union was carried, on having an Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer to conduct Irish financial business in this House, and in the early years of this century the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer was no less a person than Mr. Foster, who had been Speaker of the Irish House of Commons. If you had a majority, not of
    176
    140, but of MOO in this House, and an Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer to guard the Irish purse, a measure of this kind would be impossible. The Conservative Members have shown me great courtesy, and it is irritating to them when a discussion on the matter which they think threshed out is continued, but I would point out that Mr. Disraeli, on the Second Reading of the Irish Church Bill, denounced this arrangement which is now being carried in the interests of the Irish landlords. Sooner or later, Mr. Disraeli said, the Irish landlords would gourmandise all the Church Fund. He said that the whole property of the Church of Ireland, generally speaking, would go to the landlords. (Interruption.) Hon. Gentlemen might well buzz at the idea of it. Mr. Disraeli went on to say that for thirty years the Irish landlords had had,£100,000 a year out of the Church property, amounting in all to probably £.3,000,000, and he asked what good it had done. Was the state of Ireland improved by it? But Mr. Disraeli under-estimated the case. When the first avaricious raid was made on the property of the Church of which the landlords were members, the Ecclesiastical tithe charge was commuted at a tenth of its value, and 25 per cent. over and above was paid to them for collecting it. In 1867 the agricultural crops in Ireland wore of the value of £30,000,000, but the amount of the tithe rent-charge was only put at £370,000; whereas it ought to have been £3,000,000, and the difference between £370,000 and £3,000,000 went into the pockets of that virtuous class, the Irish landlords. I say that the landlords have got far too much out of the Irish Church Fund already; but by this Bill they are getting by the reduction of the annual instalments from fifty-two to forty-five years, a sum equal to £1,500,000, although the Chief Secretary, who is generally wrong in his calculations, only made it out at £1,140,000. I object to the Irish landlords getting through a brutal and palpable fraud anything out of the Church Fund, which ought to be devoted to the Irish people when suffering from some unavoidable calamity. The Irish landlords never object to charity. Long after the Reformation, successive Acts of Parliament were passed to enable tenants to make a raid on the Church lands. The Duke of Abercorn and others

    177
    like him are tenants of the lands stolen from the Irish Church. The Irish Bishops, who were generally English importations—
    MR. SPEAKER: I fear the hon. Member is going to somewhat ancient history in reference to this Bill.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The object of the Bill is ancient history, but I will not refer to the matter, Mr. Speaker, if you tell me not to do so. I will do whatever you tell me.
    MR. SPEAKER: As the hon. Member appeals to me, I would ask him not to continue his remarks on ancient Irish history.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With great respect, I think that is rather an unfair advantage to take. You will do better if you will allow me to show that I was endeavouring to bring this ancient history into connection with this Bill. I am pleading that this Bill should not pass, and that the chief beneficiaries under this Bill have already got enormous slices of the Church land. The Duke of Abercorn—
    MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is really trifling with the House in going into this matter.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: if you do not permit me, I shall say no more; but If I am not permitted to speak of it in this House I shall be able to see that it is made well known in Ireland. The First Lord of the Treasury was scarcely right in saying that he was benefitting the Irish landlords in spite of themselves. He said, "We are only doing justice to the Irish landlords who are reviling us." He ought to have known that amongst the persons to whom he is doing this act of justice, and who will be most benefitted by it, are Members of the present Government and extensive Irish landlords. The benefit of this Bill to the ordinary poor Irish landlords, with a rental of £800 to £1,500 a year, is of small significance. But it is of enormous significance to those extensive Irish landlords. I will give the names of the members of the Government who
    178
    will enormously benefit by the Bill—the Duke of Devonshire, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Londonderry, and the Earl of Pembroke. I will say, in conclusion, that I never recollect any Act which has been passed by a Ministry which will confer such pecuniary benefits on the members themselves, or certain of them, as this Act will. In fact, the whole thing is, I am sorry to say, a most atrocious and infamous fraud on a public fund—a fraud perpetrated on the poor in the interests of the rich. It is a perfect illustration of the proverb which warns not to rob the poor because they are poor. We have heard a great deal of the tithopayer, and of the equity which should attach to our dealings with him. But we have heard nothing of the titheowner, who is the person principally affected, because as the tithe rent-charge is reduced so surely is the tithe-owner affected. Why is that? It is because the tithe owners are poor, and have no great political influence. On the whole I regard this Bill as, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, sacrilegious bribery. I am inclined, however, to rejoice at this Bill, because it destroys altogether the sanctity of contracts, and will make any attack on the public revenue or on private property utterly unassailable by gentlemen on these benches who have sanctioned this Bill.
    MR. FLYNN: I complain of the attitude of the Treasury in regard to this Bill. One would have thought that the natural guardians of the Irish Church Fund, which is the only public fund which the Irish people have had since the Union, would have been the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General. But the hopes we have placed on them have been falsified. It is impossible but that there shall be loss on one fund or another; if not on the Church Fund it will fall on the Treasury, because nearly half of the liabilities of the Irish Church Fund have been guaranteed by the Treasury. On what ground did the Government bring in this Bill? They cannot put the saddle on two horses at once. Either the settlement of 1872 was wrong, and Mr. Gladstone and the Treasury of that date made an absolute mistake; and, as the Chief Secretary says, this Bill was introduced to correct that mistake;

    179
    or the Duke of Devonshire was right when he said in another place that the Bill had been introduced as a compensation to the Irish landlords for the reduction of their rents by the Land Act of 1881. It is not the least invidious feature of this Bill that members of the Government, including the noble Lord whose speech has been already referred to, and members of the Cabinet, will be among those who will get a largo slice out of the Irish Church Fund. I presume, if there is any virtue in actuarial calculations, that if the Treasury were right in 1895 they ought to be right now, and if in 1895 the Irish Church Fund would not bear any further burden, how is it possible that the Fund can now be so solvent and so strong that it can have this one and a half million taken away from it as well as £33,000 a year, especially when it is considered that since 1895 £70,000 a year has also been taken from it for the Agricultural Board? The Treasury have been got at. In 1895 they opposed the proposal of the Land Commissioners to reduce the repayments of the debt to them on behalf of the Irish tenants from twenty-two and a half to twenty years. That was refused in connection with a large scheme of land purchase, to which both political parties were committed, and the Government opposed it on the ground that it would affect the Irish Church Fund. Meantime £70,000 a year has been taken from it for the Agricultural Board. We are told that that £70,000 is all right, and that if at the end of fifteen years this Department for improving agriculture and instructing our people cannot obtain that money, we might perhaps have a case to go to the Treasury. I should like to see the position of the Irish Minister who at the end of fifteen years would have to approach the Treasury and say that the Agriculture Department could not continue any longer. In conclusion I think we are justified in putting before the House, and I trust also before the country, that this Bill has not been demanded by any body of public opinion or by any important movement. It is a Bill brought in to satisfy a small but hungry section of the supporters of evictions in Ireland. It is a Bill which will give more to the rich landlord than to the small struggling landlord. To him that possesses much will be given more, whereas the poor landlords will be given
    180
    very little, but whether this money be given to the rich and prosperous landlord in large measure, or to the small and struggling landlord in small measure, it comes from an Irish fund which does not belong to the Treasury, and which it is an act of tyranny on the part of English and Scotch Members to interfere with.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I feel it my duty, even at this advanced hour, to join in the final protest of my hon. friends against this Bill. It is certainly not our fault that the House has been put to the inconvenience of remaining up to this hour. The right hon. Gentleman insists on pushing the Bill through to-night, and that is the reason why Members have been put to the inconvenience of this prolonged sitting. The Leader of the Opposition, in the speech he made during these debates, described the Bill as the most extraordinary Bill of the century. I think that description was amply justified, and I think also that the Bill has been produced and carried: through under very extraordinary circumstances. This is the sixth night on which we have dealt with this question, and there are much more urgent demands on, the attention of Parliament. Only this afternoon the Leader of the House was asked on what date he would bring forward the Indian Budget. He was asked that question in view of an accumulation of suffering on the people of India which is unparalleled in history, and the right hon. Gentleman had to reply that he could just give one afternoon in the course of next week for discussing the fate and fortunes of 250 millions of people stricken by famine and plague and almost every other evil that can befall a nation. Again, 200 Members of this House asked for two or three hours to pass a Bill dealing with an important branch of the salvation of this country from the vice of drink, and that request was refused. A most important question, affecting the welfare of millions of people, has been refused discussion, while to an unjust measure like this Bill the Government have given six nights of most precious time. The Leader of the House made an impassioned reply to the speech of the late Home Secretary, and he made one observation in the course of that reply to which I will allude. The right hon. Gentleman laid down this proposition, which is

    181
    gratifying to me and most astonishing as coming from him, that he would be Letter pleased if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fifeshire had allowed the debate to proceed on the lines on which it has hitherto been conducted, namely between the official representatives of the Irish Government and the Irish Members. He indignantly objected to the intervention of one of the ablest Members of this House in an Irish debate. That would have been permissible if it came from one who believed that Ireland should be governed by the Irish Members; but this indignant surprise at a British Member venturing to intervene between the official representatives of the Irish Government and the Irish Members came very strangely from one of the high priests of Unionism in this House. It is quite true that the debates on this Bill have been mainly left to the Chief Secretary and the Irish Members, not only as to the making of the speeches, but also as to the hearing of the speeches. We have conducted these debates with only the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland on the Treasury Bench, and an occasional visit from the Leader of the House, and the Irish Members not in such large number as I should like, but still in considerable number on these benches. The benches opposite were as a rule deserted, or perhaps occupied by two or three phantoms—I use the word in a spiritual rather than a physical sense— who made more conspicuous the absence of the general body of the Conservative party. But when the division bells were rung these gentlemen who had not heard a single word of the speech, and who, I venture to say, would not pass the most primary examination as to the provisions of even the first clause of the Bill, trooped in from the terrace, the smoke rooms, and the library, and voted down the representatives of Ireland, not in accordance with the arguments, because they did not hear them, but at the direction of the Whips of their party. Therefore, when the First Lord of the Treasury objected to the intervention of the right hon. Member for East Fife, who made a most able and brilliant speech, I think he would have taken more logical ground if he had asked not only that the debates should be confined to the representatives of the Irish Government and the Irish Members, but that the voting should be con-
    182
    fined to them also. I should like to call attention to the statement of the Leader of the House that a great reduction of rents had taken place in Ulster. That was an avowal I was very glad to hear. I do not know whether his knowledge of that fact was the result of these debates, but I think he happened to be in the House when we were dealing with that particular branch of the question. He followed that, however, with the astounding statement that in Ulster the tenants' improvements had always been protected by the Ulster custom. Did that statement come as a matter of surprise to the Chief Secretary? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept it?
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Broadly speaking, yes.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Then I can only say that "broadly speaking" the ignorance of the right hon. Gentleman is almost as great as the ignorance of his brother. When the First Lord of the Treasury says that the tenants in Ulster wore protected as to their improvements, I assume he means by the Ulster custom. But every Ulster man knows that the Ulster custom was confined to the right of free sale, and that right of free sale did not interfere with the right of the landlord to raise the rent on the incoming tenant in spite of the fact that the incoming tenant had paid for that right. The Ulster men were in a state of more aggravated revolt than any other part of Ireland. The First Lord accepted the fact—he could not deny it on the statistics presented to the House—that the highest reductions took place in the northern province; but what did that prove? It proved the hypocrisy of the cry of the landlords that the reduction of the rents was the production of political agitation and not of their own rack-rents in the north of Ireland. In the county of Armagh the reductions in the rent amounted to 28 per cent., and in the county of Down, the most loyal of all the counties, the reductions of rent made by private agreement reached the extraordinary figure of 40 per cent.; and it was in these very counties where rack-renting had been most triumphant. Yet it is in these counties that the largest amount of the bribe provided by this Bill will be given to the Irish landlords. I do not see the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh

    183
    in his place, but if he were here I would tell him that, instead of the landlords in these counties having a right of complaint against the Government, they have been the spoiled children and curled darlings of this Administration. The Irish landlords are the only class in this community who have been able to come to this House and get compensation for the reduction of their revenue brought about by economic and insurmountable causes. The Duke of Devonshire said some time ago that he had to submit to a 16 per cent. reduction of rent on his estates in Ireland, while, on a similar estate in Somerset, the reduction had been 35 per cent. But the difference between them is this: that for the reduction on his English estate he got no compensation whatever, always excepting the Agricultural Rating Act. And he dare not come to ask this House, because his rent had been reduced 35 per cent., to make it up to him. Even if he went to the House where he sits, which is the guardian on the social and political interests of the landlords, and said, "I want compensation because my rents in Somerset have been reduced 35 per cent.," he would be laughed to scorn. But when the loss is 16 per cent. in Ireland, that changes his character from an English to an Irish landlord; and he goes to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who says to him, My poor gilded pauper, I really must come to your relief, because you have had 16 per cent. taken off your rents." And the right hon. Gentleman forthwith proceeds to bring in the Local Government Bill for Ireland, and because their Graces have been gracious enough to extend to Ireland the local liberties given by consent of all parties in England and Wales and Scotland, and which must therefore have come inevitably to Ireland by the logic of events, his Grace and the class to which he belongs are immediately relieved of practically all contribution to the local expenses of Ireland. But, not satisfied with that dole, they go to the right hon. Gentleman two or three sessions afterwards and de-
    mand that because their rents have been reduced 16 per cent.—half the reduction in England—they want more compensation. And the Chief Secretary, addressing these poor gilded paupers, says, "Let me see, what fund is there which we can draw upon in order to put another dole into their pockets?" And the right hon. Gentleman takes the unprotected Church Fund, makes a dive at it, and gives out of it practically two millions of money to the landlords of Ireland, who had had their rents reduced 16 per cent., instead of 35 per cent. m England. The whole calculated and intended effect of this Bill and of such like legislation is that the provisions and consequences of the Land Act of 1881, and the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman himself, shall be nullified, and full and adequate compensation shall be given for the reductions of rent in Ireland by successive hauls from the Irish Church Fund. These are the reasons why we oppose this Bill. I know it will pass into law. It has been fought very steadily in this House. I do not think it has been unfairly fought, considering its importance. I believe that in another place it will be received rapturously, and welcomed with open arms. But this cannot go on for ever. The Irish landlords have got their last dole, although their clamorous demands have not yet been exhausted, as this Bill shows. I hope this will be the last session of the present House of Commons, and I trust that, if we all should be Members of a future House of Commons, one of the first measures which, if even the present Chief Secretary is in office, will be introduced will be one to put an end to this long and devastating social struggle between classes in Ireland, and dispose of the claims of the Irish landlords by a scheme of land purchase.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 110; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 223.)

    AYES.

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Bethell, Commander

    Butcher, John George

    Arrol, Sir William

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire)

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

    Bond, Edward

    Cecil, Evelyn, (Hertford, East)

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds)

    Brassey, Albert

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

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

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon St. John

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

    Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Wore'r)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hardy, Laurence

    Rankin, Sir James

    Charrington, Spencer

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew, W.

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Keswick, William

    Round, James

    Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

    Knowles, Lees

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Lafone, Alfred

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

    Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Curzon, Viscount

    Leeky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

    Dairymple, Sir Charles

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Faber, George Denison

    Lowles, John

    Smith, James Farker (Lanarks.)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

    Finch, George H.

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Manners, Lord Ed. Wm. J.

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.(Kent)

    Fry, Lewis

    Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh)

    Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E. (Tauntn)

    Gedge, Sydney

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Mount, William George

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

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

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Wylie, Alexander

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Wyndham, George

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Pease, Herbert P.(Darlington)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord Geo.

    Platt-Higgins Frederick

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Sir William Walrond and

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Purvis, Robert

    Mr. Anstruther.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

    O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Havne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

    O'Kelly, James

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Hazell, Walter

    O'Malley, William

    Billson, Alfred

    Hogan, James Francis

    Pavilion, James Mellor

    Blake, Edward

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Jamieson, Major J. Eustace

    Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

    Brigg, John

    Joicey, Sir James

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Provand, Andrew Dry burgh

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    Redmond John E.(Waterford)

    Caldwell, James

    Larson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Lough, Thomas

    Shaw, Chas. Ed. (Stafford)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Cawley, Frederick

    MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn.'s C.)

    Sinclair, Capt. J.(Forfarshire)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Commins, Andrew

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Crean, Eugene

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Crilly, Daniel

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

    Tennant, Harold John

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Leod, John

    Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

    Dillon, John

    Maddison, Fred.

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

    Doogan, P. C.

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East).

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorg.)

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Captain Donelan and

    Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    Mr.Patrick O'Brien

    Main Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 94; Noes., 58. (Division List No. 224.)

    AYES.

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Brassey, Albert

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Arrol, Sir William

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Charrington, Spencer

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Billiard, Sir Harry

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

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

    Butcher, John George

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Curzon, Viscount

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Betheli, Commander

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

    Faber, George Denison

    Bond, Edward

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Finch, George H.

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col. Edw. J.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Simeon, Sir Harrington

    Fry, Lewis

    Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Gedge, Sydney

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

    Monckton, Edward Philip

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

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouth.)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Mount, William George

    Tomlinson, Wm Edw. Murray

    Grenville, Hon. Ronald

    Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute)

    Welby, Lt.-Col.A CE(Taunton

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert wm.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

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

    Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Wylie, Alexander

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Wyndham, George

    Keswick, William

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Knowles, Lees

    Purvis, Robert

    Lafone, Alfred

    Rankin, Sir James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn.

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Sir William Walrond and

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Lecky, Rt. Hon. William E.H.

    Round, James

    NOES.

    Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J.

    O'Kelly, James

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Malley, William

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Billson, Alfred

    Hogan, James Francis

    Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

    Brigg, John

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Provand, Andrew Dry burgh

    Caldwell, James

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford

    Channing, Francis Allston

    MacDonnell, Dr. M A Queen's C

    Stanhope, Hon Philip J.

    Cummins, Andrew

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Crean, Eugene

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Crilly, Daniel

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Tennant, Harold John

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Leod, John

    Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

    Dillon, John

    Maddison, Fred.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Captain Donelan and

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    Mr.Patrick O'Brien.

    Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL [Lords].
    Order for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment to Second Reading [21st May] read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    DOGS REGULATION BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL Lords.
    Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [2nd April] read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    LUNACY BILL [Lords].
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

    MILITARY MANŒEUVRES BILL [Lords].
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    In pursuance of the Order of the House of this day, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
    Adjourned at a quarter before Two of the clock.