Commons Sitting of 8 May 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION TRAM- WAYS BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: In submitting to the House the motion which stands in my name, I am conscious that it is one of a not very usual character, but still, if the necessity arose, I should be able to show that there are abundant precedents for the House under the special circumstances referring the Bill back to the Committee which considered it. Notwithstanding the decision of the Committee, I feel to-day that I shall be able to satisfy the House that there are special and exceptional cases which justify us in asking the Committee which has considered this Bill to further consider its provisions. I am not going to ask the House to reverse the determination of the Committee upon the merits or demerits of a particular scheme that has been placed before it, but I am going to invite the House to express its judgment upon a special Report which has been made to the House by this particular Committee under special and exceptional circumstances, and I am going to ask the House to say that that Report is, under the circumstances, not one which the House is prepared to adopt, but that the Committee ought to take back this Bill and reconsider the provisions which it has deleted from it. The Committee, with regard to this Bill, has made a special Report to the House that the Bill sought power to make tramways within and also without the borough with the consent of the local authorities in whose districts they would be constructed, and who supported the scheme. But the Committee are of opinion that, having regard to the intended appointment of a Joint Committee to consider the question of municipal trading, they would not be justified in sanctioning the proposed tramway outside the borough except in the case of a short length of three yards in the
  1042
  urban district of Linthwaite, which will be in connection with the tramway of that district, leased with the sanction of the Board of Trade to and to be worked by the corporation. The short point which I wish to bring under the consideration of the House with regard to the special Report of the Committee is this. It is contended that the question of municipal trading is, because of the appointment of a Committee, sub judice and therefore this Private Bill Committee refused to Huddersfield and outside districts, which unanimously requested them, powers to have tramway traction between the borough and these districts, until the Municipal Trading Committee reported. I should like to ask the indulgence of the House whilst I very briefly explain the proposals of the Bill. The Bill is one which sought to empower the corporation to construct tramways in six different sections in various urban districts outside the borough of Huddersfield. Huddersfield cannot alter its physical configuration. It is the centre of a large manufacturing district, and radiating from the centre there are a number of tramways constructed by and in the possession of the corporation, and the whole of the surrounding urban districts, six in number, come to the Huddersfield Corporation and say, "We wish to have tramways connected upon your tramways, and we ask you to go to Parliament and get powers to have this done." At the unanimous request of each of these authorities, and at the unanimous request of each parish council in each of these authorities, with the cordial endorsement of the South West Riding County Council, Huddersfield comes before the Private Bill Committee to present this case, and being willing to construct and work tramways to these populous districts, surrounding its connection with their own tramway system. The position is especially peculiar in this way. It is not a question of municipal trading at all. Huddersfield, in the first place, sought to become possessed of municipal tramways net for any special desire to do so, but because it was helpless. Twenty years ago it desired tramway traction. It could not have it at the instance of any company. It came to Parliament to get powers to acquire tramways and lease them to any company that would take them. One company tried and failed. The tram-

  1043
  ways lay idle. They came to Parliament and said, "We cannot get any company to lease these tramways; will you empower us to work them"? Parliament was extremely jealous in those days of entrusting rights of this kind to corporations, and said, "We will only allow you to work them under the licence of the Board of Trade, and upon the Board of Trade being satisfied that no lessee will take and work them themselves." They tried to get a lessee to work them, but no lessee was forthcoming. The Board of Trade held an inquiry, but obtained no lessee, and being satisfied that no lessee could be obtained, they empowered Huddersfield, under licence of the Board of Trade, to work its own tramways. It continued to do so until 1897, in which year Huddersfield got from Parliament absolutely unrestricted power to work its own tramways on its own undertakings, and has done so successfully and to the profit and advantage of the ratepayers ever since. Another circumstance happened in 1898. One urban authority in a district lying on the circumference of the outside circle of which Huddersfield is the centre, obtained a Provisional Order to construct its own tramways. It tried, but found it could not do so advantageously, but could do it better by associating itself with the generating station in Huddersfield, and it came to Huddersfield and said, "Will you take a lease of the tramways if we construct them?" Huddersfield replied, "We will if we can have a forty-five years lease. We will not do so upon a twenty-one years lease limited by the Tramway Act of 1870." The Board of Trade said, "We will give this power, but subject to the condition under the Tramway Act of 1870, under a twenty-one years lease." That was not satisfactory, and the Board of Trade hold an inquiry, and wore satisfied that such were the local difficulties and the special circumstances that a special power ought to be conferred upon this contiguous suburb to have its powers for forty-five instead of twenty-one years. They were granted the powers, and the tramways are now being worked. That is a special local circumstance to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, because it has a most important effect upon the Standing Order which this House has laid down, and which was under the consideration of the Committee. Linthwaite, one of the suburbs
  1044
  having tramway connection with Huddersfield and other surrounding suburbs, come to Huddersfield and say unanimously, "We wish Huddersfield to connect us with their tramways." The situation is a difficult one. There are valleys running at the bottom of great hills, and the gradients are extremely steep. The population is very widely scattered, and the area is so extensive—I believe it is 12,000 acres—as to make it, with the exception of the last expansion in Liverpool, larger than the area of the whole of that city. In those circumstances these communities, employers and employees, manufacturers and workmen, the whole of the residents, with a large batch of evidence, came before this Committee and said: "It is essential to the development of our district that we should have this tramway connection with Huddersfield, which is our centre." Who were the opponents before the Committee? One only—the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company. Why did they oppose? Upon the ground that it might compete with their traffic, which only touches the fringe of one place. Anyone who knows anything about tramway traction knows that whilst a railway is to serve from one point to another distant point, tramways which radiate from a centre can pick up and set down passengers along the route, and railways do not meet the question at all. So far as railway competition is concerned, one of the railways—the London and North Western —who are even more affected, who run parallel with the proposed tramway to Marsden, although they petitioned, did not appear before the Committee at all. They have acquiesced in the proposal, and one of my hon. friends on the other side of the House, who sits for a Division of Manchester, and is a director of the London and North-Western Railway, is supporting us in this proposal. Under these circumstances, I want to point out what the position was, and I want now to come to the point upon which the Committee has specially reported to the House. They reported that they had not entertained this proposal with regard to these outside tramways, because the Government were intending to propose the appointment of a Committee on Municipal Trading. But this is not a case of municipal trading at all. It is a question solely of the good government of the district; and who can be so

  1045
  well able to determine that good government as the whole community who live in the district? It is not a question of our aggressively going into these districts against their wish. It is a question of our going at their special request and invitation, and giving them what they will not otherwise be able to obtain. It is not a question of our wanting to compete with or keep out a private company. No private enterprise could ever have given the people of Huddersfield the tramways which they possess. Neither can any private enterprise give the people, in consequence of the difficulties of the district, those services of locomotion outside, and, therefore, it is a question of their either getting it in this way or going without it altogether. Why should the community be deprived of these conveniences, which have of late years been given to other large towns in numerous instances? Since this Committee reported, the House, by another Committee, has actually granted these very powers to Bradford, and never said a word about the Municipal Trading Committee; and the House of Lords, which is not supposed to be very democratic in its consideration of these matters, has also granted similar power to work tramways outside its district to the borough of Burnley. If the House of Lords thinks it right to grant them to Burnley, and the House of Commons thinks it right to grant them to Bradford, why should they be refused to Huddersfield and the surrounding districts? It may be said the scheme is extensive. I wish to deal with that point, It is extensive only in the fact that the suburbs around are extensive, and that Huddersfield is the centre of the circle. It is not one great continuous length of tramway, but the suburbs extend from the centre in different directions. Another circumstance has arisen since the Committee reported. It is an important declaration by the Minister responsible in this House for the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking on the night after the debate in this House upon the question of municipal trading at a great public dinner, and in the presence of the representatives of the local authorities throughout this country, said he felt it necessary to deal with the proposition which has been submitted to this House. In the course of his speech he said one of the main duties of a municipality was to serve the interest of their
  1046
  own people in their own area, and even then there ought to be considerable latitude. The right hon. Gentleman continued—
  "Now I take for a moment the case of tramways. The tramways were always useful, most useful, and, as far as I can form an opinion, they are likely to be much more so in the future, and I am greatly interested in the subject, which very closely at the present moment concerns myself. One of the greatest problems of the present day is how we are to improve the housing of the poorer classes of this country."
  Without detaining the House with a long extract from this speech I may remark that the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say that the way to deal with the question was to provide cheap facilities for getting from the towns into the suburbs, and to do that not only by means of cheap trains, but also by means of cheap trams. Then he added these significant words—
  "There must be some means of cheap and effective communication for the many thousands in this country to bring the people practically close to their work. Some people recommend the cheap trains, and undoubtedly the cheap trains might do a great deal; but, in my own humble judgment, they must in any case be supplemented by the provision of cheap tramways, and, with the cheap tramways, subject to this condition, which I feel should be entirely in the hands of the local authorities. There, I think, is an instance in which the rights of local authorities ought not to be strictly limited to dealing within their own area."
  That is precisely my point. This Committee wants to hang up the question of granting these powers to local authorities surrounding them, whereas the President of the Local Government Board says that they ought not to be restricted to dealing in their own area if they are going to give effect to the important principle which he wishes to have imposed on the country—namely, that of solving the question of the housing of the working classes by giving them cheap travelling facilities. That declaration of the President of the Local Government Board has been made since the debate on municipal trading and since the Report of this Committee. I humbly and respectfully submit to the House that it never was within the purview of the Government or of the House that, it should refuse to municipalities that which has been granted year by year for a large number of years past—the power of constructing and working their trams

  1047
  outside their own district. If I could bring to the knowledge of the House the special and particular configuration of this district by inviting the House to walk over it, I am quite sure the House would not hesitate for a moment to realise these special and local circumstances. I ask that the Committee should consider this Bill on its merits, and I am satisfied that if these powers are granted by the Committee it will be the means of conferring upon that district, at their own request, by their governing authorities, who have the best means of understanding the wishes of the people, the means of developing their district and promoting its welfare. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I wish to second the proposal of my hon. friend in order to illustrate the unanimity of feeling which exists throughout this whole district. I am the representative of the country lying on one side of Huddersfield. I can speak to the absolute unanimity of the people in that district. The people of Yorkshire are not a hasty people in coming to their decisions. They do not start half-baked schemes of legislation when they come to this House, and the people of Huddersfield have proved themselves so thoroughly capable of managing their tramways that exist at present, that with one voice the surrounding districts have asked them to come out and give them the advantages of this municipal undertaking. I think there is only one serious argument which we need anticipate on the part of those who may possibly oppose the recommittal, and that is that our course is unusual. It is so, and we have only taken it as a retort to the unusual course of the Committee itself. If it had been a case of the Committee having decided this question upon its merits we should never have come down with such a curious proposition as to ask to refer the question again to the Committee. We have come here to ask the House to recommit the Bill because the Committee practically by their report have asked the House to give them advice as to the line they shall take. The Committee refused to pass these clauses, but simply because there was a Committee to be appointed to inquire into the whole matter of municipal
  1048
  trading, and the Committee chose to interpret the object of the House in appointing that Committee as being to decide whether tramways were to go outside the boundaries of municipalities. What we say is that the Committee have interpreted the prevailing feeling in the House wrongly, and that the object of appointing the Municipal Trading Committee was not to put a stop for the next eighteen months to municipal progress, and to the passing of municipal schemes by Private Bill. The object has been declared by the President of the Local Government Board, on behalf of the Government, not to be in any sense to put a stop to municipal enterprise. In the speech from which quotations have already been made he assured the Association of Municipal Corporations that he is certain there is no desire or intention in the smallest degree on the part of this Government to do anything whatever that could in the slightest degree be antagonistic to the privileges and rights of municipalities. I think we are entitled to ask at any rate that the Government should not oppose the recommittal of this Bill, for after all one ounce of action on the part of the Government is of great deal more worth to us than a ton of protest on their part that they are not anxious to attack the development of corporations. I think we may at least hope the Government will leave it to the House to decide without throwing their power in the balance as to whether this Bill should be recommitted or not. After all it is a very serious thing if the corporations are to know that for the next eighteen months they cannot promote municipal undertakings, because it will depend upon the whim of the Committee whether they adopt the excuse of the Municipal Trading Committee or not. We ask that the Bill should be recommitted, and that the chance should be given to Huddersfield to have their Bill decided on its merits. There are, no doubt, some hon. Members opposite who expect that this Committee on Municipal Trading may lay down certain rules to prevent municipal enterprise from spreading outside the limits of boroughs under certain circumstances. Such a Committee would possibly find that there were cases where the agency of private companies was desirable instead of municipalities, but the case in question could not come under any rule except such an

  1049
  absolute hard and fast and mandatory rule as would prevent any extension outside municipalities. The larger part of this district is a small area, full of industrial communities, enclosed in a triangle with sides, perhaps, seven miles long, at each angle of which is a great city—Bradford, Huddersfield, and Halifax. It has never been suggested that that district could possibly be served "with tramways by one private company. All the local bodies in that district are intensely anxious to have Bradford and Huddersfield and Halifax sending out their tramways, and there is this additional reason for allowing these great communities to have the management of the tramways in that district, that a great part of the district will probably be gradually absorbed by these corporations before many years are passed. It is therefore almost absolutely certain that no rules will be laid down which would prevent the tramways spreading into these districts. I hope the House will act on the recommendation of my hon. friend, and be content to send back the Bill to be considered on its merits by the Committee, which has not yet decided upon them.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words from the word 'Bill' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'be re-committed to the former Committee.'"—(Sir James Woodhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. JEFFREYS: In discussing this Amendment I ought first to thank the hon. Gentlemen who so courteously agreed to postpone it last week because I was unable to be present. I will also say that this is not a party or a political question, although I happen to sit on one side of the House and the hon. Member for Huddersfield on the other. It is entirely a question for the House, and in coming to a decision the Committee, of which I was Chairman, was guided by the rules of the Mouse. I propose only to say a few words in support of its decision. In the first place we heard the speeches of learned counsel, we listened to the witnesses with much patience, and, after a hearing which lasted two or three days, we gave our
  1050
  decision in the terms to which my hon. friend has alluded. But with regard to the wishes of the local authorities outside the borough of Huddersfield, I think the hon. Gentleman has made some mistake, for, although we found in the course of the evidence that they were willing to acquiesce in the scheme, we also discovered that none of them supported it in any way by giving a single penny to the scheme or taking any part in the proceedings. They only said they would be glad to have this system of tramways, but they took no action to secure it. Now, we in the Committee were guided in our decision by the Standing Order 170A, which provides that—
  "No powers shall be given to any local authority to construct, acquire, take on lease or work any tramway, or portion of tramway, beyond the limits of their district, unless such tramway or portion of tramway is in connection with the tramway belonging to or authorised to be constructed, acquired, or worked by the local authority, and unless the Committee on the Bill shall determine that, having regard to the special local circumstances, such construction, acquisition, taking on lease, or working ought to be sanctioned."
  That was the chief ground on which we decided. The Bill sought very extensive powers. It was not a short tramway which was proposed to be made, for on the map which was placed before us in the committee room the trams were drawn out exactly like the spokes of a cart wheel in all directions, and I believe the aggregate length was something like fifty-two miles. It was, therefore, a large and extensive scheme which the Huddersfield Corporation asked us to approve. There was another clause brought under our notice by learned counsel of which we were bound to take notice. Clause 3 of the Railways Act, 1896, says—
  "A council shall not construct or work any light railway wholly or partly outside their district except jointly with the council of the outside area."
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: This is not a light railway.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I know it is not a light railway, but the argument of the learned counsel was that this clause went to show that it was not the intention of Parliament that municipalities should extend these undertakings outside their own area, except under special circumstances. Now, I should like to refer to some of the remarks of the learned

  1051
  counsel, Mr. Littler, Q.C., who has had very great experience in these matters.
  SIR J. WOODHOUSE: What has he to do with it?
  MR. JEFFREYS: He represented a railway company. I think his remarks are well worthy attention at the hands of the House. Reference had been made to the fact that the Corporation worked the Linthwaite tramways, and he pointed out how it was that the Huddersfield Corporation got powers to work that tramway which had already been constructed. It was not, therefore, analagous to a case of starting a new tramway. He said—
  "I do not know of any instance in which so barefacedly have corporations gone in for asking the authority of Parliament for municipal trading powers to such an extent."
  He also said that—
  "The reason why the Corporation of Huddersfield got power to work their tramways was that they did not pay in other hands. They could not get anyone else to do it, and, as the trams were in existence, they were allowed to work them."
  Further, he said that the proposed extension was beyond anything he had ever had experience of. Then he reminded us very properly that already the debt of Huddersfield amounted to £2,890,000, and if the powers asked for under the present Bill were granted, another £400,000 would have to be raised, and he suggested that that was a very large amount indeed to add to the debt of Huddersfield, especially if it. were done in contravention of the orders of the House. Now, we fully considered these matters. Counsel made long speeches, to which we listened attentively. It was urged, among other things, that the outside areas themselves could not carry out this scheme. But then we were bound to remember that that was because they were aware the system would have to be worked at a loss; therefore when the hon. Member for Huddersfield tells us that the outside authorities support the Bill I reply that "no doubt they do." They are willing to have the tramways, but they are not willing to pay a farthing in any shape or way in order to get them. The hon. Gentleman has said that a great many other schemes of a similar nature have been passed, but I believe the first was the Glasgow Corporation Act of 1870. He also alluded to other pre-
  1052
  cedents, but those he quoted were Bills which came before the Police and Sanitary Committee. And I fail to see how such precedents are applicable to this case. The Police and Sanitary Committee is not a Railway or Tramway Committee, but it has referred to it omnibus Bills, which include all sorts of matters. In regard to one particular case mentioned by my hon. friend, I find that the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee, in his Report, says that the Bradford Corporation Bill proposes to make tramways beyond the limits of the borough, to be in connection with tramways authorised to be constructed within the borough limits, and the Committee were of opinion that, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, the Bill should be allowed to proceed. But that was very different to the Bill which we had before us. The tramways were not in existence. There was no communicating line of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord in the Bradford case. Neither was the Bradford scheme so extensive as that from Huddersfield. At at any rate we came to the decision we did because we thought it would be contrary to Standing Order 170A, and because we thought that as a Committee had to be appointed to deal with the question of municipal trading it was well that we should not pass the scheme so far as the outside areas were concerned until that Committee had reported. We thought it was only due to the House that we should take that course. I need hardly say that I have no interest in the matter what ever, I am not connected with any syndicate or company, and that in deciding the matter I desired to be guided by the rules and orders of the House. If the House decides that these tramways outside the borough ought to be made the Committee will, I am sure, willingly fall in with their view. But I repeat that we felt we were only doing our duty in refusing this extensive scheme until we had the direct sanction of the House.
  MR. ARNOLD: I have risen to address the House on this point because the matter is one of the most absorbing interest for all the districts around Huddersfield. No doubt locomotion from place to place is very difficult. They are only anxious

  1053
  they should have the same privileges as are already possessed by Halifax. I think the House hardly knows what can be done by means of these electric trams, but I may illustrate what is possible by pointing out what we have already compassed in Halifax by means of these electric trams. With such an enormous advantage to the community, is it possible to imagine that the privileges granted to Halifax are going to be refused to the districts outside Huddersfield? When the Light Railways Act was passed it was understood that its provisions would also apply to trams, and that when a community wanted a tramway system, it should get it with the sanction of the Board of Trade without the enormous expense of applying for an Act of Parliament. Unfortunately, some cloud of apprehension in regard to municipal trading has come over this Committee, and they have refused this Bill. But surely the Committee on Municipal Trading is not going to inquire into that question so far as gas and water works are concerned. That point has been settled already, and you have not very far to travel from Huddersfield to discover that municipal trading in tramways has also been settled. I hope, in view of the fact that this is a matter of absorbing interest to the populaces of these manufacturing villages—we may call them towns, for their inhabitants number from 5,000 to 10,000—this House will order that this Bill be reconsidered by the Committee. Comment has been made on the fact that these interested communities are not willing to put down any money, and that the trams are not to be constructed at their expense; but I can tell the House that they are willing to pledge their credit, and surely that is equivalent to putting the cash down. I trust the House will agree to this motion.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid this question was one of the greatest importance not only to the promoters and to municipalities of rural districts, but to many urban centres surrounding our towns and cities. Whatever might be the opinion with regard to the case before the House, he apprehended the House would be unanimously in favour of uniformity. Two decisions had been given by separate Committees, and if the decision of the Committee of which he
  1054
  had the honour to be a member was right, the decision of the Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee was wrong. The procedure of the Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee in regard to gas, tramways, or waterworks, or anything that might come before them, was identical with that of any ordinary Private Bill Committee, and consequently its work had been enormously increased. It was a great mistake for the House to suppose that proposals with regard to the tramways and traffic which came before the Committee were treated in any different way to that which they would be if sent to any Private Bill Committee. The resolution was of very great importance to all municipalities, corporations, and country districts, because, if it was passed, nothing need be done by a Committee of the House until the Committee on Municipal Trading had sent in their Report, which would be in the following year, in all probability. The Standing Order 170, which contemplated the construction of these tramways outside, laid down certain rules for the purpose, and it was never intended that the Committee on Municipal Trading should stand in the way of municipalities dealing with gas, waterworks, tramways, and things of that description; what it was intended to do was to prevent corporations going beyond the recognised rights of municipal trading and going in other directions. All these particular tramways were constructed with a view of being in the near future connected with the existing system of Huddersfield, and the Report had thrown them all out and made no distinctions. He could not help thinking some misunderstanding had arisen with regard to the matter, and he trusted the Committee would be asked to re-examine the question in the interests of the Committees of the House generally.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,said the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman opposite was fair and reasonable, but he had not said a word against the merits. It might be remembered that although there were precedents with regard to the extension of tramways outside boroughs, the Committee was debarred by the Standing Orders of the House from sanctioning tramways outside the borough of Huddersfield. Their position was that if the House thought they ought to reconsider

  1055
  their decision apart from the Standing Orders, they were willing to reconsider it. That course would be a sensible one for the House to take. He favoured the extension of tramways outside towns because they looked to it largely for a solution of the housing difficulty.
  MR. JEFFREYS: With reference to the Instruction on the Paper, I should like to know whether, if that be carried, it will be an Order of the House to insert all the names of the districts on the Paper.
  MR. SPEAKER: It will not be an Order for the Committee to insert all or any of those districts, but merely to consider and report.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider and report as to the expediency of re-inserting in the Bill the power to construct additional tramways to and in the borough, districts, and parishes hereinafter mentioned adjacent to the borough, that is to say: The borough of Brighthouse; the urban districts of Mirfield, Marsden, Slaithwaite, Linthwaite, Lepton, Kirkburton, Honley, Thurstonland, New Mill, Netherthong, Holmfirth; and the parishes of Fixby, Clifton, and Hartshead, in the rural district of Halifax.—(Sir James Woodhouse.)

  POLICE SANITARY REGULATION BILLS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Committee of Selection do add Two Members to the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills; that they do divide the Committee, so augmented, into two Committees, and from time to time apportion the Bills committed to the original Committee and not already disposed of between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of and be subject to the orders and instructions in force in the case of the undivided Committee; that
  1056
  Three be the quorum of each Committee.—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  MR. HALSEY: I do not think that this motion ought to pass without a few words. I do not propose to oppose it, because I understand that the work of this Police and Sanitary Committee has arrived at such a state during the present session that unless some motion of this sort is adopted matters will come to a deadlock, and it will cause great inconvenience to the promoters concerned. What I wish to point out is that I hope the House will clearly understand that this motion is merely an emergency proposal for the present session, and will not interfere with the future arrangement of business connected with this Committee. I have always understood that the object of the appointment of this Committee was to ensure uniformity of decision on matters connected with proposals in Private Bills affecting the general law of the country. By dividing this Committee into two you run the risk of doing away with that very uniformity which this Committee was established to promote. I also wish to say on behalf of the Committee of Selection, that the work of this Committee—as we see from the fact that it has brought about this motion—is extremely arduous, but at the same time it is work which it is absolutely necessary should be entrusted to the very best and strongest Members of the House. Unfortunately, the Committee has found that there is increased difficulty every year in finding efficient Members of the House to serve on this Committee. Service on this Committee is not compulsory, and therefore no Member can be bound to serve without his own consent, and it has become increasingly difficult to find hon. Gentlemen of the requisite capacity who are willing to serve on this Committee. My reason for rising is to express the hope that the whole question of the business of this Committee and how these Bills are to be dealt with in the future shall be fully considered by Her Majesty's Government and the authorities of the House another session. I feel convinced that sooner or later this question will have to be taken into consideration, and although I offer no opposition in the present state of the business of the House this session, I do earnestly entreat the House to consider before

  1057
  another session commences whether some other means cannot be devised of dealing with those Police and Sanitary Clauses, so as to ensure the unanimity which is undoubtedly so desirable in these Bills, but at the same time without causing such an intolerable strain upon hon. Members as the present system does.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I wish to be allowed to say a very few words upon this motion. It has been put upon the Paper not only with full assent of the Committee over which I preside, but I must say also at their request. The position of the work of this Committee is quite extraordinary. It seems to be a very popular Committee, and we have got no less than twenty-one of the heaviest Private Bills before that Committee. We have to get those measures up to the House of Lords by the date fixed under the Sessional Order. Under these circumstances, I thought it my duty to communicate with the Chairman of Committees of this House. We went into the matter together, with the assistance of the House officials, and I am not in the least exaggerating when I tell the House that if the single Committee on these Bills sat every day in the week we should be here in the middle of August. We were not prepared to sit continuously until the middle of August, and that is the reason why this motion was placed upon the Table by the responsible Minister. I entirely concur with what has fallen from my hon. friend the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. It will be absolutely necessary for the Government to consider the whole question of this Committee, and what has been said in the case of the Bradford Bill is a good illustration. The result of the Standing Order of the House is that every Bill which contains the very smallest proposal in that direction comes to this Committee, and we have to deal with the whole Bill. The result is that large corporations place all these matters in one large Bill and this unfortunate Committee has to deal with them all.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,: No less than twenty Bills have been sent to this Committee, and therefore the work cannot be got through. A similar motion
  1058
  to this was made in 1892, when a similar state of things existed, and the motion then passed. We fully recognise all the objections which my hon. friend has made, for it is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, that the whole composition of this Committee shall be considered another session with a view of unloading the Committee of such work, or making such other alterations as will make the work lighter. That is not possible this session, and this is but an emergency motion which is quite necessary.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Would it not be possible to devise a plan whereby at the commencement of each session the authorities of the House should eliminate from all Private Bills the Police and Sanitary Clauses? Those only might be submitted to the Committee, leaving the remaining portions of the Bills to be dealt with by Select Committees in the ordinary way.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Might I suggest to my right hon. friend that he should nominate three members instead of two, because one member of the Committee is very unwell, and I understand that he will not be able to attend for some time.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That would be in the nature of opposition, and would involve postponement of the motion i until to-morrow.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do add Two Members to the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills; that they do divide the Committee, so augmented, into two Committees, and from time to time apportion the Bills committed to the original Committee and not already disposed of between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of and be subject to the orders and instructions in force in the case of the undivided Committee.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum of each Committee.—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of

  1059
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Blackpool, St. Anne's, and Lytham Tramways Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Queen's consent and Prince of Wales's consent signified; read the third time, and passed.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    EXMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL [Lords].
      LONDON COUNTY TRAMWAYS (No. 1) BILL.
      Read a second time, and committed.
  GUN BARREL PROOF ACT, 1868, AMEND- MENT BILL [Lords] (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.
  BRAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  "To continue the powers for the making of and to extend the time limited for the completion of certain works authorised by the Bray Township Act, 1890, namely, the Promenade Pier and landing stage thereby authorised; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.

  KNOTT END RAILWAY BILL.
  Order [20th March] that the Knott End Railway Bill be committed read, and discharged.
  Ordered, That the Bill be withdrawn.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Ilkeston and Rothwell (Northampton), ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating
  1060
  to Ilkeston and Rothwell (Northampton)," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
    SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).
  Mr. BALDWIN reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  CHEAP TRAINS BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kirkcudbright, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Gelligaer and Rhigos, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Stirling, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL
  Petitions in favour, from Stirling; and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  LUNACY BILL.
  Petitions for alteration, from Bridport; and Mere; to lie upon the Table.
  PETTY CUSTOMS ABOLITION (SCOT- LAND) BILL.
  Petitions against, from Newburgh; Alloa; and Elgin; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Darlington (two); Barrow - in - Furness; Kingston-upon-Hull; Barry; Kent; High Wycombe; Glossop; Lightcliffe; Finchley; Hull; Batley (two); Briston; Aspatria; Liverpool; Leeds; Wolverhampton; Newcastle; Macclesfield; and Street (three); to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL AND SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petition in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Queensferry; Alloa; Ecclefechan; Munlochy; Royal Parliamentary and Police Burghs of Scotland; Kingussie; Eyemouth; Hurlford; Whithorn; Stranraer; Biggar; Dundee; Ayr; Peterhead; and Perth: to lie upon the Table.
  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS ON ACTIVE SERVICE.
  Petition from Blaby, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTH- SHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Kent; Darlington (two); New Brancepeth; Newcastle; and Macclesfield; to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPERANCE REFORM THREEFOLD OPTION (SCOTLAND) HILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Temperance Committee of the Church of Scotland; Dalbeattie; and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Bridport, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE UNION FUNDS.
  Return [presented 4th May] to be printed. [No. 164.]
  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS.
  Paper [presented 7th May] to be printed. [No. 165.]
  H.M.S. "DIADEM," ETC. (BOILERS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 19th February; Mr. William Allan]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 166.]
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Temporary Laws.—Register of Temporary Laws for the Seventh Session, Twenty-sixth Parliament, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, pursuant to Report of the Select Committee on Expiring Laws in Session 1866; to be printed. [No. 167.]

  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.
  MR. JACKSON: It is the opinion of the Committee on War Office Contracts, of which I am the chairman, that in order to ensure strict justice in our inquiry, it may be necessary to hear counsel on behalf of the parties interested. The Committee, being unable to hear Counsel without the consent of the House and without an order of the House, has requested me to seek from the House such power.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee on War Office Contracts have leave to hear Counsel to such extent as they may think fit."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  Mr. JAMES LOWTHER: I think this motion requires some consideration. The Committee consists of fifteen members and is to meet twice a week. That will not be the slightest good. If the House wants to get to the bottom of these contract scandals the Committee should be reduced to five members, and sit de die in diem until the work is done. If this Committee is going to sit only twice a week for a limited period, and hear counsel, I think it will become an absolute farce.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 184; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 115.)

  AYES.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Fry, Lewis

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Garfit, William

  Myers, William Henry

  Asher, Alexander

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Gladstone, Rt. hon. H. John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Baird, John Geo. Alexander

  Greene, Hn. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Penn, John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gunter, Colonel

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Baldwin, Afred

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Pilkington, Rich (Lancs Newt'n)

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Pilkington, Sir G. A.(Lancs, SW)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Harwood, George

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Heath, James

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Biddulph, Michael

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Hill, Sir Ed. Stock (Bristol)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd)

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Brassey, Albert

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Houston, R. P.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Howard, Joseph

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Butcher, John George

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Caldwell, James

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow)

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Sidebotton, William(Derbysh.)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. JA(Glasgow

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed.

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Cavendish, R F. (N. Lancs.)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

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

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.(Bir'm.)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worcester)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox'fd Univ.)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'nsea)

  Thornburn, Sir Walter

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield)

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Long, Rt Hon Walter(Liverpool)

  Wallace, Robert

  Curzon, Viscount

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Lowe, Francis William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Denny, Colonel

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Doughty, George

  M'Killop, James

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd)

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Southampton)

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Wyndham, George

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. Manc'r

  More, Robert Jasper (Shrops.)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Finch, George H.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Younger, William

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham(Bute)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  NOES.

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

  Birrell, Augustine

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Colville, John

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo S.)

  Baker, Sir John

  Burns, John

  Daly, James

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Burt, Thomas

  Dewar, Arthur

  Billson, Alfred

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon, Sir. Charles

  1064

  1065

  Dillon, John

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Doogan, P. C.

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

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Dorrington, Sir John Edward

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Spicer, Albert

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Steadman, William Charles

  Fenwick, Charles

  Maddison, Fred.

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Mather, William

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E)

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  Monk, Charles James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.

  Gold, Charles

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Wason, Eugene

  Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Whiteley, George(Stockport)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Hogan, James Francis

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norf')

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Wilson, Jos. H (Middlesbrough)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Price, Robert John

  Woods, Samuel

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lambert, George

  Runciman, Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. James Lowther and Mr. Strachey.

  Langley, Batty

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Leng, Sir John

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  MR. JACKSON: I beg to move "That the Report and Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee on Public Departments, etc., of 1873–74 be referred to the Select Committee on War Office Contracts." In 1873–74 a Select Committee was appointed by the House which took a great deal of evidence with reference to certain contracts made by the War Office, and the Select Committee now sitting think it would be of great service to them to have the Report of that Committee, and the evidence then taken, referred to them.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to one Committee that went very extensively into this whole matter and exposed any number of flagrant contracts.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not relevant. If the hon. Member wishes at any time to move that certain other Papers be referred to the Select Committee he can do so.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I simply wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee to which I referred was that which inquired into commissariat and transport in the Egyptian War, and which dealt with subjects entirely germane to the investigations of this Committee, and if the right hon. Gentleman is going to refer some Papers I would suggest that he should also refer the Report of and evidence taken by that Committee.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Would it not be better to add to the motion "or
  1066
  any other documents that they may think fit to call for"?
  MR. SPEAKER: This is a common form; the House had better not adopt a new form.
  MR. DILLON: I think I am entitled to ask for some explanation of the reasons for moving this. I have not sat on many Committees, although I have been a long time in the House of Commons, but I do know it is within the power of any Committee to take into consideration the minutes of evidence and Reports of any previous Committee. That being the case, where is the necessity of the House passing a resolution referring a certain body of evidence and Report to this Committee? What is the object of it?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I cannot understand what advantage there can be in certain evidence and Reports being referred to the Committee, because the evidence and Reports of every Committee are open to Members of the House. I assume there is some purpose in the resolution. Is it to act in the nature of an Instruction to the Committee? Is it to give the Committee some power which without it they would not have? If so, I think it is doubtful whether the resolution is wide enough. On the other hand, is the resolution a suggestion which limits the Committee? It seems to me it is a distinct intimation to them to limit their consideration to that special Report and evidence. I certainly can see no reason for passing it, and unless the resolution is made more general, or some further ex-

  1067
  planation is given of it, I shall feel bound to vote against it.
  MR. SPEAKER: This is a very usual application, made in quite a common form. It is generally simply handed in at the Table and put on the minutes as a matter of course. It is quite true that hon. Members may obtain and read copies of Reports which have been printed, but a Committee, as a Committee, cannot take notice of them and have them before them as evidence unless an order of this kind is made. It is a matter of common form, which is gone through constantly in respect of Private Bills.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I take it any Member of the House can move a resolution to refer to any Committee any document he may think fit?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is so.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not the rule for a Parliamentary Committee to take power generally to have documents before it, and not to specify particular Papers? We do not want the precedent of the South African Committee to be repeated.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Has not the Committee already got power to send for persons, Papers, and Reports? This motion indicates only one Report. I want them to have any Reports that may be thought desirable.
  MR. JACKSON: The only object is to obtain the information which was obtained by a previous Committee. The Committee on War Office Contracts are under the impression that the only way in which they can secure the obtaining of the information is to ask the House to refer to them the Papers specified. There is no other object in the motion.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I wish to ask whether the Chairman of the Committee and his colleagues have not power to send for any records they think fit.
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I presume so, though I have not seen the Order of reference, but when a Committee wishes to have before it the proceedings of a previous Committee it has always been
  1068
  the custom to make such an Order. The usual course has been followed in this case.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: And it has this practical effect, that the Stationery Office is enabled to supply every member of the Committee with copies of the documents.
  MR. WEIR: The motion for the appointment of this Committee contained these words—"The Committee shall have power to send for persons, Papers, and documents." I am at a loss to understand why this motion is made. [VOICES: Agreed!]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Don't shout him down.
  MR. WEIR: Seeing that the Committee already have power to send for Papers, I am at a loss to understand why this demand is made in this way for these specific documents.
  Ordered, That the Report and Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee on Public Departments (Purchases, etc.), 1873–4, be referred to the Select Committee on War Office Contracts.—(Mr. Jackson.)

  QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
  MR. HOUSTON: I beg leave to trespass upon the time of the House for a few moments in order to mention a personal matter which, I think, deserves the attention of the House. It has been a matter of public knowledge for some time past that the British and South American Steam Navigation Company, Limited, of which I am chairman, has had contracts with the Government; and I presume it was owing to my special knowledge of the subjects to be dealt with that I was appointed a member of the Select Committee to inquire into the alleged frauds perpetrated on the War Office. It was certainly in that belief that I consented to sit on the Committee. This morning I received a letter, a copy of which, I understand, has been addressed to every Member of the House, I from a firm of solicitors representing

  1069
  one of the parties alleged to have committed fraud upon the War Office. Immediately on the assembling of the Select Committee this morning I called the attention of the Committee to the letter and tendered my resignation, for I would not for one moment allow it to be suggested, even by the writers of such a letter as this, that a Select Committee of the House of Commons is not an absolutely fair and impartial tribunal. It was pointed out to me by the chairman and other members of the Committee that, as I had been elected or appointed to the Committee by the House, whether I should be allowed to resign was a question for the House. I refrain from comment upon the letter beyond stating that the insinuations and statements contained therein are untrue. [An HON. MEMBER: Read the letter.] It is for the House to say whether I should read the letter or not; I believe a copy of the letter has been sent to every hon. Member. [Cries of "No, two!"] I will read one or two passages which I distinctly state are untrue. It is said that—
  "It was Mr. Houston—despite the fact that a board of officers at Tilbury passed the hay on the Manchester Port—who refused to allow the vessel to sail."
  That is absolutely untrue. The statement that I, or any other member of my firm, had any contracts with any Department of the Government is also untrue. The company of which I am chairman has had contracts with the Government Departments at the special invitation of those Departments. As to the allegations which the writers of the letter make, I have not heard a single word about them. Therefore I assume they only exist in the imagination of the writers. As I have no desire to sit upon the Committee, and certainly no object to gain by sitting upon it or retiring from it, I prefer to retire from it. At the same time, as I was appointed a member of the Committee by this House, it is only right to the House that I should place my resignation in their hands. I leave it unreservedly with hon. Members to decide whether I should continue to sit upon or retire from the Committee. At the same time, I assure hon. Members that whatever I can do to assist the investigations of the Committee in any capacity whatever I shall be only too pleased to do.
  MR. JACKSON: I think it is due to the hon. Member that I, as Chairman of
  1070
  the Select Committee, should at once state that at the commencement of the proceedings of the Committee this morning, the hon. Member for West Toxteth drew attention to the fact that the letter to which he has now referred had been circulated. The hon. Member desired to at once resign his membership of the Committee. It was pointed out to him by me and by other Members that as he had been nominated by the House the Committee had no power to discharge him from serving on the Committee. The hon. Gentleman then decided to take the course he has now taken—to make a personal explanation in the House. It is only fair to the hon. Gentleman I should say that that action was taken by the hon. Member immediately on the assembling of the Committee, and was not in any sense the result of any action taken by the Committee.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I think we ought to have the letter read at the Table of the House. I consider that the letter constitutes a breach of the privileges of the House. The hon. Member has my sympathy, and I think he has done quite right in bringing it before the House. I propose, if no one else does so, to hand the letter in at the Table, and move that it be read by the Clerk.
  MR. SPEAKER: It would not be regular simply to hand in the letter to be read at the Table without any intention of making a motion on it; but if the hon. Member desires to move that the words read at the Table constitute a broach of privilege, he will be quite in order in handing it in to be read.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I will do it.
  The HON. MEMBER then handed a copy of the letter.
  The CLERK at the Table then read the following—
  "Rees and Hindley, Solicitors.
  "43, Castle Street, Liverpool.
  "7th May, 1900.
  "Army Contract Scandals.
  "Dear Sir,—Below is copy letter of even date forwarded by us to Mr. Powell-Williams, M.P., herein:—'As you are aware, we act for Mr. John Brown, of Brunswick Street, Liver-pool, against whom allegations have been made with regard to the quality of hay supplied by him to Her Majesty's transports. Our client's

  1071
  extensive dealings with the War Office, and more particularly the circumstances connected with the hay shipped on her Majesty's transport "Manchester Port," will be a subject matter for inquiry by the Select Committee on Government Contracting recently appointed.' … Further, it was Mr. Houston, -despite the fact that a board of officers at Tilbury passed the hay on the 'Manchester Port'-who refused to allow the vessel to sail -it was chartered by you from him-until the hay had been unloaded. Why, therefore, should he, who has prejudged our client, be allowed to sit in biassed judgment upon him? We hope to examine him before the Committee, and it is common knowledge to yourself and ourselves that he will be an important witness."
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House. I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, a portion of the letter of Messrs. Rees and Hindley, solicitors, of Liverpool, reflecting upon the character of the hon. Member for West Toxteth, Liverpool, constitutes a
  breach of the privileges of this House." I wish to direct the attention of the House to the words particularly constituting a breach of privilege—
  "Why, therefore, should he who has prejudged our client be allowed to sit in biassed judgment on him?"
  These words, in my opinion, constitute as gross a breach of the privileges of the House as has, perhaps, ever been brought before it. I beg formally to make this motion and leave the matter to the House to decide.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That, in the opinion of this House, the passages in the letter of Messrs. Rees and Hindley, read at the Table of the House, constitute a breach of the Privileges of this House."—(Mr. Patrick O'Brien.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 192; Noes, 100. (Division List No. 116.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Ed w. T.D.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Heath, James

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Crombie, John William

  Henderson, Alexander

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Hoare, Edward B. (Hampstead)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Curzon, Viscount

  Hogan, James Francis

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Howell, William Tudor

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Dilke, Right Hon. Sir Charles

  Hozier, Hn. James H. Cecil

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W., Leeds

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Doughty, George

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kimber, Henry

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Knowles, Lees

  Bethell, Commander

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Leng, Sir John

  Biddulph, Michael

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

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea)

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Finch, George H.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Brassey, Albert

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lowther, Rt. Hn James (Kent)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Garfit, William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Butcher, John George

  Gedge, Sydney

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Macdonna, John Cumming

  Carlile, William Walter

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

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

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

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Cavendish, V. CW. (Derbyshire)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Arthur Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Maple, Sir Jodn Blundell

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gunter, Colonel

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Harwood, George

  Monk, Charles James

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffi.)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Weir, James Galloway

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

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Norton, Capt, Cecil William

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Wilson, Fred K. W. (Norfolk)

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

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

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

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

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

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Woods, Samuel

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

  Stanley, Sir Hy. M. (Lambeth)

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

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Wylie, Alexander

  Purvis, Robert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wyndham, George

  Rankin, Sir James

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. M'Kenna.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  NOES.

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Gold, Charles

  Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

  Asher, Alexander

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Pilkington, Sir Geo A (Lancs S W)

  Baker, Sir John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Price, Robert John

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Billson, Alfred

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Birrell, Augustine

  Howard, Joseph

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Runciman, Walter

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Burt, Thomas

  Kay-Shuttle worth, Rt. Hn Sir U

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Kinloch, Sir John George S.

  Spicer, Albert

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Steadman, William Charles

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lambert, George

  Strachey, Edward

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Langley, Batty

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Colville, John

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Daly, James

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Denny, Colonel

  M'Killop, James

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

  Dewar, Arthur

  Maddison, Fred.

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

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mather, William

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Southampton)

  Mendal, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hu'd'rst'd)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Morris, Samuel

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  Oldroyd, Mark

  TELLEES FOR THE NOES—Mr. Kearley and Mr. Wallace.

  Fry, Lewis

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the passages in the letter of Messrs. Rees and Hindley, road at the Table of the House, constitute a breach of the Privileges of this House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The House will expect to be informed of the course the Leader of the House intends to pursue.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Is the right hon. Gentleman about to make a motion?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I was going to ask a question, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot ask a question now of that kind. There is no question before the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is there power to move the adjournment?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is hardly a matter of "urgent public importance."
  SIR CHAELES DILKE: Is it the intention of the First Lord of the Treasury to give his guidance and advice to the House, now that the motion has been carried on which he did not give the House any advice, by moving that the persons who wrote the letter should attend the House on a given day?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to make a motion of that kind he is at liberty to do so.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I want to ask if the Government intend to make such a motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member is not at liberty to ask a question.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to move that Messrs. Rees and Hindley be ordered to attend at the Bar of the House on Thursday at three o'clock. The House has determined that the letter is a breach of privilege, and consequently the next step the House ought to take is to act upon that resolution according to the usual practice.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to second the motion. I regret that the whole of the letter was not read at the Table of the House. I think that the most offensive passages of the letter were not read to the House. There are imputations of unfair conduct in the appointment of the Committee, under which the House could not properly rest. In my opinion the House is very much indebted to the hon. Member for Kilkenny for bringing the question forward by way of a motion, and although I am conscious of the gravity of the step this House takes when it enters upon matters of privilege, and begins to exercise its undoubtedly large coercive powers, no one can doubt that when the House has passed such a resolution as has just been adopted it must follow up the action taken. I therefore beg leave to second the motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Messrs. Rees and Hindley do attend at the Bar of this House on Thursday next, at Three of the clock."— (Mr. James Lowther.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I did not quite anticipate my right hon. friend the Member for Thanet would have got us out of the difficulty in which we are in consequence of the hon. Member for the Toxteth Division having thought it desirable to call attention to this letter. There can be no doubt whatever in my judgment that, as the House has already affirmed, these solicitors have committed a breach of the privileges of the House, and though I do not think it was very wise, if I may say so, to raise this question, the question having been raised there was no alternative left to the House but to affirm, as it has affirmed, that a breach of privilege has been committed. But if we are asked to go further, as we are asked by my right hon. friend, whose motion was seconded by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, we enter into a very different order of ideas, and I should strongly advise the House, as I have advised it on previous occasions, not to enter, upon such provocation as this, on a course which, in my judgment, will not conduce either to the dignity of the House or to any great useful purpose. On 26th July, 1898* it appears that the same hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny, who has moved to-day, made a similar motion with regard to a breach of privilege by the Board of Guardians of Mullingar, who had attacked an hon. Member representing an Irish constituency for a speech he made in this House, and the House unanimously decided that it was a breach of privilege. I then advised the House that the cumbrous and antiquated machinery at our disposal for dealing with questions of this kind could not with advantage be put in motion. The House took the advice I then gave, and the matter was allowed to drop. I suggest now that it would be the best course, in our interest and in the public interest, that this very recent precedent should be followed on this occasion. The hon. Member opposite, with an authority which has almost
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxii., page 1343.

  1077
  become a habit of his, has called attention to words which constitute a breach of the privileges of the House. We have asserted that he is right, and, having made that assertion, I think we have done all that is necessary, and I beg to move, as an Amendment, "That this House do now proceed to the business of the day."
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House do now proceed to the business of the day.'"—(Mr. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has expressed himself as being exceedingly desirous, and no one can doubt that he must be desirous, to maintain the dignity of the House and to avoid leading the House into, or advising the House to enter upon, any course inconsistent with its dignity. I cannot conceive any course less dignified than that which, and without his guidance, he has allowed the House to enter upon. A letter has been read at the Table which alleges that a certain Member of the House, if he was to serve on a certain Committee, would necessarily give a biassed judgment on the matter before the Committee. So far as I can understand the terms of the letter, that was the worst that was said of the hon. Gentleman. The House was then called upon to say that this was a breach of the privileges of Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman not only did not rise to give any advice to the House, but, to our universal astonishment, did not even look as if he meant to give any advice.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Unfortunately I was consulting the Clerk at the Table upon a point of order at the time the question was put, and I could not rise to address the House. Had I done so all I should have said would have been that, in my opinion, undoubtedly a breach of privilege was committed, and then I should have gone on to give the advice I have since given to the House. So that I do not suppose the loss is very great.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Of course I accept the explanation of the
  1078
  right hon. Gentleman that he was engaged in consulting with an officer of the House. I was under the impression he was in his place at the time.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, no. Altogether wrong.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: At all events, the House has decided that this is a breach of privilege, and now we are to follow a course which apparently was taken on previous occasions and to be content with this solemn assertion that a breach of privilege has been committed; and then with great severity of countenance and in the most impressive manner we can assume we are to allow the matter to drop. The word "farcical" has been used. Anything more farcical than such a proceeding I cannot conceive. I am not a stickler for privilege, though I am not altogether disregardful of it; but of this I am certain, that if the House ever thinks it worth while to brand a statement as a breach of privilege, it might then, out of respect for its own dignity, follow up that statement in such way as the rules of Parliament prescribe. In this case what are we to do? Most of us on this side of the House do not think that this was a breach of privilege. The right hon. Gentleman, who thinks it was a breach of privilege, says he does not want anything more to be done. There might be some logic in our conduct if we on this side were to proceed to insist upon the further course that is necessary on the supposition that it is a breach of privilege, but we have just declared that, in our opinion, it is not a breach of privilege; and, in those circumstances, I am disposed myself to acquiesce in the advice given to the House by the right hon. Gentleman. But I do deplore that this fresh instance has occurred of the way in which the House of Commons sometimes plays with its undoubted rights. The way to preserve those rights, and to preserve the respect of the country for those rights, is never to assert them unless you mean to carry them to their ultimate issue.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: We have had before us a very offensive and impertinent letter, which we have thought it right to brand as a breach of privilege Many people in this House think that it

  1079
  was a breach of privilege, and some think that it was not; but all must agree that in future we must make up our minds whether we are to call any document a breach of privilege at all, because if we are not in a position to do anything more than make our declaration a brutum fulmen, instead of adding to the dignity of this House we are simply making this august assembly ridiculous. I would point out to hon. Members that not many weeks ago an infinitely grosser breach of privilege was made by the St. James's Gazette. That newspaper charged a Member of this House with a criminal offence—with purchasing documents well knowing them to be stolen. Now, that charge was entirely ignored by the House, although it was an offence which, if proved, would have involved the expulsion of the Member from this House, and if not proved was the grossest breach of privilege possible to conceive. Now, although every Member of the House knew of that breach of privilege, not the slightest notice was taken of it, and I think it is ridiculous to make so much fuss about such a little matter as that brought before the House this afternoon, and to take no notice of that other infinitely grosser breach of privilege.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I cannot conceive how the Leader of the Opposition can bring himself to believe that this is not a breach of privilege. Whether it was wise or unwise to call attention to it is not to the point. A plainer case of breach of privilege has never been brought before the House than to charge an hon. Member—whether the charge is true or not true is not the question—with going on to a Committee to give a biassed opinion in the exercise of his Parliamentary duty, as a Member of this House, and in the name of this House. That it is a gross breach of privilege I cannot for one moment doubt. We are told we ought not to follow up the motion by any further action, because on a previous occasion of breach of privilege no further action was taken. That was a wholly different case. In the Mullingar case you were dealing with an elected board of guardians, and certain hon. Members said that the board did not really know what they were doing, and that if time were given them they would apologise. They did apologise, and that apology was informally communicated to and
  1080
  accepted by the House. But this is a totally different case, where there is grave public suspicion of public corruption. It seems to me that if ever such a matter should be followed up it ought to be in this case, when the first motion that a breach of privilege had been committed has been carried.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I agree with the Leader of the House that nothing more should be done in this case. If we are to inflict punishment for these offences we shall have to devise some other means than that of dragging a person to the Bar of this House in order that you, Mr. Speaker, should in solemn and weighty words inform him that he has committed a breach of privilege, and that the House is indignant and dissatisfied with him. In that process, so far as my experience goes, there is very little dignity to the proceedings of this House.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I rise to support the motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. The right hon. the Leader of the House referred to me as not having made this motion to bring the offender to the Bar myself, and as not having made such a motion on a previous occasion when I brought another breach of privilege before the House. I certainly intended to move the motion now under discussion, but left it to one of my hon. colleagues, who I thought could, from his superior knowledge of the rules of this House, deal with it better. It was not my intention to allow the matter to drop. In this case I think the House will be in a ridiculous position if it does not—having discovered the offenders—bring them to the Bar of the House. I remember a case when this power of the House to punish breach of privilege was, in my opinion, unfairly exercised, and as a result an hon. Member who sat on the opposite side of the House had to rise from his place and take his position at the Bar. But why should you treat differently two members of a firm of solicitors who have done what, to my mind, is worse than anything alleged against the Mullingar Board of Guardians? As was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, in that case we were dealing with a whole board of guardians; and it will be

  1081
  in the recollection of the House that I said on that occasion that I was prepared to move to bring the whole board here if they persisted in their threat to punish in a certain way the hon. Member for Roscommon for certain action of his in the discharge of his public duty in this House. The reason why I did not take the second step on that occasion was because the board had a notice of motion before it which was to be debated in a week from the date of my privilege motion, and at the suggestion of the Leader of the House —which had the advantage of your approval, Mr. Speaker—the matter was allowed to stand over for a week to see whether they would persevere with their resolution. As the board of guardians climbed down my purpose was served, and I did not persevere with the consequential motion to bring the offenders to the Bar. I can only say that if the House, having competently decided that this is a gross breach of the privileges of the House, is not going any further, then the next step should be to remove the rule altogether. I heartily support the motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I confess I am rather disappointed with the advice given to the House by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. I ask the House to consider very seriously, the position in which it is about to place itself if it follows that advice. Here is a Committee appointed to investigate certain charges against Army contractors, and it is a matter of the greatest consequence, especially at the present moment when the war is still going on, that that investigation should be thorough and complete. A charge is brought against a certain hon. Member of corruption. A respectable and very responsible firm of solicitors suggest that an hon. Member of this House is guilty of corruption in regard to certain Army contractors. They have embodied that charge in a circular which has been distributed amongst the Members of this House. That is undoubtedly a breach of privilege, and if true, a very gross libel. These gentlemen make their charge on their full responsibility, and knowing that if it is untrue they can be ruined by a libel action. I say it is a matter of great consequence when a Committee has been
  1082
  appointed that there should be no kind of attempt to hush up a matter of this sort. It is of the greatest possible importance to encourage evidence, and to give an opportunity to those charged with corruption in regard to the Army contracts of examining and cross-examining witnesses by counsel. We know that there has been corruption, but we also know that it is a most unpleasant public duty for anyone to come forward and bring these charges when the House goes out of its way to discourage them. It is all very well for hon. Members of this House to shelter themselves behind the bulwark of privilege, but this responsible firm of solicitors, knowing that they can be ruined by a libel action, still bring this charge of corruption against a Member of this House. Very well; I say there ought to be a full opportunity given to these gentlemen to justify their statement before this House. I know that they are perfectly prepared to do so. But what has the House done? Ex parte, and without any investigation, it says that this is a breach of privilege. Surely the next step is to give an opportunity to these gentlemen to justify their statement, and not to condemn them without hearing their defence. I submit that this is a matter of the greatest possible importance. I do think that this House should not place any obstacle in the way of a full and searching investigation of these charges, whether the man is a Member of this House or not. When charges of this character are brought forward, especially on the responsibility of persons of such position, I say the fullest possible fair play should be given to them. They have done it on their own responsibility, and it is only fair that they should be given an opportunity of stating their case to the House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I confess that I am myself in considerable difficulty in this matter. I think that undoubtedly there has been a primâ facie breach of privilege, and it is the absolute duty of every Member of the House who regards the honour and dignity of the House to vote that this is a breach of privilege. Then comes another question upon which I shall ask you, Sir, whether I am stating the case correctly. A breach of privilege motion has been held over and over again to be only a preliminary step. The next step is, the House having condemned such and such an action to be a

  1083
  breach of privilege, that the primâ facie offender should be brought to the Bar. I voted for the motion on the faith that the parties concerned would be brought to the Bar and have an opportunity of justifying themselves, so that we might acquit them, if possible, of what is, prima facie, a breach of privilege. I would ask whether that is so or not. The precedents in my mind are very clear. One occurred on May 5th, 1887, when Mr. Gladstone said a breach of privilege motion was only passed by the House for the purpose of enabling the prima facie offenders to be brought before the House.* That view
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. cccxiv., p. 988.
  was confirmed by Sir Charles Russell, now Lord Russell. We are doing these men the greatest wrong if we impute corruption to them, and do not give them the opportunity of defending themselves.
  MR. SPEAKER: All I can say, and all I ought to say, without going beyond my province, is that both the motion of the right hon. Member for Thanet and the Amendment are in order.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes, 139; Noes, 192. (Division List No. 117.)

  AYES.

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

  Harwood, George

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Helder, Augustus

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

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Hogan, James Francis

  Price, Robert John

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rankin, Sir James

  Archdale Edward Mervyn

  Howell, William Tudor

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Ashton Thomas Gair

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Austin, M (Limerick, W.)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Baker, Sir John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Kimber, Henry

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Barnes, Frederick Gorell

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Runciman, Walter

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Lambert, George

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Billson, Alfred

  Langley Batty

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Birell, Augustine

  Leng, Sir John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesly

  Bowles, Captain H. F. (Mid'sex)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Spicer, Albert

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Lough Thomas

  Strachey, Edward

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

  Caldwell, James

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

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

  Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E.)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Colville, John

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield)

  Crombie, John William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wallace, Robert

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Warner, Thos, Courtenay T.

  Daly, James

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Wason, Eugene

  Dewar, Arthur

  Mather, William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dillon, John

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Monk, Charles James

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Morley, Rt. Hon John (Montrose)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

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

  Ellis, John Edward

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

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

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudders.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Woods, Samuel

  Finch, George H.

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Gold, Charles

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Paulton, James Mellor

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. James Lowther and Sir Charles Dilke.

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlin'ton)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Pease, Joseph Sir W. (Durham)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Philipps, John Wynford

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Arnold, Alfred

  Fitz Wygram, (General Sir F.)

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Foster Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

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

  Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Balwin, Alfred

  Fry, Lewis

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Garfit, William

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

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

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs. Newton)

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Godson, Sir A. Frederick

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bethell, Commander

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Biddulph, Michael

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Purvis, Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Brassey, Albert

  Gunter, Colonel

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Robinson, Brooke

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Heath, James

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Burt, Thomas

  Henderson, Alexander

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Butcher, John George

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybridge)

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

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbyshire)

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

  Howard, Joseph

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

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

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Steadman, William Charles

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed.

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M. Taggart

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Kennaway, Rt Hn. Sir John H.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Knowles, Lees

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lafone, Alfred

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Curzon, Viscount

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swans)

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Ta'nt'n)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Denny, Colonel

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Bir.)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Lowe, Francis William

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Doughty, George

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

  Doxford, Sir W. Theodore

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W)

  Wyndham, George

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

  M'Killop, James

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Fison, Frederick William

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

  Words added.
  Resolved, That this House do now proceed to the Business of the Day.
  [LATER.]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Leader of the House whether the hon. Member for the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool has resigned his

  1087
  seat on the Select Committee on War Office contracts, and whether any steps will be taken to fill up the vacant place soon.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe it is the fact that my hon. friend has resigned, and if that is so, of course the vacancy will be filled up.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: At once?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUE: Yes.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: By the House, of course.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. Member for the Toxteth Division is to be discharged.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I shall not move anything. If in the ordinary course an hon. Member desires to leave a Committee he puts down a motion.

Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS.

    SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—BOER TREAT- MENT OF BRITISH WOUNDED.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the War Office have received any information from South Africa to the effect that British wounded have been shot in cold blood; and if not, whether steps will be taken to prevent the publication of placards containing unfounded accusations against the character of a people having no recognised representative in this country.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: We have no official confirmation of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and we have no authority over a newspaper placard.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Does not the Government possess the power of preventing the publication of insulting slanders upon foreign nations?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman knows well enough what our powers are; we can neither prevent newspapers slandering other nations nor ourselves.
    MR. DILLON: Is it not customary in Ireland for the police to tear down placards?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now debating the question.

    SETTLEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA OF VOLUNTEERS, ETC., AFTER THE WAR.
    SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government can make arrangements so that from the date of the cessation of hostilities all members of the yeomanry, volunteers, reservists, and others of Her Majesty's irregular forces now serving in South Africa may be permitted to remain should they desire, and be given free passes to return home at any time during two years.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be rather premature at present to come to any decision on the matter. I think my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War has already given my hon. friend a sympathetic answer on this subject,† which I endorse.
    SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE: I will repeat the question in another fortnight, and hope by then some decision will have been come to.

    VAAL KRANTZ DESPATCHES.
    MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if any despatches have been received from Lord Roberts relating to the Vaal Krantz affair; and if so, whether the Government propose to publish them.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information to give the House on this subject.

    MAGERSFONTEIN ENGAGEMENT.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that the 78th Highlanders, now the Seaforths, at the battle of Magersfontein had eight officers killed and twelve wounded, while 385 men were disabled, of whom 112 were killed, whether he can state
    † See pace 273 of this volume.

    1089
    who gave the order to the three Highland regiments, of which the Seaforths wore one, to march in quarter column distance in the dark without scouts or an advanced guard, against an enemy who was watching for them.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. WYNDHAM,: I have nothing to add to the information on this matter contained in the despatches published in the Gazette of 16th March.

    THE INNISKILLING FUSILIERS— PROMOTIONS.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether two majors from other regiments who have not been in active service in the present war have been gazetted lieutenant-colonels of the Inniskilling Fusiliers, over the heads of the men who have fought in the Natal campaign; whether the gentlemen thus promoted are of scarcely longer standing in the Army than the officers of the Inniskillings to whom they have been preferred, one of whom is an officer of twenty-one years' service; and whether the importation of officers from other regiments will retard, if not destroy, the chances of promotion of Captain Jones, who was one of the three survivors out of the ten officers on the right on Pieter's Hill, and who commanded what remained of the almost annihilated regiment on the next morning.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Two officers were appointed from other regiments to command the two battalions of this regiment on the 27th January and the 21st March respectively. In respect to Captain Jones I cannot speculate on the effect these promotions may have on an officer who is seventh on the list.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I make no imputation on the officers, but was not one brought from India, and who had not been in South Africa at all?
    MR. WYNDHAM: That hardly arises out of my reply. The command of a battalion is a very important post, and in filling it we must be guided by the advice of the Army Board.

    CIVIL SERVICE VOLUNTEERS—CAMP INSTRUCTION.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to
    1090
    the Treasury if directions have been given to all the departments of Government that every facility is to be afforded to all Volunteers in the service of the State to discharge, without loss of pay or regular holiday, the duty laid upon them by the orders of the War Office to attend a camp of instruction this year for twenty-eight days, and in no case for less than fourteen; and if public notification can be made of the fact as an example to private employers.
    MR. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrews Burghs) (for Mr. HANBURY): Volunteers in the service of the State who apply for special leave in addition to ordinary leave will receive it (subject to the discretion of heads of departments) up to a maximum of a month, provided that their whole attendance in camp is not less than fourteen days or more than a month. During such special leave they will receive full civil and military pay for fourteen days and military pay for the remainder of the time. Volunteers who spend the whole or part of their ordinary leave in camp will receive during that leave their full civil and military pay.

    CIVIL SERVICE PROMOTIONS—CON- SIDERATION OF AUXILIARY FORCE SERVICE.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government will direct that weight in all Departments of the State is to be given in the appointment or promotion of any individual to efficient service in one of the auxiliary defensive forces.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Promotion in a Civil Service Department must, of course, in the main depend on the service with which the official is entrusted. I imagine that general ability, and especially proof of general capacity in performing some such important function as that to which my hon. friend refers, will not be left out of account.

    SIMON'S BAY DOCK ACCOMMODATION.
    SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to explain what, if any, progress has been made towards providing dock accommodation for Her Majesty's ships at Simon's Bay.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: Tenders have been

    1091
    invited for the construction of the works sanctioned by the Act of last year, and are returnable on 3rd July next. It has been necessary to allow this time in order that contractors might visit Simon's Bay and make their inquiries as to labour, etc., on the spot. In the meantime the necessary land not already in the possession of the Government has either been acquired or is in process of being acquired.

    NEW SOUTH WALES—DEATH DUTIES BILL.
    MR. VICARY GIBBS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is prepared to use his influence with the Government of New South Wales to induce them to withdraw their Death Duties Bill, No. 53, 1899, which has not yet received the sanction of the Crown.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,: The Act has been assented to by the Governor, and is now in operation. No statement of any particular objections that may be felt in regard to it has been laid before me, but if I receive representations which appear to justify me in suggesting that it should be reconsidered by the Colonial Parliament, I will request the Governor to bring them under the notice of his Ministers.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Was the Bill assented to by the Governor on behalf of the Crown?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

    AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION BILL.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the negotiations with a view to the admission of Western Australia into the Australian Commonwealth as an original State have had a successful issue.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am unable to anticipate now the statement I shall have to make on the introduction of the Federation Bill.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will that be on Monday?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.
    [LATER.]
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether I am right in inferring, from an interjection across the House, that the Australian Bill is to be introduced on Monday?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I hope the Bill will be introduced by my right hon. friend on Monday, and I hope to be able to take the Second Reading on Monday week, if that is regarded as a convenient arrangement by the House.

    INDIAN CURRENCY—GOLD COINAGE.
    MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if the total amount of gold coin put into circulation in India has yet reached the sum of one million sterling, and if the Calcutta Chamber of Commerce has made representations as to the scarcity of both gold and silver coinage in India.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,: The total amount of gold coin put into circulation in India on the 1st May was £667,649. It is stated in The Times of May 7th that the Calcutta Chamber of Commerce have made a representation to the Government of India on the subject of the coinage, but I have no official confirmation of that fact.

    INDIAN FAMINE—PROPOSED PARLIAMENTARY GRANT.
    MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the suggestion has been made to the Viceroy of India that he could get a national grant from England in aid of famine relief if he chose to apply for it; and, if so, why he has not acted on the suggestion.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I am not aware that any suggestion such as is described in my hon. friend's question has been made to the Viceroy of India.

    FAMINE RELIEF CAMPS.
    MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the outbreaks of epidemic disease in the Indian famine relief camps, whether official information shows that the allowance of food granted to famine-stricken patients has been found sufficient to

    1093
    strengthen them against the attacks of disease; and what is the value, stated as nearly as possible in English money, of the daily rations provided by Government for men, women and children:
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The local Governments and their officers are keeping careful watch as to the sufficiency of the relief wages in all districts; and instructions have been given by the Government that the wage rates should be raised at any work where they appeared inadequate to maintain the people in health. As was stated in my answer to a similar question by the hon. Member for Banff on the 1st March last—"The average daily wage cannot be stated in sterling, being based upon the current price of food in the district in question, and varying accordingly from week to week. The wage for an adult is the money equivalent of from 1½ to 2½ lb. of grain per diem."

    FEROZEPORE COURT-MARTIAL.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a report of the finding and sentence of a court-martial at Ferozepore on a conductor charged with taking bribes from a contractor; whether in the finding and sentence, confirmed by Sir Power Palmer, where the charges are usually printed, blanks appear in the Punjab Command Orders, so that it is not stated who offered the bribe, what firm tendered for the stores, or what the stores were; and whether, having regard to the recent publicity afforded in a similar case by the War Office, he will direct that the full particulars shall be made public in India, and, further, ascertain at whose instance the facts were suppressed.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: My attention has been called to the report of the court-martial referred to. Blanks do occur, as stated by my hon. friend. I will ask the Government of India to make inquiries and to inform me as to the reason for the omissions in question.

    INDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPART- MENT—CIVIL ENGINEERS.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now prepared, in accordance with his intimations in previous sessions, to lay upon the Table the correspondence
    1094
    between the Secretary of State and the Government of India in relation to the Indian Public Works Department, particularly in regard to memorials of 1889–90 from the civil engineers; and whether he will lay upon the Table the Government of India's despatch, P.W.D., No. 10 d 30/3/99.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: A correspondence on the subject of my hon. friend's question is still proceeding, and I am unable at present to say when I shall be able to lay papers on the Table of the House.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is prepared to grant as an unopposed Return Financial Letter No. 254, dated 20th July, 1899, from His Excellency the Governor General of India in Council.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The letter to which my hon. friend's question refers forms part of a correspondence which is at present incomplete. The document in question will form part of the correspondence published when completed.

    FINLAND—BRITISH CONSULATE.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Germany is represented in the Grand Duchy of Finland by a Consul General who is a German subject, while France maintains a paid Consul, who is a native of France; and whether, seeing that the tonnage of British ships trading to Finland surpasses the tonnage of any other country, he will take steps for the appointment of a British Consul in the Grand Duchy.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,: It is a fact that in the Grand Duchy of Finland Germany and France maintain paid Consulates, which are filled by officers who are Consuls de carriere, and therefore of German and French nationality. The question of the appointment of a salaried British Consul at Helsingfors is under consideration.

    S.S. "OILFIELD"—OUTRAGE BY TURKS IN THE BOSPHORUS.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the

    1095
    stranding of the steamship "Oilfield" in the Bosphorus on 5th December, 1899, when a number of Turks made a raid upon the vessel during the absence of her crew, and stole part of their clothes and effects; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to call the attention of the Ottoman Government to the matter, and claim compensation for the seamen's clothes and effects which were lost.
    MR. BRODRICK: No information has reached the Foreign Office of the occurrence to which the hon. Member calls attention, but Her Majesty's Consul at Constantinople will be instructed to furnish a report upon the case.

    GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY—PONTY- POOL ROAD TIMEKEEPER'S OFFICE.
    MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the recent removal of the timekeeper's office at which the Great Western Railway goods guards have to sign on and off duty at Pontypool Road to another position; and, seeing that the yard is an extensive one, containing many miles of sidings, and that since the removal of the office to its present site all the men, numbering about 100, have to cross several junctions and sidings every time they visit the office, and frequently to creep under wagons, and that the men concerned have several times protested against the removal of the office to such a position (which protests have been ignored by the company), and that already many men have had escapes of injuries, is it possible for him to make such representations to the company as to cause the office to be removed to a less dangerous position.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I am informed by the Great Western Railway Company that some eight months ago the office in question was removed to a more convenient position in the yard. The company have explained the circumstances under which the change was made in a letter which I shall be very happy to show to the hon. Member. They do not admit that the alteration involves any increase in danger to the men.

    DISCHARGES OF CREWS ABROAD— S.S. "BRITANNIA."
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of
    1096
    Trade whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the discharge of the crew of the British steamer "Britannia" at the Port of Pensacola, United States of America; whether he is aware that the crew objected to sail in the vessel in consequence of having an excessive deck load of nine feet of timber, the vessel having a list of eight degrees, that the court, consisting of the British Consul and two British shipmasters, ordered the men to be discharged, and that the men refused to sign their release from the ship; whether he is aware that, when the men went on board of the vessel to remove their clothes and effects, the captain caused the ten men to be arrested and imprisoned, he afterwards proceeding to sea without prosecuting any charge against them, and taking the whole of the men's clothes and effects; and whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to take any proceedings against the captain of the "Britannia" for taking his vessel to sea in an unseaworthy state.
    MR. RITCHIE: My attention has been called to the case of the "Britannia," and the Board of Trade have received the report of a properly constituted Naval Court held at Pensacola to investigate it. Prior to the holding of the Court the vessel was surveyed and found to be seaworthy. The result of the survey was communicated to the men, but they still refused to proceed with the ship. A Naval Court was then summoned, and as a result the men were ordered to be discharged from the ship, and to forfeit the balance of their wages to the owners by way of compensation for the detention of the vessel without due cause. With regard to the subsequent proceedings referred to in the question, the Board of Trade have no information, but a report has been asked for. In reply to the last paragraph of the question, I certainly do not intend to prosecute the master of the "Britannia" for taking the vessel to sea in an unseaworthy state, for, as I have said, she was on survey declared to be seaworthy.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Has a Naval Court power in such cases to order the forfeit of seamen's wages?
    MR. RITCHIE: I am informed that the Court has that power.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Does it not rest with the shipmasters?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice must be given.

    TREATMENT OF SEAMEN AT IQUIQUE —THE "DALBLAIR."
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the action of Her Britannic Majesty's Consul at Iquique, who imprisoned a seaman, named Robert Gardener, for twenty-one days without trial before any tribunal; whether he is aware that, at the end of the voyage, the master of the sailing ship "Dalblair" deducted from Gardener's wages £9 to cover the cost of this imprisonment; whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to make any representations to the Foreign Office to have this Consul removed for his action, and to order the owners of the "Dalblair" to refund the wages deducted from Robert Gardener.
    MR. RITCHIE: My attention has been called by the hon. Member himself to the case of the "Dalblair," and the Consul at Iquique has boon requested to forward a report with regard to the circumstances so far as they came within his cognizance. So soon as a reply is received from the Consul a communication shall be sent to the hon. Member.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Has a Consular officer power to send seamen to prison without trial?
    MR. RITCHIE: I think the hon. Gentleman had better put legal questions on the Paper.

    S.S. "SOUTH CAMBRIA."
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the reason why the relatives of the men lost on the Cardiff steamship "South Cambria" have not received the wages due to these men at the time the vessel was lost, in August, 1899; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances of this case.
    MR. RITCHIE: The accounts of the wages in question were received at the Board of Trade to-day, and the claims of the relatives will be dealt with at once. I understand that the delay was caused by
    1098
    the difficulty of the owners in obtaining a complete list of the crew on board the vessel at the time of its loss.

    BOARDING OUT PAUPER CHILDREN.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention had been called to the difficulty, uncertainty, and expense of the only method by which boards of guardians can at present attempt to remove boarded out pauper children from the custody of unsatisfactory foster parents; and whether he proposes to bring in a Bill upon the subject.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,: There has been one case only to which my attention has been called where a board of guardians has experienced difficulty in connection with legal proceedings for the recovery of a boarded-out child, but the circumstances of that case appear to have been very exceptional and hardly sufficient to justify me in proposing new legislation. The question, however, which is raised by my hon. friend is important. I am disposed to think that if necessary, it can be met by an amendment of the Boarding-out Orders, and I will consider in the light of such further information as I can obtain whether such amendment would be desirable.

    TITHE RENT-CHARGE ASSESSMENTS.
    MR. HERMON-HODGE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in the assessment of tithe rent-charge, assessment committees are entitled to refuse to deduct under the head of Usual Tenants Rates that part of the rate which is now paid by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,: Some inquiries on this subject have been addressed to the Local Government Board, but they have no authority to decide questions relating to the assessment of property, and it is their practice not to advise with regard to them. They have accordingly declined to answer questions on the particular point referred to. It is really a matter for the Courts to decide, and under the

    1099
    circumstances, my hon. friend will see that I should be ill-advised in expressing any opinion upon it.

    CARCASES OF DISEASED CATTLE.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, when cattle or sheep suffering from foot-and-mouth disease are slaughtered at the port of disembarkation by order of the Board of Agriculture, the meat of such animals is allowed to be sold for human food; and, if so, are the vendors allowed to charge for it the full price of untainted meat of animals that did not suffer from any disease; if it is not allowed to be sold as human food, can he say what is done with it; and what was done with the cargo of cattle recently seized and slaughtered at Deptford because they suffered from foot-and-mouth disease.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,: I am afraid that I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the similar question put by the hon. Member on this subject on the 9th ult.† As I then stated, the meat of animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease has not hitherto been considered as being in consequence rendered unfit for human consumption, and I am not aware that such meat has been condemned by the sanitary authorities in any of the cases in which animals so affected have recently arrived at the Deptford Wharf.

    ASSIZE RECORDS — SOUTH-EASTERN CIRCUIT.
    LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the fact that by the Schedule of Public Records (South-Eastern Circuit) it is proposed to destroy documents existing, or in ordinary course about to exist, in the office of a clerk of assize; and whether, in view of the fact that this right of prospective destruction is only granted by the rules (30th Juno, 1890) and in no way contemplated by the Act (1877, c. 55), he will endeavour to check the practice, there being no limit to the number of schedules of such documents which may be presented to Parliament.
    † See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], vol. lxxxi., page 1523.
    MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): The schedule of documents in the office of the clerk of assize of the home division of the South Eastern Circuit applies only to classes of documents already existing and clearly defined in the schedule, or to such as shall be similar in every particular to one of these classes, and which shall have attained the ages respectively specified in the second column of the schedule. It gives no right of prospective destruction of any documents the character of which is not strictly defined in the schedule. The present schedule closely corresponds to a schedule of documents in the office of the clerk of assize of the Oxford Circuit, which was laid before Parliament in 1890, in accordance with the rules then in force, which were the rules first formulated under the Public Record Office Act, 1877. The rules of 1890 were approved by Her Majesty in Council in accordance with the Act of 1877.
    LORD BALCARRES: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to answer a supplementary question?
    MR. ANSTRUTHER: Not without notice.

    POSTMEN'S STRIPES — MANCHESTER PARCELS POST OFFICE.
    MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if service as temporary sorting clerk prior to appointment as established postman is allowed to count for stripes; if so, why it has been refused to men in the Parcels Post Office, Manchester.
    MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): Service as temporary sorting clerk prior to appointment as established postman does not count for stripes.

    EDINBURGH POST OFFICE—REVISION OF DUTIES.
    MR. DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can say when the scheme of revision for the sorting branch of the Edinburgh Post Office, lately under the consideration of the Treasury, is likely to be authorised; and what is the cause of so much delay in the matter.
    MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): The scheme, which involves many details, is still under consideration, but a decision upon it will be come to very shortly.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS—ACCOMMODA- TION FOR MEMBERS.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in arranging for the future use of the rooms lately vacated by Sir Reginald Palgrave, he will consider the possibility of affording accommodation for conferences of Members with their constituents and others additional to that provided in the present conference rooms.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,: A certain number of the rooms in Sir Reginald Palgrave's late residence have already been appropriated; they would not. in my opinion, have been suitable for conference rooms. The further questions connected with the allocation of the space vacated in the recent changes are now under consideration, and every attention will be paid to the proposal made by the hon. Member, as well as to the suggestions put forward from other quarters.
    MR. COGHILL: Will some of the rooms be assigned for the use of the press?
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Not yet. They could not be handed over during the session, as structural alterations would be involved. These are among the matters which I have alluded to as being under consideration.
    MR. COGHILL: Considering how short we are of accommodation here, could not the press find accommodation of their own on the other side of the road?
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: If the hon. Member knew how many stairs members have to go up to reach these rooms he would not think them suitable.

    IRISH LIGHTS BOARD.
    MR. WOLFF: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a resolution from the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, dated 30th May, 1899, accepting his suggestion relative to the establishment of a Consul-
    1102
    tative Committee on lighthouse works, and pressing their desire that, on the first vacancy occurring thereon, a representative of the North of Ireland should be co-opted on the Irish Lights Board; and seeing that such a vacancy has since occurred, and been filled by the co-option of a Dublin gentleman, if he will take steps to intimate to the Board of Irish Lights and the Commissioners of Northern Lights (Scotland) the advisability of their meeting the wishes of shipowners who pay the light dues, by the co-option of representative men to vacancies as they occur on those boards.
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir, I have received the communication referred to. I have every reason to hope that advantage will follow from the establishment of the Consultative Committee, but I cannot undertake to interfere with the action of the Irish Lights Commissioners and the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses in regard to a matter which is entirely within their discretion. I may, however, say that if they were to favourably consider the suggestion made by my hon. friend, they would, in my opinion, be acting wisely.

    IRISH PASSENGER STEAMERS—THE "SLIEVE BEARNAGH."
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Belfast and County Down Railway Company ran the s.s. "Slieve Bearnagh" for the conveyance of passengers from Kingstown to view the fleet during Her Majesty's visit to Dublin, and that the same steamer was run for the carriage of passengers between Belfast and Bangor on Good Friday, Saturday, and Easter Sunday and Monday; whether this vessel was provided with a passenger certificate on these occasions; and whether this particular railway company has legal authority for running passenger steamers from Kingstown, and from Belfast to Bangor.
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. The vessel in question was surveyed and passed by the officers of the Board of Trade before she carried passengers on the occasions and between the ports stated, and although the certificates had not then been actually issued, the Board had telegraphed permission for her to ply.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: And as to the last paragraph of my question?
    MR. RITCHIE: My attention has not been particularly directed to that. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the question.

    DUBLIN POST OFFICE AND THE QUEEN'S VISIT.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, seeing that the 4th of April, proclaimed a Bank holiday throughout the county and city of Dublin by the Privy Council, in honour of Her Majesty's visit to Ireland, was not observed as such in the sorting and other departments of the General Post Office in Dublin, whether it is the intention of the authorities to give sorting clerks and telegraphists and other Dublin Post office employees a day in lieu or payment at Bank holiday rates.
    MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): The day was observed as a Bank holiday in the Dublin Post Office, and as many of the staff as the exigencies of the service would admit of were granted a holiday, and a day's leave in lieu of the Bank holiday will be granted to those who were obliged to be on duty. It is not possible to close the post office entirely on a Bank holiday.

    DUBLIN SORTING OFFICE—SPLIT DUTIES.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Tweedmouth recommendation that officers performing split duties should be allowed an unbroken rest of nine clear hours in their own homes has yet been made effective in the Dublin Sorting Office; and, if not, could any definite statement be given as to when the recommendation will be applied, and if there is any reason for withholding it 60 long.
    MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): It has not yet been practicable to give full effect to the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee as regards the sorting clerks at Dublin. The Postmaster General is afraid that it will not be practicable to give complete effect to them until the scheme introduced in 1898 is in full operation, by which the men
    1104
    engaged on sorting or telegraph work would in future perform both duties available to work on both sides. Sixty-eight men are at present working in both branches, and this number will be gradually increased. It is also hoped that it may shortly be practicable to further improve the early morning attendance in the sorting office.

    DONAGHADEE SEWERAGE WORKS— AREAS OF CHARGE.
    MR. BLAKISTON-HOUSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds the Local Government Board for Ireland, on the 15th of May, 1899, changed the area of charge for sewerage, etc., from the town and town parks of Comber, county Down (the area previously legally fixed), to that of Comber dispensary district; whether the town and town parks of Donaghadee are at present being fixed as the area of charge for their new sewerage scheme; and is there any reason for treating differently these two towns, of about the same size and in the same rural district of Newtownards, county Down.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,: The General Order referred to was made in consequence of the rating provisions of the Local Government Act, and after consulting the local authorities concerned. The area of charge for the proposed sewerage works at Donaghadee has not yet been fixed. Further particulars in relation to the matter are awaited from the district council.

    PUBLIC HEALTH CHARGES.
    MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will direct the Local Government Board to issue an order empowering district councils in Ireland to fix the area of charge for sinking a pump or other sanitary work in an electoral division as was the case with boards of guardians before the passing of the Local Government Act.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that there has been any change in the law of the kind indicated in the question, although it is true that the policy of the Local Government Board has been to fix

    1105
    an entire rural district as the area for small public health charges. This policy, in my opinion, is a wise one, and it received the approval of a large majority of the district councils in Ireland. But under the provisions of the Bill I am about to introduce, the entire rural district will only be made the area for such charges with the consent of the local authority.

    BALLYMONEY AND BALLYCASTLE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE COMMITTEES.
    MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, seeing that the rural districts of Ballymoney and Ballycastle have last year adopted the Irish Education Act of 1892, and have respectively appointed school attendance committees to the extent of one-half in each case as provided by Section 3 of the Act, if there is any reason for the delay on the part of the Commissioners of National Education to appoint the remaining half of each of such committees, and inasmuch as the Act cannot be enforced till this has been done, will stops be taken for an early appointment in these cases.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: As regards the Ballycastle Rural District the county council have not yet notified to the Commissioners any action taken by them for the appointment of a Committee. As regards the Ballymoney Rural District, the names of five persons appointed by the county council to form half the Committee for the District were received from the secretary to the council on the 7th March last. On the 9th March the secretary was asked for certain particulars regarding the persons appointed, and also to state whether the regulations required by the Act had been framed or adopted by the council. The necessary particulars were received subsequently, but the regulations have not yet been submitted by the county council for the approval of the Commissioners, as required by the Act. The Commissioners have, however, been in communication with their local inspector regarding the selection of suitable persons to form the second half of the Committee, but they must await the receipt of the regulations referred to before their appointments can be notified. It will thus be seen that there has not been any avoidable delay
    1106
    on the part of the Commissioners in making appointments in these cases.

    WINDGAP NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say why the salaries due to the teachers of the National Schools at Windgap, county Kilkenny, for the quarter ended 31st March last have not yet been paid, and when they will be paid.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUE: The salaries of the teaching staff of the boys school at Windgap for the period mentioned have been paid. In the case of the girls school the usual quarterly returns were not received by the Commissioners until the 17th ultimo. Payment could not then be made, as the manager omitted to furnish the necessary certificates as to the observance of the Commissioners' rules and the character of the teachers. The Returns having been sent back to the manager for completion were received on the 30th ultimo with qualified answers upon the points referred to. The salaries of the assistant teacher and monitor will be paid to-day. But the manager has not certified the claim of the principal teacher, whose salary cannot be paid pending further investigation by the Commissioners.

    GOVERNMENT SERVANTS AND POLITICAL CONTROVERSIES.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER, on behalf of the Member for Dundee (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Treasury Minutes, regulating the conduct of the permanent Civil Service in reference to political controversies, have appeared in any Parliamentary Paper; and, if not, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House at an early date.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe the Minute referred to by the hon. Gentle man is that of April, 1884, which has been laid on the Table of the House.

    DAMAGE TO CROPS BY SPARKS FROM RAILWAY ENGINES.
    MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that a large acreage of growing crops and plantations are annually destroyed by fires caused by sparks from railway engines, for which no

    1107
    compensation can be obtained by the farmers from the railway companies, while road traction engines are liable for any damage thus caused; and whether he can give facilities for the discussion of the short Bill now before the House to place railway engines and road locomotives on an equal footing in this respect, and to make railway companies responsible for the damage thus caused.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture has no detailed information as to the question of damage done to crops and plantations by sparks from railway locomotives. But it does appear to me, as my hon. friend suggests, that there is a curious discrepancy between the law which applies to road locomotives and that which applies to railway engines, one being liable and the other not.
    MR. JEFFREYS: My right hon. friend has not said whether he will give me facilities for getting a small Bill through with regard to this matter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hoped my hon. friend would probably be able to conjecture what fate must befall questions addressed to the Leader of the House asking for such facilities.
    SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE: Is it not the fact that the railways are still responsible for damage done, seeing that no rule has been laid down exempting them from liability?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps my hon. friend will put that question on the Paper. It relates to a matter on which I must take legal advice.

    ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) HILL.
    Reported, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc., without Amendment.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 168.]
    Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 168.]
    Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday.

    STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
    Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR reported from the Chairmen's Panel, That they had
    1108
    appointed Sir James Fergusson to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Land Charges Bill [Lords].
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection that they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, Sir John Kinloch, and had appointed in substitution Sir William Wedderburn.
    Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee that they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Land Charges Bill [Lords]:—Mr. Bond, Mr. Bousfield, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Channing, Mr. Drage, Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. Hedderwick, Mr. Kimber, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. Moon, Mr. Perks, Mr. Pollock, Mr. Purvis, Mr. Randell, and Mr. Skewes-Cox.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with regard to the Investment of Money paid into a County Court." [County Courts (Investment of Deposits) Bill [Lords.]
    NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
    Thomas Arthur Bramsdon, Esq., for Borough of Portsmouth; Sir John Batty Tuke, M.D., F.R.C.P.E., for Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews.
NEW BILLS.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND).
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,brought in a Bill to remove doubts respecting the powers of the Local Government Board for Ireland for determining the area on which certain expenses are to be chargeable. He said there had

  1109
  hitherto been some doubts on this matter, and it was better to settle it once for all by legislation.
  MR. DILLONsaid he understood the Bill was intended to safeguard the rights of the rural district councils, but if it did not do so to the fullest possible extent it would not be very popular in many parts of Ireland. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give some opportunity for discussing the Bill. He did not anticipate that there would be any opposition, but it was a matter they should understand before they consented to it.
  Bill to remove doubts respecting the powers of the Local Government Board for Ireland for determining the area on which certain expenses are to be chargeable, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To remove doubts respecting the powers of the Local Government Board for Ireland for determining the area on which certain expenses are to be chargeable," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]

  COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND).
  MR. G. W. BALFOURbrought in a Bill to amend The County Surveyors (Ireland) Act, 1862. He said this was a non-contentious Bill. In the present state of the law, when a vacancy occurred among the county surveyors in Ireland, it appeared to be necessary to undergo an examination before the Civil Service Commissioners, whether the surveyor had previously undergone an examination or not. The Bill provided that where a person had proved his competence to the satisfaction of the Commissioners he should not be compelled to go through the ordeal a second time.
  Bill to amend The County Surveyors (Ireland) Act, 1862, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.

  COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend The County Surveyors (Ireland) Act, 1862," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]
  SEWAGE AND DRAINAGE (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Bill to enable Local Authorities to deal separately with the Sewage and Drainage of their districts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stephens, Sir Michael Foster, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Lawson Walton, Dr. Robert Ambrose, and Mr. Brynmor Jones.
  SEWAGE AND DRAINAGE (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL.
  "To enable Local Authorities to deal separately with the Sewage and Drainage of their districts," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 23rd May, and to be printed. [Bill 193.]

  DURATION OF SPEECHES IN PARLIA- MENT.
  [RESOLUTION.]
  MAJOR RASCHrose to call attention to the duration of speeches in the House of Commons, and to move—"That no speech (other than those delivered by Ministers or ox-Ministers, or by the mover of a Bill or Resolution) shall exceed twenty minutes in length." He said: I am not an old Parliamentary hand, but I would venture to suggest to hon. Members a drastic change in the procedure that has come down to this House from the days of William the Dutchman, when hon. Members first banded themselves into two parties. I am aware that any attempt to dam, in the Parliamentary sense, the flood of oratory which flows through this House is to attempt an almost impossible feat. It is like the attempt of Mrs. Partington, who endeavoured to keep out the Atlantic with a mop. But after all, we have our precedents and our hopes in this matter. Seven years ago Mr. Farmer Atkinson, the then Member for Boston, introduced a Bill with the best intentions, having short speeches for its object. The Bill was not a success, because in one of the clauses he had suggested that hon. Members who overstayed their time should be stopped by the senior clerk assistant at the table either ringing a bell or, I think, beating a drum. That suggestion was thought to be inconsistent with the respect due to Parliament, and the Bill came to a bad end. In 1896 I had the honour of introducing a Bill which was supported by the hon. Member for Walsall. It had for its object to limit the

  1111
  duration of speeches, and the motion for leave to introduce was carried by a majority of seventy, owing to the exertions of my hon. friend the Member for Battersea, whom I regret not to see in his place this evening. After that we decided to proceed by resolution, because we found that Bills were practically of no use. We obtained a quorum of gentlemen who were kind enough to hear us, and the resolution was carried by a majority of three to one. Then we thought we were in sight of the paradise we had hoped for, but we reckoned without our host, the representative of the Government on the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman, with that genial surprise we have sometimes seen on his face, said he had no idea how the resolution was going to be carried out, because it was not definite.* My hon. friends and myself have endeavoured to make this resolution so definite that the concentrated intelligence of the Treasury Bench rolled into one shall be under no misunderstanding. I wish to say a word for myself with respect to a letter written to the London press by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean a short time ago, in which he said that the mover of the resolution committed an atrocity himself by speaking an inordinate time. The right hon. Baronet was wrong. It was not I who made the long speech, it was the hon. Member who was good enough to second the resolution. Long speeches, of which a good many of us complain, are by no means of recent date. I find that in the days of Queen Elizabeth her Majesty ordered the faithful Commons to work more and talk less, on pain of being sent to the Clock Tower, or whatever was the receptacle for offending Members in those days.† Under the Stuarts in 1642 the debates were extremely prolonged, and
  * For discussion on the Duration of Speeches Bill, introduced by Major Rasch in 1896, see The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], vol. xxxvii., page 833. On the 11th May, 1897, Major Rasch moved "That the duration of Speeches in this House has increased, is increasing, and should be abated." This was carried on a Division by 85 votes to 24. (See vol. xlix., page 238; and for Mr. Balfour's observation as to carrying out the resolution, page 632.)
  † See The Parliamentary History, vol. i., page 765. On pages 859, 862, 891, and 909, there are caustic denunciations by Elizabeth of "superfluous speech," "verbosity and vain ostentations," "volubility," & c.
  1112
  the speeches were roseate, full of tropes and anecdotes and Latin quotations. One debate in 1642 killed two of your predecessors in the chair. During the debate an hon. Member, whose name has not been handed down to us, jumped up and said, "The House is empty, and so are our stomachs"—or he used a more conventional word than that—"I pray you, therefore, to adjourn the House for one hour." The Speaker, Mr. Chaloner Chute, was obdurate. He would not adjourn the debate. He became bad, and shortly afterwards died. The singular thing was that the Recorder of London, Sir Lislebone Long, who was appointed Speaker in place of Mr. Chute, became so indisposed after four days of this same debate that he was unable to sit further, and he also died within a few days. The next instance we have of long speeches in this House is in the Georgian era. That was when Mr. Sheridan spoke for five mortal hours on what was called the Begum case.* I fail to understand how he could talk to such an extent on a matter 7,000 miles from Westminster, but no doubt he was well paid for it. The result of the speech was that, according to contemporary accounts, the House was so discomposed that many of the Members wept, and the Leader of the House, Mr. Pitt, had to adjourn it in order to enable Members to regain their composure. When we come to later times we find that Sir Robert Peel addressed to the House an inordinate speech of three hours and three quarters on the Corn Laws.† He might as well have saved his breath and left the speech unsaid. Then in the Victorian era we find a lengthy speech by Lord Palmerston on Don Pacifico, which lasted for four hours and a half.‡ Then, coming down to our own times, we had the oration delivered by Mr. Biggar, the late Member for Cavan, who spoke on the Peace Pre-
  * 7th February, 1787. Sheridan spoke for fire hours and forty minutes. Pitt declared that the speech "surpassed all the eloquence of ancient and modern times," No complete report of it exists, but what affects to be "a faithful miniature of an unequalled original" is preserved in The Parliamentary History, vol. xxvi., page 274.
  † 9th February, 1842. See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], vol. lx., page 201.
  ‡Or, as Mr. Gladstone put it, "from the dusk of one day to the dawn of the next." See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], vol. cxii., page 380 (25th June, 1850).

  1113
  servation (Ireland) Act from five o'clock in the evening till nearly nine o'clock.* Latterly we have had speeches of considerable length. We had a speech from a right hon. Gentleman who spoke from three to four hours on a certain subject connected with the Local Government of Ireland. We had that terrible debate on the Financial Relations of Ireland, in which seven hon. Gentlemen occupied eight hours between them. We had a debate in which hon. and learned Gentlemen connected with the medical profession spoke for the whole evening on the subject of vaccination, and we had, only the other evening, a speech of a whole hour, made by an hon. and gallant Gentleman on the question of a bog in the Hebrides. That speech was characterised by the Lord Advocate as an outrage, and I certainly think it was something very like it. We had a speech of considerable length only the other night by an hon. Member, one of my colleagues in the representation of the Eastern Counties. He spoke for an hour and twenty-five minutes on the question of undersized fish, and he finished with a peroration which lasted for an hour and three minutes last night. That is not all. Four months ago the first Law Officer of the Crown spoke for six days without ceasing—that was in Paris on the Venezuelan Commission—a feat which I venture to compare with the labours of Hercules. There has been published a new book of the social life of Scotland. It is written by a gentleman called Murray, and it states that a minister spoke for a year and three months on a subject of controversy in a book called Exodus. I would recommend the perusal of that book to the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. A speech was delivered the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, at Birmingham, at a meeting where the Duke of Devonshire was present. The right hon. Gentleman said one of the best speeches he ever heard of was in six words. It was not the speech of single-speech Hamilton, of which we have heard so much. It was the speech of a gentleman who said, "I say ditto to Mr. Burke." We cannot all emulate the Secretary for the Colonies, but we can try to live up to that. I should like to put up a statue in the hall outside to the
  * 22nd April, 1875. See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], vol. ccxxiii., page 1451.
  1114
  gentleman who delivered that short speech. My sources of illustration are not by any means exhausted. In 1795 a deputation was introduced to the French Convention, and they came in with the cry, "Short speeches and the constitution of '93." Their method was to decapitate the Member who was addressing the House at the time, and to present the head to the Speaker. After that the deputation retired. It had an effect on the oratory of the French Convention, and especially on the gentleman himself who paid the penalty for it. Over fifty years ago Mr. Milner Gibson proposed that the speeches of hon. Members in this House should not exceed one hour. He said that if he had had his own way he would have made the limit forty minutes. He was seconded by no less a person than Mr. Cobden, and he was supported by Mr. Bright. These were past masters in the art of speaking and knew what they were about. The result was that, although they did their best, they were beaten by a majority of 20.* You would, under the circumstances, hardly call that a defeat. It is very much what we call a moral victory on either side of the House when we have the misfortune to lose an election. The London County Council has a time limit of fifteen minutes. In the London School Board the other day a Member moved that speeches should be cut down to ten minutes each. In the National Liberal Federation, to which I do not at present belong, the speeches of the members were cut down to ten minutes each. There is a place called the United Service Institution, in Whitehall, where a member, whether he be a veterinary surgeon or a Field-Marshal, has his speech cut down to ten minutes. If you happen to walk down Whitehall you come to a place called the Church House, to which I do not belong myself. At that Church House, although it is like flying in the face of Providence to move the closure on a dean or a bishop, yet it is done. The House of Commons and the Central Chamber of Agriculture are the only associations—if
  * Mr. Milner Gibson's Resolution was "That the speeches of Members be limited in duration to one hour, but that the introducers of original motions, and Ministers of the Crown speaking in reply, be exempted from this rule." The Resolution was defeated by 96 to 62. (See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], vol. cii., page 249.)

  1115
  I may call them by that name—where a time limit is not in force. At the Central Chamber of Agriculture, although the agriculturists and the bucolic gentlemen who attend are men of keen intellect and considerable penetration, they are not "stayers," and they do not speak very long. We all know that the procedure of this House is a little different from that. Of course, I know that there are grave objections to my proposal. One is that hon. Members in this House could not do better than was done by their predecessors one hundred years ago, and that what was good enough for them is good enough for us. Another objection is that it is no good having a time limit of twenty minutes or ten minutes, and that unless you have something very much shorter than that it is better to have nothing at all. With reference to the first objection I would say—and this is a quotation from the highest authority in this House—whereas fifty or a hundred years ago there were not so many Members who desired to speak, now there are fifty times as many Members who speak whenever they get an opportunity. Of course if ten Members make speeches, each of an hour's duration, we should be in the position referred to in the statement which, I confess, I have never understood, "where congregations ne'er break up and Sabbaths have no end." Hon. Members nowadays also have to do a great deal more than our predecessors did one hundred years ago. They have to introduce bills, move resolutions, and occasionally make speeches. Although very much opposed to occupying the time of the House, I myself had to introduce a Bill some time ago, to oblige my constituents, for the compulsory marking of Dutch shrimps. Of course it took up more or less of the time of the House. I know that in certain parts of the country—I am happy to say it does not exist in the eastern districts—there is a dossier in the columns of the local paper in which the doings of the Parliamentary representative are recorded, and, of course, an hon. Member is upon his self-defence to show something whether he likes it or not. The other objection to the resolution is that it is no good having a time limit of half an hour or twenty minutes. In this House you have to cut your coat according to your cloth and to take what you can get. As a rule you do not get very much. I
  1116
  would venture to appeal, if I may, to those great, wise, and eminent persons who occupy the two front benches of this House, and to assure them that our resolution has nothing to do with them. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] They will, of course, in the future be able to speak as often and just as long as they ever did before. If it did apply to Ministers or ex-Ministers not oven wild horses or bulls of Bashan would attract them into the same lobby with us. I would venture to suggest to the ordinary Members of the rank and file that no speech in this House ever alters a single vote. I would beg them to help us, and if they will slay what may be called the jabberwock they will go down to posterity as the promoters of the greatest reform that has ever taken place in the procedure of the House of Commons. I hope that hon. Members will remember—
  "Lives of great men all remind us
  We can make our lives sublime,
  And, departing, leave behind us
  Footprints on the sands of time."
  Hon. Members who vote for the resolution will leave footprints on the journals of the House.
  SIR A. ACLANDHOOD: I have pleasure in seconding the resolution. What my hon. and gallant friend desires to do is to bring the rhetorical artillery of the House up to date. He wishes to substitute a mobile quick-firing weapon for the somewhat ponderous and large-bore weapon now in use. I confess that as a Conservative, I view with some regret the removal of that ancient weapon to the limbo of the past. Of course I know that there must come a time when the change is inevitable, but I have pleasant recollections of the occasions on which we have held the Conservative breaches against progressive attacks until the clock struck the hour of midnight. I do feel regret at the loss of the weapon by which we could talk a Bill out. Circumstances change, and the composition of this House has undergone a change. We all want to speak now, and consequently the speeches ought to be shortened. This is a business assembly, and we are sent here to do the business of the country. Every session there are a certain number of measures put down which are carried if time permits, but I am perfectly aware

  1117
  that time never does permit, and when the annual massacre takes place the innocents are slaughtered. I think the whole of the Government programme in the Queen's Speech at the commencement of the session could be carried through. With regard to any given question there are only a limited number of ideas. The result is that three or four hon. Members use up those ideas, and those who follow must either use the old arguments over again, in which case they run the risk of being called to order, or they must dress up their arguments in such strange disguise that they themselves do not always recognise them. I shall never forget my experience of the debate on the Finance Act of 1894. Before the debate commenced I prepared what I thought was a rather interesting speech. For four days and nights I attempted to catch the late Speaker's eye. Every evening I returned home with my speech absolutely stripped naked, and every morning I redressed it. The result was that on the last night of the debate, when I did happen to get the chance of speaking at ten o'clock in the evening, I found to my horror I had appropriated one of the best points of my own leader who followed me in the debate. The number of ideas being so limited, it would be but fair if they were more equally divided amongst the Members of the House. I admit we should lose a certain number of old friends. We should lose that very courteous custom of always referring at the commencement of our speech to the speaker who immediately preceded us in the debate. Every one adopts that phrase, so as to give the idea of being impromptu to a speech which has been carefully prepared. Then another old friend, "I venture to assert, without the slightest fear of contradiction," would have to be given up, and I think the peroration would also have to go. We should miss these things at first, but we should be able on the whole to get on without them. On the county council to which I belong we have a ten-minute limit. We are a loquacious and very argumentative body, but, owing to the limit, we are always able to get through our business with expedition. I hope the House will adopt this motion. If they do I believe the debates will be shorter and brighter, and a great deal more business will be done.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That no Speech (other than those
  1118
  delivered by Ministers or ex-Ministers, or by the mover of a Bill or Resolution) shall exceed twenty minutes in length."—(Major Rasch.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I think there are two points on which everybody will be agreed—one is that, whatever may be thought of the plan recommended by my two hon. friends, the object they have in view, namely, the shortening of speeches, is in itself an excellent object; and the other is that the resolution could not have been presented to the House in two speeches which more admirably exemplify the conciseness, finish, and point which the mover and the seconder hope will be the result of the resolution. My hon. and gallant friend who moved the resolution gave us a short and cursory view of its history, and in the course of that view he brought against me a reproach which I may, perhaps, deserve, but which I do not think is a very severe one. He told me—I had forgotten the circumstance myself—that we had a debate on this subject a few years ago, that the House passed the resolution of which he was himself, I think, the proposer, and then in the innocence of his heart, either in that or in some subsequent session, he put a question to me asking whether the House had not agreed by resolution to the compulsory abbreviation of speeches, and if that was the case why the Government did not proceed to take action to carry out the resolution. My hon. friend is not nearly so innocent as he pretends to be. He is not so fresh in the ways of the House as he would have us suppose. He knows as well as I do that there are not two assemblies which differ so much as the House of Commons on a Tuesday afternoon and the House of Commons when a Bill is before it which is brought in by the Government, and which it must either accept, amend, or reject; and though I fear I have forgotten the fact that the House had already committed itself to the resolution, I think I may promise that, if ever a Government endeavours to embody in a statute the proposal my hon. friend has made, there will be a very large number of speeches made against it, and that they will not be confined to that magic limit of twenty minutes which he would impose. I entirely agree with both my hon. friends that not only would the House probably be a

  1119
  better business assembly, but that actual speakers in many cases would benefit by some limitation enforced either by rule or by public opinion. I am not alluding, of course, to those speeches humorously alluded to by the seconder of the motion, which are delivered to the House not for the purpose of promoting business, but for the purpose of obstruction; still less to those speeches which are not delivered with the object of defeating the progress of a Bill, to which they nominally refer, but which have an unacknowledged but obvious reference to some measure a little lower down on the Order Paper. We know that class of speech, Sir. [Laughter and ironical cheers.] I do not understand the tone of that cheer. I should almost conjecture that the hon. Member had never made a speech of that kind himself. No doubt speeches of that kind may be very usefully checked either by public opinion or by some rule such as my hon. friend desires should be enforced. But it is not those speeches only which I think would be improved by some limiting arrangement. Everybody must be familiar with the kind of speech in which the speaker has something interesting and novel to say to the House, some personal experience of his own bearing on the question, to which the House would be delighted to listen. It is, however, apparently impossible for him to give that particular illustration to the House without surrounding it, drowning it, overwhelming it by a repetition of arguments of which the House is altogether sick; and if he looks at the report in the newswaper the next day he will find that the reporters—at any rate this is my experience on the subject— familiar with the arguments in which the House took no interest, have reported them, as they are easy to report, but the new point in which the House really was interested is omitted altogether and is lost. I therefore often wonder why we are so short-sighted in our own interest as not to endeavour to give to the House that which it would be glad to have, instead of forcing down the throats of the wearied and reluctant hearers arguments which they know already by heart. It will be seen, therefore, that in spirit I am very much with my two hon. and gallant friends; but if they ask me whether I will go into the lobby to support them, I must say that for my own part I do not intend to take that course. It may seem
  1120
  very ungrateful, because I notice that I belong to that small and unpopular body which is specially excepted from my hon. and gallant friend's resolution. I understand the two Front Benches are by a special grace to be allowed to bore the House to any extent they please or the House can endure. I am grateful to my hon. friend for making this exception in our favour, but I am not sure that the motive that animated him is precisely complimentary to ourselves. I thought when I saw the resolution on the Paper that my hon. and gallant friend took a view of us that we certainly do not take of ourselves, that he thought that our speeches were of a peculiarly enlivening and instructive character, and therefore that their length might very well be extended to a duration not permitted to ordinary mortals. That is a very complimentary view to take, and I thought my hon. and gallant friend took that view of us; but his speech has thrown quite a different light on his motive. I understand now he thinks it best to proceed by degrees, and to buy the two Front Benches, by excepting them, to agree to the resolution, knowing very well that, when the unofficial Members of the House have consented to limit themselves, no very long time would elapse before they administer summary justice to those who occupy the two Front Benches. My real reasons for not voting with my hon. and gallant friend are twofold. In the first place, if I voted for him, he would with more reason than on the previous occasion appeal to me as to how I propose to carry out the resolution. But I have another reason. We all admit that a great many speeches delivered in this House are too long. Still, on the whole, the tendency, I believe, in recent times has been to diminish their length. When I came into the House I remember the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition thought they were not earning their salaries, or their prospective salaries, if they did not conclude long debates by speeches lasting for an hour and a half or longer. It may be, and very likely is that we are less eloquent than our predecessors, but I think Demosthenes himself, if he came down and spoke some night from half-past eleven to half-past one o'clock, would find a very wearied and possibly a not very respectful audience when he came

  1121
  to the end of his peroration. Even the Front Benches are not above learning by the natural progress of events and by the change of fashion and ideas, and the lessons we have learnt have not, I think, been thrown away on other Members of the House. It is true, as I have said, that we sometimes wish to have speeches cut down by a quarter or a half, or sometimes even by two-thirds, but, excluding speeches delivered, not to further debate, but to occupy time, I do not think that genuine speeches made for the elucidation of a subject are nearly as long as they used to be when I first came into the House; and undoubtedly if we were to attempt by some hard-and-fast rule of this kind, by some fixed limit, to put this House—I will not say reduce this House—but put this House on a level with the County Council or the other body to which my hon. friend referred, I think we should unconsciously introduce a wholly new spirit into our procedure. And until the liberty which from time immemorial the Members of this House have enjoyed in fixing the length of their speeches has become impossible longer to endure and wholly inconsistent with the proper progress of public business—until some dire necessity of that kind is driven in upon us by experience, I should be very sorry to see any breach of the traditions under which this House of Commons has so long flourished and which have so long been its glory.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am in the happy position of agreeing, not only with the general principles expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, but with almost every individual sentiment to which he gave utterance. There is nothing more remarkable, I think, within our own experience, than the tendency of the House to adopt more businesslike habits. I do not hesitate to declare myself a partisan, not only of short speeches, but of short debates, and I believe if the one and the other were reduced to a shorter limit than is at present observed, it would be a great advantage to us. While saying this, of course I reserve to myself the right of protesting at any moment, when I think that on some particular subject the leader of the House proposes to allow too short an opportunity for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the much
  1122
  shorter speeches that are made, especially from the two Front Benches, which are always regarded as the greatest sinners in this respect. Consider also the question of our debates. I remember the time when it was not considered decent for any considerable Government measure to occupy less than five nights discussion. Five nights debate was the regular allowance. It was not required so much by the ability of the Members for speaking, but it was considered due to the dignity of the subject that there should be this length of time devoted to it. And it was the same with individual speeches. I do not believe it was due either to the vanity or the natural prolixity or carelessness of the Members that these long speeches were made. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the Leader of the House dealt with a subject in a speech of a couple of hours duration because it was considered the proper thing to do, and not because, poor man, he had any desire to do it. I observe that the hon. Member for East Somerset has taken this motion seriously, and proposes to substitute fifteen for twenty minutes. I think he somewhat misunderstands the intention of my two hon. friends who have brought this matter forward. I do not think they bind themselves to any particular nostrum, but they wish to progress in the direction of short speeches. It is remarkable, and it is an illustration of what I have been saying, that the remedy that has been proposed has gradually become more and more rigid. In 1849, I think I am right in saying, the proposal was that no speech should exceed an hour, and that was considered something terrible in the way of restriction. Mr. Milner Gibson, who made the motion, said if he had his own way he would have said forty minutes, but in deference to the feelings of some of his friends he said sixty minutes. The hon. Member for Southeast Essex began by proposing thirty minutes, but to-night he has reduced his limit to twenty. All this shows, I think, the recognition by my hon. friend and by the House generally of the necessity for shorter and shorter speeches. I have only one contribution to make to the discussion which, I think, has not been made yet. I am not a chemist, but I believe there are two kinds of analysis—there is a quantitative and qualitative—and if speeches are to be restricted in length let us be sure that we shall not lose in the

  1123
  quality of the matter to which we have to listen. I will frankly give to the House my own experience. It has not been a large one, but it was so striking as to startle myself. I have on one or two occasions been compelled to speak under the rule which we know as the ten minutes rule—a rule which prescribes that on the introduction of a Bill only a very short speech should be made. I believe there is nothing about ten minutes in the rule, but it means that only a short speech shall be made. Whenever I had to speak under that restriction—will the House believe it?—I found myself speaking with an effectiveness, a point, an energy and a brilliance which astonished no one a tenth part of the degree to which it astonished myself. When I had concluded the little exercise I wondered to myself what the reason was—whether it was my extreme knowledge of or my great interest in the subject—that I had, in my own judgment—which is generally, I think, in the case of all of us a pretty severe judgment — acquitted myself so admirably. I have found it was traceable to no other reason than that I was obliged to attempt to keep my wits sharply employed in what I was saying, not to waste words, but to come to the point; and I said what I had to say in the most terse and effective manner. I offer this little experience of mine as a consideration to hon. Members who may think that by a rule like this they would be deprived of a great privilege. I can assure them that not only would the business of the House be accelerated, but also that the quality of the speeches would be improved by the application of a rule such as this. I hesitate whether, having joined myself with the right hon. Gentleman in his sentiments, I should also take the course he is going to take. He is not going to support my hon. friend opposite. I think I must show some little divergence from the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, regarding a vote on this subject as a mere declaration of a pious opinion in favour of short speeches, I propose to go into the lobby in support of the motion.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I shall not have the smallest hesitation in going into the opposite lobby to my right hon. friend who has just spoken. I differ from the motion proposed by the hon. and gallant
  1124
  Member not merely for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but because I think the motion will destroy what I regard as one of the chief excellencies of this House—namely, the spontaneity and elasticity of its spirit and practice. I have an advantage which, perhaps, the hon. and gallant Gentleman and other Members of this House have not, in that I have watched the proceedings of other legislative assemblies in different parts of the world. I have attended several debates in the House of Representatives at Washington, and I have had some opportunities—not many, I acknowledge—of attending debates in the French Chamber of Deputies. I certainly attended those debates with an impartial mind as a visitor and an observer of the assemblies I have named, and I give this as my experience. The speaking may be more picturesque and more oratorical in those two legislatures; but of the three legislative bodies with which I have any acquaintance—and I do not know more—the only one which I will describe as being a debating assembly is the British House of Commons. I have seen this time rule tried in the House of Representatives at Washington. The hon. and gallant Member forgets that this rule is a two-edged weapon. It says that no speech, with certain exceptions, should be of longer duration than twenty minutes. The hon. and gallant Member altogether loses sight of the fact that one of the probable results of such a rule is that a great many speeches which might very well end at ten minutes would really be extended to twenty minutes. That is one of the effects of a cast iron rule of this kind, I will tell the House of a scene which I have myself witnessed in the House of Representatives, and also in the Senate at Washington. There they have this rule of allowing a certain length of time to the Members of the House—a rule which is laid down with the cast iron rigidity which is indeed common to many things in America, and which I regard as one of the defects of their constitution as compared with the constitution of this country. What I saw happen was this: A Member, say, had an hour under certain conditions; he calmly stopped at the end of forty minutes and then bestowed the remaining twenty minutes upon some other Member of the Legislature, with the result that the debate was

  1125
  made extremely artificial and lacked the spontaneity which is the chief characteristic of the debates of this House. I will give another instance. A small proposal was brought into the House of Representatives one day when I was present. The Bill was simply for the purpose of doing away with the rule as to the qualification of a man to be appointed as a police constable. In Washington there was an old rule which practically limited these appointments to old soldiers, a rule which one can easily understand after the heroic sacrifices made by the soldiers in the Civil War. But this proposal was brought in about thirty-five years after the Civil War ended, and anybody can plainly see that even an old soldier thirty years after the war might make a very inefficient police constable. The House will scarcely credit it, but upon that motion-which was a very small one—I heard the whole question of the Civil War discussed: whether the Republican party or the Democratic party had been right, and whether the Democrats or the Republicans really were the true patriots of the time. In other words, in the House of Representatives in America, with all respect to the brilliant oratory and the many great speakers there, the effect is to make speeches oratorical rather than debating, while the tendency in this House is to make the speeches debating rather than oratorical. I am jealous of any rule whatsoever which will threaten—and I believe the one before the House would—that very fundamental and supreme virtue of this assembly. The real truth is that my hon. friend mistakes a symptom for the disease. The disease of this House is not long speeches. I entirely agree with the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman as to the gradual curtailment of speeches in this House. I remember when two
  hours was regarded as a suitable period for an exordium, and the most serious business to follow. One of the best speeches I ever heard in my life was delivered between midnight and four o'clock in the morning by my hon. friend Mr. Sexton in the course of a discussion on a Crimes Bill, the progress of which he was trying to prevent in this House. Speeches have already been curtailed, and, as a matter of fact, if the House will seriously compare debates on different days of the week they will find that on one day of the week there is no necessity whatever for the motion of my hon. friend—I refer to the Wednesday sittings. Apart from the subjects brought in on Wednesdays, I maintain that this House is seen at its best from half-past two to half-past five o'clock. The real reason for the long speeches in this House is that a large number of them are delivered when most of the Members of the House are away, and when there is scarcely anyone to speak to except the representatives of the newspapers. I do not think, therefore, that it is in any cast-iron rule that this House will find a remedy.
  SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I intend to vote for the resolution because I am a bimetallist. One of the most successful speeches I ever heard was made by an ex-Member of this House at a Bimetallic banquet. He had a toast to propose, and all he said was, "If speech be silvern, and silence be golden, then a short speech must be bimetallic"; he then proposed his toast and sat down; and, Sir, having said all that it is necessary for me to say, I will follow his example.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 91; Noes, 137. (Division List No. 118.)

  AYES.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Coddington, Sir William

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Colville, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Baker, Sir John

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Crombie, John William

  Howarth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Billson, Alfred

  Denny, Colonel

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Birrell, Augustine

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Doughty, George

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

  Dunn, Sir William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Burns, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Caldwell, James

  Fison, Frederick William

  Kitson, Sir James

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Lambert, George

  Cawley, Frederick

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Leng, Sir John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n)

  Ure, Alexander

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wallace, Robert

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

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

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool)

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

  M'Killop, James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Robinson, Brooke

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf.)

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Round, James

  Woods, Samuel

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles

  Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Major Rasch and Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  NOES.

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

  Drucker, A.

  Monk, Charles James

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Ellis, John Edward

  Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport)

  Asher, Alexander

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Hen.

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Garfit, William

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Gedge, Sydney

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith- (Hunts)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Runciman, Walter

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

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

  Bethell, Commander

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Heath, James

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Helder, Augustus

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Burt, Thomas

  Henderson, Alexander

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Butcher, John George

  Herman-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Hogan, James Francis

  Steadman William Charles

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

  Houston, R. P.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worcester)

  Knowles, Lees

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Daly, James

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Dewar, Arthur

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Dillon, John

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  M'Dermott, Patrick

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wylie, Alexander

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Wyndham, George

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'lver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh, W)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. T. P. O'Connor and Mr. Lloyd-George.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Maddison, Fred.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  COUNTY COUNCILS—TRANSFER OF POWERS —LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  [RESOLUTION.]
  MR. LLOYD-GEOEGE: Although the House has just
  1128
  decided against short speeches, I can assure hon. Members that I am not going to make a long speech, and I will undertake to limit myself to five minutes. I move the motion standing in my name, but I do not propose to press it to a

  1129
  division, and I formally move it in the hope that it will elicit from the President of the Local Government Board a favourable reply. I may say that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to receive a deputation on the subject. All I want is that a clause in the Act of 1888, passed by a Conservative Government, which has lain dormant up to the present, should be put into operation. Under this clause powers are conferred upon various Government departments of delegating portions of their powers to county councils. It is a very useful clause, and great expectations have been formed of it. Unfortunately, however, in England, although the Government are prepared to put this section into operation, the non-county boroughs have placed obstacles in the way of its use, but this does not apply in the case of Wales, where there is none of this rivalry and jealousy existing. I do not believe that there is in Wales a single non-county borough which objects to this section being applied, and I do trust that the right hon. Gentleman will allow us to make this experiment. The councils of Wales are unanimous upon this question, and the Welsh county councils have formed a kind of joint committee, each council nominating two or three delegates, and they met at Shrewsbury. It is a perfectly non-partisan movement, for the chairman of the Committee is a well known, highly respected, and influential Unionist in the Principality. This Committee is now framing its proposals, and all I have to ask the President of the Local Government Board is that he shall receive a deputation from that body, who will present their case to him, and let him know the sort of powers they wish should be delegated to these bodies. I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.
  Sir JOHN JENKINS: I have very much pleasure in seconding this motion. I agree with my hon. friend that the experiment is well worth trying, and I do not know that it can be better tried than by an application to Wales. The county councils of Wales are unanimous upon this question, and I trust that those who have opposed this proposal for England will not stand in the way of this experiment being tried in Wales. I hope the President of the Local Government Board will be good
  1130
  enough to receive a deputation, and if he does, I think that he will fall in with their views, and take steps to bring in a Bill dealing with the matter.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is desirable the provision made by Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1888, for the transfer to county councils and joint committees of county councils of powers now vested in certain Government Departments should be put into operation forthwith; and, inasmuch as the Welsh county councils are unanimously desirous of obtaining such increased powers, and the obstacles opposed by the non-county boroughs in England to the effecting of such a transfer are not raised by the non-county boroughs of Wales, that it is expedient the experiment of such a transfer should first of all be made in Wales."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,: The hon. Member for Carnarvon spoke to me on this subject yesterday, and he led me to understand that if I was willing to receive a deputation representing Welsh county councils, who desire to put their views before me, he would not proceed with this motion. Repeating what I said then to the hon. Member, I say at once that I shall be very glad to receive the deputation, and the hon. Member may rely upon my best attention being given to their representations.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I only rise for the purpose of saying, as a Welsh Member, that I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for the spirit in which he has received this suggestion. The county councils of Wales are absolutely unanimous upon this subject, and I may say that it is not a party question at all, but it is purely a matter of administrative business. The county councils have worked well for the last eleven years, and they have shown their capacity in Wales to work together in regard to administrative questions, and they have shown how administrative business can be most effectively carried out. I think I am justified in saying that Welsh Members on both sides of the House support this motion.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: After what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman

  1131
  the President of the Local Government Board, I beg to withdraw my motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  MINISTERS OF THE CROWN AS DIREC- TORS OF PUBLIC COMPANIES.
  [RESOLUTION.]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will attempt, as far as I can, to follow the good example set me by the First Lord of the Treasury, and I will make a very short speech. The motion which I bring to the notice of the House is no novelty, for it is a well-known motion. Since the last occasion when this motion was before the House Lord Russell, the Lord Chief Justice, within the last month, has declared that the union of the two positions constitutes a perfect scandal in public life. The present Ministry affords a glaring instance of the union of incompatible positions, for of the Ministers who now sit on the Treasury Bench opposite no less than 52 per cent. are directors, while, taking the House as a whole, the percentage of ordinary company directors is only 30. It is a new feature even for this country to have hon. Members who have accepted company directorships even since they have become Ministers of the Crown, and this is a public scandal. I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite mean nothing wrong, but such a state of things is subject to the grossest misconception. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate—who is a director of three public companies—or the Secretary of the Board of Trade—who is a director of two public companies—is in charge of this question. This subject of commercial statesmen has been denounced by the Governments of Mr. Gladstone and Lord Rosebery. Having regard to incidents in connection with the contracts for the present war, and the influence of the Cabinet in reference to Stock Exchange transactions, the fact that Ministers of the Crown act as directors of public companies gives very good grounds of suspicion to the inference that this is a Stock Exchange Government promoting a Stock Exchange war for Stock Exchange purposes. I beg to move.
  MR. STEADMANseconded the motion.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the
  1132
  position of a Public Company Director is incompatible with the position of a Minister of the Crown, and the union of such offices is calculated to lower the dignity of public life."—(Mr. Swift MacNeill.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,: Being a director who is not ashamed of his position, I think it is well that I should reply, and I will do so with as much brevity as the case permits. I am not going to detain the House with more than a suggestion of the difficulty of applying such a self-denying ordinance in the case where a company in name is really a private firm in its nature. Is a man, when he is a partner in a firm, fit to be a Minister, and the next day, on his firm becoming a company, does he become unfit to be a Minister? I will at once proceed to deal with the ordinary public company. The hon. Member has not brought any direct charge of corruption, and probably he would be the first to say that it is very far from his thoughts that any member of the present Government would be guilty of any such thing.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Hear, hear!
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: But, at the same time, while I say and acknowledge this, I really do not know what is the meaning of the observation which the hon. Member made about Stock Exchange transactions. If that observation did not point to corruption it was mere rhetoric. It is suggested that when a member of the Government is a director of a public company Stock Exchange transactions would be facilitated. The hon. Member has been good enough to class me as a commercial Minister. It is true, as the hon. Member stated, that I am a director of an old-established insurance company and a railway company, but I do not know how this will facilitate such transactions. If the canker of corruption entered public life I could understand how a Cabinet Minister could manœuvre Stock Exchange transactions by being in possession of secret knowledge. If you had a case of that sort to deal with, the position of mere directors of companies would be only the fringe of the matter. But no such charge has been made in my time against any Member who has ever sat on the Front Bench. This proposition is

  1133
  based in the main upon two grounds: the first is that the position of a public company director is incompatible with [the position of a Minister of the Crown.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Hoar, hear!
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: By incompatibility I presume the hon. Member means that there is a conflict of interests. There might be certain directorships which would involve a conflict of interests, and if there was such a directorship I am certain that nobody on this Government Bench would continue to hold such a directorship. Of course no Minister would continue to hold a directorship which brought him into contact with a Department of the Crown dealing with Government contracts. But in that matter you must, after all, trust to the honour and good sense of those sitting on this Bench. Upon the question of conflicting interests it must be remembered that the interests of shareholders are very much greater than the interests of directors. The interest of a director is pecuniarily nothing, and it is so small that it may be disregarded; but the interest of a shareholder is very often very great. It is not proposed that a Minister of the Crown is not to be allowed to hold any investments in any company for fear that his pecuniary interest might run athwart his public duty. The second proposition the hon. Member puts forward is that the union of two such offices is calculated to lower the dignity of public life.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Hear, hear!
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Gentleman is a versatile Member of this House, and I have heard him discuss many subjects, but I confess with pleasurable surprise that I look forward to the prospect of hearing him as a guardian of public dignity. What fallacy underlies this? Is it a confusion of the directors of companies with the promoters of public companies? The two words are very different, but the hon. Member spoke not only of directors but also of promoters. I am not aware that any of the Ministers of the Crown are promoters of public companies. Of course, there are companies and companies. If Members on this bench were directors of bogus companies; if they allowed their names
  1134
  to be used in a prospectus to "catch flats," then I should say they were doing a thing very unworthy of the position they occupied. But no such charge has been made against us. As to the opinion of Lord Russell, I am not going to deal with what he said, because I have not seen his speech. All I can say is that there are many things which a Minister of the Crown might do in connection with a public company without doing anything which does not conduce to his dignity or to his position. There must be a discrimination made, and I think it is idle to confound, without any distinction, the position of persons who are directors in old - established and perfectly responsible concerns with those who have mixed themselves up with bogus companies, and who have acted as a sort of "flat catchers" with the public. I go further and say that it is an advantage to the public service that this Bench should have upon it—[An HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!]—I am stating my opinion, and the hon. Member by saying "Oh, oh!" will not alter it—men who have a certain cognisance of public affairs and business. If you are appointing a Royal Commission on any subject you appoint men who know something about it, and I feel that a great deal of our knowledge, such as it is, which we place at the service of the House so far as we can, has been learned by direct contact with great business concerns It has been said, Why not give up these directorships while in office? You cannot do it. It is easy enough to go in and out of a certain class of company, but with old-established companies it is quite impossible to expect to be able to do it. Seeing that there is practically no real abuse, and that there is no particular charge against any person, I think personally that this is really, if I may say so, a case of mock purity. It is perfectly impossible to avoid a theoretical conflict of interest, because what do we deal with in the House of Commons? We deal with the whole range of human affairs, and it is perfectly impossible to say in all the subjects we deal with that it would not be possible for the lines of contact to meet where they would mean conflict with personal interest. The only thing we can do is to have trust in a man's character, and so far as character is concerned there is no scandal alleged against any one of us. Un-less the House of Commons wants its affairs

  1135
  conducted by some body of secluded philosophers, it is a great deal better to have persons who do know something about business affairs, and who have practical business experience, and can utilise it for the benefit of the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This is a renewal of the discussion we had last year on, I think, the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech,* and the right lion. Gentleman has given the same reply that was then made to the arguments that were advanced on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman has very truly said that there is no idea of any scandal or any imputation of corruption, but what we say is that from two points of view the system is objectionable. In the first place, a Minister ought to give the whole of his time—that is, apart from his own private affairs— to the work which he has undertaken to do, and either he is neglecting his duty as a director—in which case he is not behaving very fairly to the business in which he professes to have a share in managing—or pro tanto he is neglecting his duty to the Crown and to the country. That is one view. But the other view is much more serious. It is this. We think that no one in a responsible position, such as a Cabinet Minister, ought to be publicly connected as a director with any institution whatever which might have interests differing from and conflicting with the public interest. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of himself as being a director in two or three companies. I rather think he is what is called an extraordinary director in one of the Scotch banks.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am an ordinary director.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Then the right hon. Gentleman is a live director in a Scotch bank, and is not what is very stupidly called in Scotland an extraordinary director, who is merely a figurehead, and has nothing to do with business, a system which I hope will not continue much longer. The question is one of sentiment largely, no doubt, but we in this country have happily been free for two or three
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], vol. Ixvi., pages 971–996.
  1136
  generations from any imputation of mercenary motives or corrupt motives on the part of our public men, a thing which can be said of few other countries. This is a matter which, so far as it goes, at any rate gives rise to suspicion, and it is desirable to avoid the very appearance of suspicion so far as we possibly can. That a Member of Parliament or a Minister who has a great landed interest in some part of the country should become a railway director is a very admirable and proper thing, but if he assumes the position of a Cabinet Minister he should resign his directorship. The company would only be too glad to get him back again when he had a few months leisure from the affairs of State. There is no necessity why Ministers should continue to be directors or why they should not divest themselves formally of these obligations—they may be entanglements—in order to devote themselves to the duty which the Queen and Parliament expect of them. That is the whole question. It is a matter of sentiment, no doubt, but it is a sentiment which goes very deep. The Lord Advocate drew a very fine distinction when he stated that private business might be sometimes quite as much a tie upon a man in an undesirable way as a directorship. That is all very well, but the great body of the people would, I believe, be better satisfied in their minds if they knew that all the members of the Executive Government were free from anything which could possibly savour of suspicion.
  MR. WEIR: The Lord Advocate especially called attention to the companies in which he is interested, and I therefore feel entitled to make a few observations with regard to them. The right hon. Gentleman, although he receives a salary of £5,000 a year over and above his fees for contentious business, tells us that it is no matter that he is an ordinary director with a great amount of responsibility of the Bank of Scotland, the Great Northern Railway, and the Standard Life Insurance Company. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Bank of Scotland has not to do with company promoters, whether it has not financial transactions with them, and whether the directors have not to be consulted in regard to such matters. The right hon. Gentleman talks of gaining experience in the busi-

  1137
  ness world, but I should have thought that, as a lawyer, he had a good chance of getting experience in the Courts as to how companies are managed and business is carried on. I regret very much indeed that right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Bench should be directors of public companies. In the last debate on this subject the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for evidence that anything ever went wrong. I call attention to one company that went wrong from which a member of the Government was receiving £5,000 a year. I refer to the English Bank of the River Plate, the shares of which are now of very little value. I maintain that a member of the Government receives a salary from the Government to do the work of the Government, and until all Ministers keep clear of public companies, suspicion will not disappear. The Lord Advocate has not only his own work to do in this House, but he has also the work of the Secretary for Scotland to attend to, in addition to the directorship of three commercial companies, and I say it is impossible for him, however energetic he may be, to give attention to all these matters. The first claim not only on the Lord Advocate, but on every member of the Government, is to do the work of the nation, and as long as they are members of the Government they should arrange to drop their directorships and take them up again if they wished, and if they were so hard up for fees, when the Government went out of office; but during their tenure of office let thorn stick to the interests for which they are paid.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The Lord Advocate has told the House of Commons, in what I venture to say is a very serious matter, that if the resolution moved by my hon. friend is passed we shall be embarking on a career of mock purity that will in no sense be practical, and may be inquisitorial. I am rather sorry that the Lord Advocate has to-night ventured to take that view, especially with his knowledge of the conditions that weigh with judges and magistrates and members of town and county councils in connection with companies in which they happen to be personally interested either as directors or shareholders. I will deal with the mock purity argument first. I may be wrong, but I believe that, with all its faults, the
  1138
  British House of Commons is far and away the best legislative assembly in the world. It is rightly called the Mother of Parliaments, and I believe that the Mother of Parliaments should not, under the régime of company promoters and Ministerial directors, be made the mistress of monopoly. If it is mock purity that makes all of us jealous of the good name of the Mother of Parliaments as the freest, most disinterested, and most incorruptible body in the world, that is a kind of mock purity that ought rather to be encouraged than otherwise. Now I come to the impracticability of the motion. It cannot be urged that it is impracticable, because the last Government, thanks in no small measure to the moral courage and prescience of the late Mr. Gladstone, decided that whenever a Minister took a directorship that could be at all questioned he should have to choose between his private interests and his public service. Then as to the motion being inquisitorial, I do not think it is. When a man receives Her Majesty commission as a member of the Government he should concentrate practically all his time in the patient, diligent and honest discharge of his Ministerial work. If he wants money he should abandon the loaves and fishes of Cabinet rank. If he wants to acquire wealth let him stay out of Parliament, with Mr. Hooley and the other gentlemen who are anxious to get into Parliament in order that they may obtain political power to make still more money. We do not want Mr. Hooley or Mr. Bottomley in this House of Commons as private Members, but as public decoy ducks for financial schemes. If you allow Cabinet Ministers to take directorships the duties of which they cannot faithfully discharge as long as they hold office, then the dregs and scum of the Stock Exchange can gain admission also, especially when we know the directorships are given after election to Parliament for services rendered in this House to their companies and monopolies. Now I come to precedents. As one who has been before Her Majesty's Judges on several occasions, I must frankly say that the English judiciary is as able, as impartial, and as disinterested as any judiciary in the world. I say that because the closer I have got to Her Majesty's Judges, especially when I received a sentence, the more I approved of their ability and probity. But what does the law say

  1139
  with regard to judges? It says that judges are to be exempt from deciding cases in which they are either directly or remotely connected. There is one celebrated case, that of Lord Chancellor Cottenham, whose decision was reversed by Lord Campbell because he had a very small interest in the case he decided. If that be true of Judges and Lord Chancellors, it is equally true, or should be made true, of Members of Parliament. Let me come within the four walls of this House. What does Parliament do? We begin our proceedings every day with one of the finest pieces of pure English that one can listen to; the admirable prayer enjoining us to put private interest on one side and to subordinate private prejudice in the public interest. I want the First Lord of the Treasury to be more reverential than I am, and to interpret that prayer, not only in its spirit, but also in its letter. Then, again, take our Private Bill Committees. This House has passed a Standing Order of the most rigorous character, that all members of Committees on Private Bills shall be free from all local and personal interest in all Bills referred to them; and the effect of that has been that, short of the judiciary, there is no tribunal regarded with more respect and confidence and more entirely trusted than our Private Bill Committees. Why do they evoke respect and confidence? Simply because the House of Commons insists that all members shall be free from personal or local interest or prejudice, and every railway director or labour leader knows that he will get a fair hearing from these Committees, and that his case will be decided on its merits, and that no taint of suspicion is possible as regards their decision. Coming from the judiciary and our Private Bill Committees, we know that the London Municipal Corporation Act of 1835 contains a clause which is generally respected and adhered to, that no man can vote or speak on any subject in which he is directly or indirectly concerned; and the result is the undoubted honesty and straightforwardness of our municipal life. But let me go from public bodies to municipal corporations and companies themselves, and here we have a Daniel come to judgment. Under the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act we find that a director of Company A, who is also a member of Company B, is debarred from voting on any contract
  1140
  between the two companies. Even the London Stock Exchange shows Parliament an example and a precedent in this direction, because the Stock Exchange will not quote any company unless the directors are prohibited from taking an active interest in the affairs of another company in which they are also interested. If that be the position as regards the Stock Exchange, municipal corporations, Committees of this House, and our judiciary, surely it ought to apply also to our Cabinet Ministers. What are the facts? Twenty-five Ministers out of forty-four hold forty-one directorships. I am not complaining of their holding these positions as private individuals, but I say that such a number of directorships is incompatible with that public trust and confidence which holders of public office ought to evoke. I do not even question the financial bona fides of any of these companies, but this I do say, that either these companies, be they railway, gas, or water companies, are not getting value for the money paid to these Ministers as directors, or if the companies are getting value, the country is not getting value for the £2,000, £4,000, or £5,000 paid to them in salaries as Ministers of the Crown. The Lord Advocate, with that legal ingenuity which characterises the legal mind, especially in Scotland, said that we ought to bring forward cases and charges against individual Ministers. We do not want to do that, because if we start bringing personal charges against Ministers we reduce the debate to a low level and prevent ourselves from determining this question from the point of view of high principle. For instance, it is well known that the Duke of Devonshire, than whom politically and personally there are few better men in this country—indeed, I would rather go tiger hunting with the Duke of Devonshire than with all the South African millionaires rolled into one—is connected with one of the Naval armament companies who supply ironclads for our Navy. I make no complaint. Then again Lord Selborne is connected with the P. and O. Steamship Company. When Lord Selborne was in this House no one had greater admiration for him than I had, but I say that a company which receives something like £400,000 from the Government in the shape of subsidies for carrying mails ought not to have as a member of its

  1141
  board a Minister either in this House or in the other. Then I conic to railway directors. I make no complaint of the Home Secretary or the First Commissioner of Works for being railway directors. The companies with which they are connected are probably very good companies, but what I want to point out is this——
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I believe I am right in saying that the Duke of Devonshire resigned the directorship to which the hon. Member refers when he took office.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am delighted to hear it. It only gives additional point to my argument and emphasises the encomium which I ventured to pass on the Duke of Devonshire. What I wish to point out is this—that if you allow Ministers and Under Secretaries to belong to companies it encourages ordinary private Members to go in for company promoting and directorships to an extent which is discreditable. For instance, there are 586 Peers, and of these 435 are directors of companies. I do not want to take the House of Commons through the whole Hooley disclosures, or through the revelations in regard to Earl De la Warr, which reflected no great credit on him. Look at the effect on the telephone, railway, and water companies. The appetite grows with what it feeds on, and if Ministers are to be allowed to have forty-four directorships, the evil will increase. We have seen directors of water companies who are paid £1,000 or £2,000 voting on their own Bills after having said their prayers, and going the length of standing in the division lobby, and when Members come in and ask how to vote, saying, "Oh, it is against the London County Council vote for monopoly." Now, that is becoming a scandal. The Spectator, a competent and well-written journal, which has a true conception of the dignity of public life, says that there is a strong probability that if this sort of thing is not checked, we may witness an approach to such a condition of things that we can see in South Africa and elsewhere. Coming from that paper to the Financial News, facilis descensus Averni. The present is essentially a time when members of the Government should not leave themselves open to the breath of suspicion that they are personally interested in trading
  1142
  concerns. The telephone debates in which Directors take a conspicuous part in this House are becoming a perfect scandal.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing another question—namely, the well-known rule of the House which prohibits Members from voting on matters in which they are interested. The resolution before the House refers to the question of the holding of directorships by Ministers.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to point out that the encouragement given in high places to financial log-rolling is such that we shall have this House losing its just reputation. To what extent that encouragement is given in high places can be seen by anyone who reads the papers, like the Birmingham Post and the Investors' Review. When the telephones or the low-flash oil come on for debate the lobbying has become a perfect scandal. The Whitehall Review for August, 1899, said that "last session lobbying had become not so much a line art as a perfect scandal." Now, I do not know whether that statement in the Whitehall Review is true or not, or the statements contained in the Birmingham Post—than which no paper has a more competent and excellent representative in this House; but this I do know, that last year when the Low Flash Oil Bill and the Telephone Bill came on for discussion the lobby of the House of Commons was crowded by men who ought not to have been there. I know that pressure was brought to bear on hon. Members in the inside lobby by men who ought not to have been within the precincts of the House at all. I know that these financial touts and commercial tide-waiters are encouraged to do their dirty work, derogatory to the character of British public life, because we allow Ministers to hold directorships. It is because I am jealous of the honour of this House that I support this resolution. It is the poor man who should support such a resolution, because poor men, as a rule, are unjustly accused of lending themselves to this kind of thing. I appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury, in these days when people outside are not so keenly interested in politics and Parliamentary life, not to still further slacken their interest by allowing it to be said, as it can be said, that directly a man comes into this

  1143
  House, or is nominated by Her Majesty to a high position, he is at once, pounced upon to subserve the private interests of this company or that company, instead of the public interest. I appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to do no more than Mr. Gladstone did to discourage guineapiggery, and to make every Minister con-

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS) BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
  Notice taken that forty Members were
  centrate all his spare time on the duties of his office. I have much pleasure in supporting the Resolution.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 71; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 119.)

  AYES.

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

  Dunn, Sir William

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Baker, Sir John

  Gurdon, Sir Win. Brampton

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hazell, Walter

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Hogan, James Francis

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Brigg, John

  Jones, William(Carnarvonsh'e)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

  Burns, John

  Langley, Batty

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Burt, Thomas

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accring'n)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Caldwell, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ure, Alexander

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Weir, James Galloway

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Colville, John

  MacDonnell, Dr M.A.(Queens C

  Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

  Crilly, Daniel

  M'Crae, George

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

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Daly, James

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wilson, J. H.(Middlesbrough)

  Dewar, Arthur

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Woods, Samuel

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Maddison, Fred

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Dillon, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. MacNeill and Mr. Steadman.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Pickard, Benjamin

  NOES.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Flower, Ernest

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Garfit, William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Gedge, Sydney

  Pilkington, R.(Lancs, Newton)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Purvis, Robert

  Baird, John George Alex.

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir J. Eldon

  Richardson, Sir Thos (Hartlep')

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

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Ritchie, Rt Hon Chas. Thomson

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

  Green. W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Bethell, Commander

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

  Sidebottom,T. Harrop (Stalybr)

  Bhownaggree. Sir M. M.

  Hornby. Sir William Henry

  Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Houston, R. P.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

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

  Knowles, Lees

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Thorburn, Sir Waller

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm H.

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Maclver, David Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Doughty, George

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hon E. R.(Batch)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  M'Killop, James

  Young, Commander (Berks. E.

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Finch, George H.

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Parker Smith and Mr. Charles Murray.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morton, Arthur H.A(Deptford)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute)

  not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present,
  The House was adjourned at ten minutes before Nine of the clock, till To-morrow.