Commons Sitting of 18 May 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  BIRMINGHAM (KING EDWARD THE SIXTH) SCHOOLS BILL [Lords]. [BY ORDER.]
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I rise to move the first portion of the Instruction which stands in my name in regard to the Birmingham Schools Bill. On Tuesday last a suggestion that I should not move the Instruction was made to me openly in this House by my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, and I am sure that, in speaking on this subject, the right hon. Gentleman spoke as a Member for the City of Birmingham and not in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown. Whether as Member or Minister I have great respect for his opinions, except on the question of the Charity Commission, and that is the one subject in the whole world in regard to which I claim to have greater knowledge than the right hon. Gentleman. He has filled high offices, with distinction, but I do not know that he has ever aspired to be a member of the Charity Commission. I therefore feel that I am justified in disregarding his friendly advice on this matter. If I had not taken this opportunity of moving the Instruction, I should have enabled the promoters to take advantage of their own wrong-doing, in proposing to deal by means of a Private Bill with a matter which ought to have been dealt with in a Public Bill. Such a Bill could have been drafted in one clause. It would have been sufficient to provide that, wherever, in the protection clauses of the law affecting charitable trusts the words "England and Wales" appear, we should insert the words, "but not in Birmingham." However short that Bill might have been, it would at any rate have given an opportunity for discussion—under our cautious, constitution it would have afforded many opportunities for discussion of this matter, and it would not have permitted the Bill to be rushed through.
  MR. SPEAKER: The question whether this matter ought to be dealt with by Public or Private Bill was open to be dis-

  543
  cussed on the Second Reading, and was, indeed, discussed at length by the hon. Member who inaugurated the debate. But it does not now arise, and the hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the Instruction.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I was merely pointing out that, as the promoters had elected to proceed by the dark and devious ways of Private Bill legislation, I could not neglect the opportunity of attacking them when they came into the open. If the House had rejected the Bill in toto on Tuesday, the result would have been that the link which exists at present between the governors of the school and the Charity Commission would have remained unbroken. But both parties desire a separation on account of incompatibility of temper. The House last Tuesday granted the separation, and gave the custody of posterity to the Board of Education. I now ask the House to consider the specific points dealt with in the clause mentioned in my Instruction, and to say under what conditions control should in future be exercised. In spite of their ingratitude, in spite of their rather surprising denunciation, the Charity Commissioners are determined to do their duty by the foundation to the very last. We do not oppose Clause 24—the clause which transfers this fractious and ungrateful child from our keeping to that of the Board of Education. We only ask this House to affirm that those who have the future control of the corpus of the capital of the foundation should have the powers which the long experience of the Charity Commission has shown to be necessary for the purposes of that control. If this Instruction is carried what will be the position? The Governors will have, under the Board of Education, precisely the same powers of dealing with their property as are given to the trustees of any charity throughout the country by the general law. They will be able to grant leases up to twenty-one years without interference. They will be able to choose their own tenants, to evict them if ever that has to be done, and to make what terms with them they may think fit. They will be able to perform all the duties of a landlord, to pay for repairs and improvements, to collect their rents, and if any surplus is left after covering all expenditure, they will be able to devote it to the
  544
  proper purposes of the trust. Under the Bill as amended, so far as dealing with their income is concerned, they will not be interfered with at all. But if they exceed their income, if they find it necessary to borrow, if they endeavour to alienate for long periods the property of the foundation, if they endeavour to mortgage the rights of the future for the temporary interests of the present, then under the Bill as I propose it shall be amended power will be given to pull them up. Is there any Member of this House who will say that they ought not to be pulled up under such conditions? It is suggested that this great foundation of governors ought to be masters in their own house. I reply to that that it is not their own house—they are merely the temporary occupants in trust for futurity. It will be said that the clauses as they now stand would retain an outside body with full powers to restrain the long alienation of the trust property. If that is so, then I am satisfied, and the result of passing the Bill in its present form will be that the governors will escape from the whips of the Charity Commission to fall under the scorpions of the Board of Education. It is no use their coming whimpering to this House to complain of the action of the Board of Education. That Board is protected by Government whips, and its spokesmen sit upon the Treasury Bench. The Charity Commission, on the contrary, has to rely on the justice of its case put foward in faltering accents from the back benches—it has to rely upon the unprejudiced intelligence of this House. The promoters of this Bill have had a very watchful eye upon this state of things. They saw the scorpions, and they took precautions in these clauses that the scorpions should not sting when they bowed their proud heads. They took care when they accepted control of the Board of Education that it should not be an effective control. They were ready that the rod should remain in the cupboard, but they took charge of the keys of that cupboard. What is the effect of the clauses referred to in my Instruction? The Board of Education are not to exercise their powers to restrain improvidence unless they are called upon to do so by three of the governors, who must have been present at the meeting at which a resolution was passed to dispose of any of the estates of the foundation. I may be told

  545
  that there are outside governors who would exercise an independent judgment. No doubt these gentlemen would do good work from an educational point of view, but I question very much if, when they came to deal with estate matters, they would not be met with the query, "What do you know about these things? You dwell outside Birmingham." I am prepared to adopt with regard to these gentlemen any epithet, however complimentary, which the imagination of this House could suggest, but I do say it would be very hard indeed to find three governors prepared to put themselves in the unpopular position of appellants against their colleagues. And if they did appeal, look at the delay that would ensue. Consols might fall in value in the interval, and the blame for the loss thereby caused would be put upon the Board of Education, although I doubt if any credit would be given to it should the change in the value be favourable to the endowment. I do not ask that the Board of Education should use our methods, if they can devise better ones by which they can come to a decision on a complicated tissue of facts without delay. Of course, they might give their decision first, and collect and consider the facts afterwards, but I do not believe that the Board of Education will adopt that method of satisfying the requirements of a great city like Birmingham, although, as I shall show, we are blamed for not having adopted that course. It was specifically alleged the other day that the control exercised by the Charity Commission had caused great delay in the past. Let me state the facts without comment. It is said that we took six months to settle a certain matter. What are the facts? In January, 1899, the governors of this foundation asked leave to sell some corporation rent charges. We inquired simply: "Which do you mean," for they had many such charges of different amounts created by different debentures. From January until 15th July we could not get the details which it was necessary we should have before we could fill in the schedule to the order. On the 15th July, however, the details arrived, and the order of leave to sell was signed and sealed by the 1st August. The House will see, therefore, which is the right horse to saddle with the blame for the delay. These are but smooth pebbles from the brook with which I have to arm
  546
  myself for a conflict like this. I ask the indulgence of the House while I say a word or two in defence of the most capable, willing, obliging, hard-worked, and hard-working permanent officials of my Department. They perform the very thankless office of the policeman, and, like him, they have a right to ask that they should be treated with respect. The work that they have to do is put upon them by Parliament, and surely Parliament will resent anything which would hamper them in the doing of it. If anything has been said in the heat of debate which could pain these officials by reflecting upon their fearless and impartial discharge of their duties, I am sure the House will refuse to believe that it has been said with deliberate intention. Perhaps I may be allowed to give the House one instance to show the overworked condition of the Charity Commission. Three or four years ago, on a Wednesday, early in the year, I had the honour of walking up Whitehall with a Cabinet Minister, and I had the pleasure of pointing out to him that, while all the other Government offices in Whitehall were dark and deserted, and their occupants gone home to a well-earned rest, the Charity Commission was still lighted up. It was the one bright spot of activity and light in a deserted official world. Unfortunately that Cabinet Minister was not the Colonial Secretary, or else I should have been tempted then, as now, to ask him in and show him round. In conclusion, I will state briefly what is the issue on which I ask the House to divide. This is a question which has nothing in the world to do with educational powers or educational management. Although hon. Members may have some confused idea that it is an educational matter, it deals merely with proper precautions for the protection of capital meant for all time. The Board of Education say that they can protect the capital with the limitations on their powers suggested in these clauses. I propose to remove those limitations, for the reason that the Board of Education have not the knowledge of the waywardness of the governors of this great foundation which the Charity Commission have had very painful ex-experience of. The Board of Education is young and hopeful; perhaps it is overconfident in its powers. The Charity Commission is not young, but it is ex-

  547
  perienced, and I would ask the House to accept the advice of the older body, and to say that the frailties of human nature which exist everywhere else may exist also in Birmingham. We at the Charity Commission know that the powers which we have should be strengthened and not weakened if the governors are to be restrained from damaging for the sake of the present the inheritance of the future. I ask the House by its vote to repudiate the doctrine which has been laid down so openly and unblushingly that we can wash our hands of the future and leave posterity to take care of itself.
  SIR F. S. POWELL: I second this motion, because I have had an intimate connection with some of our grammar schools since the Act of 1869 was passed, and I am able to say that to my own knowledge the Charity Commission has done good work in connection with these schools, at any rate in the West Riding of Yorkshire. When it was instituted many of those schools were in a state of weakness and discredit. They are now strong, they are an honour to our county, and they are doing great service for the cause of education. The Commission has no doubt committed errors. It may have caused annoyance by paying coo great attention to pedantic details, and by insisting upon points not worth the time and trouble involved. But that is the worst that can be said of it, and I cannot see why Birmingham, great as it is, should have special and separate legislation in this matter. I contend that these institutions ought not to be allowed to alienate their property without the sanction of some central authority, I am sure that in bygone days much property has been alienated in an unwise and most inconvenient manner. I think I may venture to compare this great institution at Birmingham with Christ's Hospital and St. Paul's School. Both of those institutions are under the jurisdiction of a central authority as regards alienation, and many of our other public schools are also under like statutory limitations. Again, our municipal corporations cannot, under the Act of 1882, alienate a single yard of land without the consent of the Treasury, while the College Estates of Oxford and Cambridge are subject to the consent of the Board of Agriculture being obtained before there can be any
  548
  alienation. In the case of clerical corporations, too, the sanction of a central authority has to be obtained, and I venture to say that it is desirable, in the interests of all institutions, that there should be no power to alienate property without the consent of some central authority. That, I take it, is the real point at issue to-day.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Birmingham (King Edward the Sixth) Schools Bill [Lords] to omit Clauses 16 and 25."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): My hon. friend who moved this motion has referred to me as a Member for Birmingham, and he stated truly that when I speak on a Private Bill in which my own constituency is strongly interested, I speak simply as a Member for Birmingham, and do not commit the Government of which I happen to be a member. That amount of liberty has always, I believe, been allowed even to a Cabinet Minister. My hon. friend has appealed to me to repudiate the impression which appears to have been conveyed somewhere by what I said on a previous occasion, that I intended to make a disagreeable and critical observation upon the persons composing the permanent staff of the Charity Commission. I need hardly say that, whatever I might have said, I certainly did not intend to imply any personal condemnation of those gentlemen. In everything I have said, and in everything I have to say, I deal with the institution, and not with the individuals who, either as clerks or as Commissioners, may be concerned in its administration. I am surprised that any feeling should have been aroused by the remarks I made in reply to my hon. friend, because I have always thought that a corporation such as this which I have been criticising was for physical reasons quite incapable of resenting an injury of that kind. My hon. friend will recollect, I am sure, a saying of Sydney Smith's with regard to some gentleman whom he thought to be of a generally irreverential disposition, and of whom he said that he believed he would speak disrespectfully of the equator. My hon. friend puts mo in the same category; he believes I am capable of speak-

  549
  ing disrespectfully of the Charity Commission. I admit the soft impeachment. I cannot help it; my experience has been such that even if the House has not had reason to complain of its procedure, the City of Birmingham certainly has. My hon. friend said that the Charity Commission was buffeted on account of its virtues, and its great virtue was that it restrained improvidence. How does he prove that? He proves it by showing that at three o'clock in the morning the Charity Commission was burning gas when every other office was in darkness. My hon. friend has referred to the previous debate, and has stated that he now has facts with reference to the case I cited as showing the great inconvenience caused by the interference of this body with the local affairs of Birmingham. I do not know who supplied him with the facts, but I can only say that my information is entirely distinct from his. The facts, as I am told, are that in January, 1899, application was made by the governors for the sale of certain rent-charges to provide funds for the establishment of a girls' school. It was not until August that, having considered the application of the governors, the Charity Commission approved of the transaction. They then came in with a theory of their own. They said, "You are going to build a girls' school at an expense of £35,000. We will not give our authority for this transaction, of which we have approved, but we will withhold our authority until you have agreed with us that this capital expenditure of £35,000 should be provided by an annual payment of about £1,100 to be continued for thirty years." The governors protested. They said this was capital expenditure, and that to take from the annual funds of the charity £1,100 per annum would either make it necessary to delay the establishment of this great girls' school or it would seriously limit the number of children who could be taught within its walls. That discussion went on for twelve months altogether. It arose also in another case, with the de-tails of which I will not trouble the House, known as the Jamaica Road property, and in the second case the matter was settled by the City Clerk of Birmingham taking it into his own hands, telling the Charity Commissioners they had gone absolutely beyond their powers and had no right to interfere, making the sale and paying the money over to the governors. Some twelve
  550
  months after that action had been taken by the City Clerk, the Commissioners, who had refused all this time to bring the matter forward in a position in which an appeal could be had to the law courts on the subject of their authority, finally agreed to a compromise, which, I think, the governors very foolishly assented to, in which they agreed to pay, not £1,100, but £160 a year as a sinking fund. In the Jamaica Road case the Commissioners raised another difficulty, which caused a great deal of correspondence and a considerable expense to the charity. That was the sale by the governors to the corporation of a very valuable property. They got from the corporation a price which was considered by the estate agent who was consulted to be a very large price, and terms which were extremely favourable to the endowment. When that was sent up, the Charity Commissioners discovered what, of course, was open knowledge, that the property sold had an unexpired lease upon it, and that it was sold subject to that unexpired lease of a few years, which to that extent reduced the value of the property. They insisted upon having a separate survey and report to know what the value of the property would have been if it had been vacant. I ask any business man in the House, could anything have been more absurd? What on earth is the value of that hypothetical knowledge? What on earth was anybody profited by spending £50 out of the funds of the charity merely to inform the Charity Commissioners what this surveyor thought would have been the value of the property if it had been in a different position to that in which it was? I do not want to attach personal blame to anybody, but this is the necessary result of allowing business matters, which ought to be dealt with by persons who are thoroughly acquainted with them, and who are absolutely responsible, to be controlled by clerks in what is equivalent to a Government Office. I have one word more to say about the system adopted by the Charity Commissioners. We have got 700 or 800 leases, some of them very small, always going up for revision. Whenever a lease falls in the following procedure has to be adopted:—The surveyor of the governors negotiates with the proposed tenant and brings up the terms provisionally agreed upon for the approval of the Estate Committee and the

  551
  governors. The Estate Committee approve of the terms, and then the governors follow the Estate Committee and confirm the approval. Upon that being done the proceedings commence for the Charity Commission. The surveyor has to forward the agreement with a special report to the Charity Commissioners for consideration. In about a month or six weeks time he receives the approval, subject to any discussion which constantly takes place in the meantime as to the terms of the letting. The Charity Commission then direct the proposal to grant the lease to be advertised twice in some local paper, and notices to be affixed to the door of King Edward's School and on the town hall of the proposal, such notice to remain fourteen days. At the end of that time the certificates of such posting and advertising, together with prints of the newspapers, are sent by the law clerk to the Charity Commission, and if no objection has been received, the Commissioners write to authorise the lease to be granted, subject to their approval. The terms of the lease are then gone into as between the law clerk of the governors and the solicitor of the lessee, and the draft having been finally settled between these persons, is then sent up for the approval of the Commissioners, who, after about throe weeks or a month, return it approved for engrossment. The engrossment and draft are then forwarded to the Charity Commission, together with a certified copy made by the law clerk for the Commissioners to preserve with their papers. After three weeks or a month's time, the Commissioners return the engrossments of the lease, which can then be finally completed. That may be a very necessary stereotyped arrangement for this great public body, but it is altogether very irritating, and, above all, very costly, when it is applied to transactions which are in the hands of the elected representatives of Birmingham, people to whom this House has granted the right of dealing with a revenue of £2,000,000 a year, and yet are not allowed to deal with this endowment of £47,000 a year without being put into leading-strings by gentlemen who, whatever their qualifications as men of learning and ability, have not the qualifications of men of business. I speak on this question entirely as one of the Members for Birmingham. In what capacity does my hon. friend speak? He
  552
  speaks as representing the Charity Commissioners. But what have the Charity Commissioners to do with this motion? I really think they have absolutely no locus standi, and it is a most extraordinary and unprecedented proceeding on the part of any public body to intervene as they have done. Let the House understand the state of the case. My hon. friend spoke of the virtues of the Charity Commissioners and the advantages that certain bodies had in being placed under their control. That has nothing to do with the present question. No one suggests that this great endowment should be placed any longer under the Charity Commission. The governors of King Edward's School are glad to get rid of the Charity Commission, and the Charity Commission say they are glad to get rid of us. So we are both satisfied. What mandate has my hon. friend to speak for the Board of Education, the only body with which we are now concerned? It is proposed that this endowment shall in future be placed under the Board of Education, which has been specially established by the House to deal with secondary education. The educational management and, in a limited degree, the financial administration of the endowment will in future be under the Board of Education, and if anyone has a right to complain of the terms of the Bill it is the Board of Education, not the Charity Commission, which has never been asked by the Board of Education to utter a word on the matter. The promoters of the Bill consulted with the Board of Education. They made amendments in the Bill at the suggestion of the Board of Education, and accepted every suggestion made by the Board, and I have the authority of the Board of Education for saying that they offer no opposition to the Bill. Under these circumstances will this House allow the Charity Commission— which has done with us altogether, and which has evidently a certain animus towards the governors of King Edward's School, if I may judge from the language of my hon. friend—to interfere with an arrangement approved by the Board of Education, and which is satisfactory to the people of Birmingham?
  MR. J. A. PEASE: If animus has been shown by the Charity Commissioners towards any individual, I think at any rate the House

  553
  will be in a position to judge if it is not the fact that more animus has been shown by certain of the governors of this foundation against the Charity Commission. We are not concerned as to whether or not the Charity Commissioners have failed to do their duty in the past. What we have to do to-day is to decide whether the governors of certain endowed schools shall be put in a particularly favourable position as compared with the governors of other endowed schools throughout the country. I believe there are only two schools in the whole of this country— Westminster and Eton—which are not subjected to some Government control in regard to their endowments. There are seven other public schools partially under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners, while still other schools are absolutely under the control of some Government Department. There are Members on this side of the House who believe it is desirable that public money should be managed by public authorities under public control, and while I feel I have sympathy with that view, I say there is a difference between capital and interest, and that where a charitable donor has given a certain amount of property for the benefit of a certain object, it is but right that that corpus should not be frittered away or wasted by the governors. Yet under this Bill they would have absolute control over it. It is on these grounds I believe that the House will be acting wisely if it supports the Instruction of the hon. Member for Thirsk in the division lobby. We are asked to allow this trust to be taken from the control of the Charity Commission and to be placed under that of the Board of Education, and we are further asked to allow that transfer to take place without getting reasonable and satisfactory assurances that these public funds shall be properly administered in the future. I say there ought to be some check upon the governors.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): An idea has occurred to me which may possibly help to solve the difficulty in which the House now finds itself. I think it must be felt by many that it is very desirable that there should be some controlling authority. My right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham objects, and possibly not unnaturally, to the idea of the Charity Commission being
  554
  the controlling authority, and to their powers being transferred in toto to the Board of Education. No doubt most Members of this House are aware of the fact that in the Court of Chancery resides a jurisdiction over all charities. It is true that, by the Charitable Trusts Act, that jurisdiction has been very much limited; but I do not think that it has been entirely abolished, and it might be a solution of the difficulty if a clause were inserted in this Bill which reserved to the Court of Chancery jurisdiction over the management and disposition of this great charity, such as it has always had, and which possibly it may yet have, even in the event of this Bill being passed. There seems to be some little doubt, I believe, as to whether the clauses of this Bill do not take away the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, and it might, therefore, be desirable to set all doubt aside by inserting in this Bill a distinct clause to the effect that nothing contained in it shall oust the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. I think I might give an instance which will convince hon. Members of this House of the desirability of having a supervising authority. No doubt a great majority of the House are well acquainted with the Marylebone Cricket Club. A few years ago that club desired to purchase from the Clergy Orphan Corporation a piece of land adjoining its own in order to extend its property. It will be admitted that the managers of the club are capable business men, above reproach. They entered bona fide into an arrangement with the charity to which the land belonged, to purchase it for a sum of £16,000. It became necessary to obtain the consent of the Charity Commission to the transaction. That body, for some reason, thought the amount was not sufficient, and eventually, instead of £16,000, they got no less than £40,000 for the charity. The trustees of the M.C.C., I have no doubt, intended to deal perfectly fairly by the charity, and yet they had underestimated the value of the property by more than 100 per cent. I would again suggest that a proviso be inserted in this Bill retaining the jurisdiction which the Court of Chancery has always had.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: May I say, by leave of the House, that the suggestion of the Chairman of Committees comes to me as an entirely new one. I

  555
  have, however, consulted the promoters of the Bill, and I am informed that it is a reasonable one, and one which they are quite willing to accept.
  SIR J. SAVORY (Westmoreland, Appleby): The hon. Baronet who seconded the Instruction alluded to the case of Christ's Hospital. As chairman of that institution—another of King Edward's great foundations — I should like to tell the House how Christ's Hospital in London has suffered through the action of the Charity Commissioners. I will not detain it at any great length, but I will give one remarkable instance. Before Christ's Hospital came under the Charity Commissioners it had an annual revenue from governors who contributed, for the purpose of presentations, ,£15,000 per annum. At the present time the revenue from governors who purchase presentations does not reach £1,000 a year, thanks to the action of the Charity Commissioners. What we feel at the present time is that with a strong and capable board of governors, every little decision which has to be come to, every little lease that has to be granted, every sale that takes place, has to be submitted to the Charity Commissioners. We are now engaged in the arrangements for the removal of Christ's Hospital to its new site at Horsham, and every variation in detail has to be submitted to the Charity Commissioners, causing enormous delay and worry, and taking the very heart out of the governing body, who are capable business men, anxious to do their utmost for the best interests of the institution. Yet they are subject in every infinitesimal decision to the control of the Charity Commissioners. I feel it my duty, as chairman of Christ's Hospital, to say this in reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Wigan.
  MR. STEVENSON: I think that the suggestion of the Chairman of Ways and Means is, on the face of it, a reasonable one, first because, in dealing with a matter of this kind, it would insure due regard to the interests of posterity, and because, on the other hand, it appears to be the wish of those who are promoting this Bill that this change should take place. At the same time, I may express my grave doubts whether a swifter procedure will be
  556
  secured by exchanging the authority of the Charity Commissioners for the Court of Chancery. I very much doubt whether there will be any benefit from the change, and regret that the change should not be effected by a general operative clause, instead of a particular scheme being singled out. If the principle is good, it should have a wider application throughout the country. It ought to apply to the Manchester Grammar School. But as the House has already voted on this issue, and the promoters seem disposed to accept the suggestions which were thrown out, I can only express my gratification to the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary for his explanation that when he said that the very able officials who constitute the Charity Commission were an incompetent body, he was not desirous of casting any reflection upon their personal capacity.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: By the leave of the House perhaps I may be permitted to make a remark in answer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means. The right hon. Gentleman asked what our locus standi was in this matter. It is the fact that until the Bill passes we shall control it, and it is our duty to see that control is passed to the proper authority. If the Chairman of Ways and Means, a former Charity Commissioner, thinks this clause meets the case, I shall not press the Instruction; but I hope that in future years the contrast between the action of the Court of Chancery and the Charity Commission will result in a better appreciation of the latter.
  MR. HUMPHREYS - OWENthought that it was quite obvious that the House accepted the principle that there should be an impartial external control over the authorities in question, and that it should not be in the power of any person to remove it out of that control. The scheme of the re transference of the school to the Court of Chancery for that purpose was accepted by the House. He desired to know by what means that re transference ought to be carried out. He apprehended that the machinery for so doing would have to be very much altered in order to carry out such a suggestion. He thought that, having regard to the importance of the

  557
  questions involved, this matter ought not to be decided by the Chairman of Ways and Means as an ordinary unopposed Private Bill, and therefore, subject to his being in order, he begged to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)said that, having regard to the importance of the question, he did not consider that the matter ought to be allowed to go to a division without some authoritative statement from the Treasury benches. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had pointed out that he had spoken only in his capacity as Member for West Birmingham, but the House ought not to be content to hear only the voice of Birmingham on a question like this, but should require some statement as to the general policy of the Government. The House had not yet been informed what the Committee which had sat to consider the matter had reported, or what course the Government proposed to take. He pointed out that they could not deal with this single case without considering all the schools in the country. He thought the matter was a matter for inquiry by a Select Committee. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means was to retransfer to the Court of Chancery those powers of control which had been transferred from the Court of Chancery to the Charity Commissioners fifty years previously. Whatever the Charity Commission had done, it had administered charity endowments vested in it more impartially than they were administered under the Court of Chancery. Most reformers agreed that in regard to educational endowments the administration of the Charity Commissioners was more satisfactory and more expeditious than that of the Court of Chancery in old days. He regretted that the debate had been, made the opportunity for an attack on the Commission
  SIR U. KAY- SHUTTLEWORTHthought the suggestion that the proposed change should be made a subject of a special inquiry was worthy of consideration. He did not think that a question of this magnitude should be dealt with by a Private Bill. It was a question affecting not only this particular school but all the schools
  558
  in the country, and that being so he trusted that the Bill would not be passed without a special inquiry by a Select Committee.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERwas also of opinion that more consideration than it was possible to give to the Bill at this sitting was desirable. In other days all the charities were under the administration of the Court of Chancery, and most hon. Members knew, either by their reading or from recollection that that administration was both obnoxious and disastrous to the country. Most hon. Members were aware that hundreds of thousands of pounds of the educational assets of the country had been lost through that administration, and he did not think that that gave much encouragement to the House to revert to that system. It seemed to him to be a mistaken policy to revert to this old system. The House of Commons was the trustee of all charities, and he thought it was their duty to see that the funds of this charity were so managed as to preclude any chance of maladministration. He was himself a governor of many charities, and he was bound to admit that in any transactions he had had with the Charity Commissioners he had always been met with the greatest kindness and courtesy, and any information he required to do his business being freely given. He hoped that the House would not deal with this matter without a special inquiry. He concluded by moving the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. HEDDERWICKseconded the motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Sir John Brunner).
  MR. MACLEAN: We ought to have some pronouncement from the Treasury Bench on this question. It is proposed to change the law of the land for the benefit of one particular school in Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies said he was speaking merely as the Member for West. Birmingham, but he could not do that. The right hon. Gentleman is a powerful Minister, and what he says is accepted as law by a large portion

  559
  of the House, unless there is some opposition to it on the Treasury Bench itself. We ought to know exactly what the Government thinks upon this point. I voted for the right hon. Gentleman the other day, when I was carried away by the torrent of the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence, and the fury of his denunciation of the Charity Commissioners. But to-day the right hon. Gentleman has come down and made an apology to the Charity Commissioners, and has abandoned the line he took the other day.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not relevant to the motion.
  MR. MACLEAN: It seems to me that we are left in a strange position by the action of the right hon. Gentleman, who has thrown over what he said the other day, and proposed a new course altogether. I wonder he did not propose that the matter should be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and that a new peer should be appointed to represent Birmingham.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not think these observations are in order upon the question of adjournment.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I wish to know, if possible, the exact position in which we are. It appears to be acknowledged that this is a very important principle, which is being introduced for the first time in reference to one particular school and one particular endowment. Has the suggestion made by the Chairman of Ways and Means to the effect that the Court of Chancery should be substituted for the Charity Commissioners—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member has spoken already, and he is not entitled to speak again.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think the House would act very wisely by adjourning this debate. A very large and important principle is involved in this question, as to which we have had no declaration from the Ministry. I hold that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies has spoken very properly as the Member for West Birmingham, and not in his capacity as a member of the Cabinet. Time should be taken to consider the question.
  MR. STEVENSON: Under an Act which has previously been passed, there-is power by Order in Council to transfer the powers of the Charity Commissioners to the Education Department. In this particular case the suggestion, on the face of it, appears to be a reasonable one; but it will form a precedent for Orders in Council which are passed in future transferring the powers of the Charity Commissioners to the Education Department— that is to say, wherever these Orders are passed there will be a reservation to the Court of Chancery of the powers formerly exercised. It is of very great importance that this question should be carefully considered, not only with reference to this particular Private Bill now before the House, but also with reference to the general principle which ought to govern the action and policy of this country in the matter.
  MR. COURTNEY: I must say that I feel that there is a very strong case for adjourning the question now under consideration. We have got into rather a tangle, and we do not quite know what is the proposed solution of this unique case. It has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means that a clause should be put into the Bill reserving, if not reinstating, the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. My right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, after what I think must have been a very hasty consultation with his legal adviser, said they were prepared to assent to this clause. I heard that statement with amazement, because it appeared to me that the proposal was to jump out of the frying-pan into the fire. If you are discontented with the control of the Charity Commissioners you would be much more discontented with the control of the Court of Chancery. Do not let us settle that all in a hurry. When I heard the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the fact that it was assented to so readily filled me with amazement. I do not know how the thing is to be carried out. I think we ought to have some light thrown upon the question, and nothing would be lost by delay. If the adjournment is carried, as I hope it will be with universal consent, it will be then competent for the promoters of the Bill to consult the Chairman of Ways and Means, who has thrown out the suggestion, and they may

  561
  be able to devise proper machinery for carrying out the recommendation. We shall have it put on the Paper before the question comes up again, and we shall be able to consider what we are asked to assent to; but to dismiss the matter here on the suggestion made so hastily would, it appears to me, be a very unwise course, and I do hope the House will be persuaded to consent to the adjournment.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I think there is some misapprehension as to the suggestion of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and perhaps he will allow me to put a question. A motion for the adjournment has been proposed, and the debate has gone upon the line since then that the Chairman of Ways and Means proposed that a clause should be inserted to restore the old state of things under the Lord Chancellor, which, of course, would be to jump out of the frying pan into the fire. There is some doubt whether the Court of Chancery retains its inherent jurisdiction over the trustees as such, and it should be made perfectly clear that the twenty-two trustees of the school would be subject to the supervision of the Court of Chancery at the instance of a person entitled to appeal to it. If I were to address the House on the general question I would have some strong things to say in regard to that machinery as exercised at the present moment. If that machinery is
  simply to be transferred we shall get into an even more hopeless quagmire than the Charity Commission. I wish to know whether my view is the right one or not.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton has quite correctly stated the view I laid before the House. I am informed that it is doubtful whether the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery is or is not taken away by this Bill, and I suggested that this doubt should be removed by the insertion of a proviso which should provide that nothing in this Act should take away from the Court of Chancery its inherent jurisdiction over trustees. If that were done no elaborate machinery would be required, and certainly to restore all the ancient rigmarole was far from my thoughts.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: There is just one question I should like to ask in connection with this Bill. Clause 25 proposes to give three governors power to appeal to the Board of Education. I wish to ask what becomes of the appeal of the individual. [Cries of "Order!"]
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 136; Noes, 169. (Division List No. 126.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hardy, Laurence

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Commins, Andrew

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

  Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Crombie, John William

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

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Doogan, P. C.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Baker, Sir John

  Duckworth, James

  Howell, William Tudor

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Dunn, Sir William

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Bethell, Commander

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hutton, A. E. (Morley)

  Birrell, Augustine

  Ellis, John Edward

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Blake, Edward

  Emmott, Alfred

  Joicey, Sir James

  Bond, Edward

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)'

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'ton)

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

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

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Fry, Lewis

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Caldwell, James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. J (Kent)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Carmichael, Sir. T. D. Gibson-

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Gunter, Colonel

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Queens C)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

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

  M'Cartan, Michael

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  M'Crae, George

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  M'Ewan, William

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Wason, Eugene

  Malcolm, Ian

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mather, William

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)-

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

  Redmond, William (Clare)

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

  Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbr'gh)

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Sandon, Viscount

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

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Moss, Samuel

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

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

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Sir John Brunner and Mr.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Hedderwick.

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

  Aird, John

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Garfit, William

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Arrol, Sir William

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Monk, Charles James

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

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

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

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham(Bute)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Myers, William Henry

  Biddulph, Michael

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Bill, Charles

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Heath, James

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Helder, Augustus

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Brassey, Albert

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Penn, John

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Houston, R. P.

  Perks, Robert William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Howard, Joseph

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newt'n)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Horace C.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derby)

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Coddington, Sir William

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Knowles, Lees

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos Myles

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning -(Corn)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Leighton, Stanley

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Curzon, Viscount

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Denny, Colonel

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Doughty, George

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Lowther, Rt. Hn J W (Cum'land)

  Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Steadman, William Charles

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Strachey, Edward

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Fenwick, Charles

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

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Finch, George H.

  M'Killop, James

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maddison, Fred.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  564

  565

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

  Younger, William

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

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

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Mr. Austen Chamberlain

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Wylle, Alexander

  and Mr. Lowe.

  Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

  Wyndham, George

  Resolution agreed to.

  Original Question again proposed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  BIRMINGHAM (KING EDWARD THE SIXTH) SCHOOLS BILL [Lords]. [BY ORDER.]

    PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
    MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—
    Commercial Union Assurance Company Bill [Lords].
    Milford Docks Bill [Lords].
    Rotherhithe and Ratcliff Tunnel Bill [Lords].
    Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

    PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
    Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
    Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill.
    Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.

  CORK, BANDON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [Lords].

    LATIMER ROAD AND ACTON RAILWAY BILL.
    LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    OTLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

    TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13).
    Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Ashton-under-Lyne, Bury, Leyton, Shipley, and Sunderland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
    "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Ashton-under-Lyne, Bury, Leyton, Shipley, and Sunderland," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 221.]
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12).
    Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Banbury, Dartmouth, Gosport and Alverstoke, Heston and Isleworth, Sevenoaks, Sheerness, Spennymoor, Staines, Egham, and Chertsey, Stamford, Uxbridge and District, and Wellingborough, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
    "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Banbury, Dartmouth, Gosport and Alverstoke, Heston and Isleworth, Sevenoaks, Sheerness, Spennymoor, Staines, Egham and Chertsey, Stamford, Uxbridge and District, and Wellingborough," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 222.]
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3).
    Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Urban Districts of Clones, Londonderry, Monaghan, Pembroke, Rathmines and Rathgar, and Wicklow, and the Rural Districts of Dungarvan and Rathdrum, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Gerald Balfour.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Urban Districts of Clones, Londonderry, Monaghan, Pembroke, Rathmines and Rathgar, and Wicklow, and the Rural Districts of Dungarvan and Rathdrum," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 223.]
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES).
    Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Urban District of Navan and the Towns of Boyle and Newbridge, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Gerald Balfour.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
    "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Urban District of Navan and the Towns of Boyle and Newbridge," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 224.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table
    Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

    METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (PETERSHAM) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

    ARMY AND NAVY INVESTMENT TRUST BILL [Lords].
    Reported, without amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill to be read the third time.

    NEW RUSSIA COMPANY BILL [Lords].
    Reported, without amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill to be read the third time.

    BIRMINGHAM UNIVERSITY BILL [Lords].
    Reported, without amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Bill to be read the third time.

  LANCASHIRE INEBRIATES ACTS BOARD BILL [Lords].

    DORKING WATER BILL [Lords]
    MOUNTAIN ASH WATER BILL. [Lords].
    FISHGUARD WATER AND GAS- BILL. [Lords].
    MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL. BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    RHYMNEY IRON COMPANY BILL. [Lords].
    Reported, without amendment; Re port to lie upon the Table.
    Bill to be read the third time.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL. ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    Reported, without amendment] [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill to be read the third, time upon Monday next.

    ELECTRIC POWER BILLS.
    Sir JAMES KITSON reported from the Committees on Electric Power Bills, That, to meet the convenience of the Committee, they had adjourned till Wednesday next, at Twelve of the clock.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
    Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.

    RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 5).
    Mr. DE TATTON EGERTON reported from the Committee on Group 5 of Railway Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    STANDING ORDERS.
    Resolution reported from the Committee:—"That, in the case of the Cumberland County Council (Bridges) Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:— That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

    CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL (BRIDGES).
    Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Wilfrid Lawson and Mr. Helder.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to the Amendments to the Newport (Monmouthshire) Gas Bill [Lords], without amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to authorise the Sheffield District Railway Company to construct a branch railway, bridges, and other works in connection with their undertaking, and to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." Sheffield District Railway Bill [Lords].
    Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to authorise the Wirral Railway Company to work the traffic on their railways by electrical or other motive power; and for other purposes." Wirral Railway Bill [Lords].
    Also a Bill intituled, "An Act for empowering the Scottish American Investment Company, Limited, to create
    570
    a preference stock, and for other purposes relating thereto." Scottish American Investment Company, Limited, Bill [Lords].
    And also a Bill intituled, "An Act to amend the provisions of the Local Acts and Orders in force in the City of Birmingham which relates to Birmingham Corporation Stock; and to make further and better provisions with respect to the borrowing of money by the Corporation of Birmingham." Birmingham Corporation (Stock) Bill [Lords].

  SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [Lords].

    WIRRAL RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    SCOTTISH AMERICAN INVESTMENT COMPANY, LIMITED, BILL [Lords],
    BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION (STOCK) BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  PETITIONS.
    DOGS REGULATION BILL.
    Petition from Elgin, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petition of the Grand Lodge of Scotland of the Independent Order of Good Templars, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.
    Petition from Aberdeen, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS (WOMEN'S DISABILITIES REMOVAL) BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Peterborough; and Poole; to lie upon the Table.
    LUNACY BILL.
    Petitions for alteration, from Leicester; and Lewisham; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
    Petition from Bedford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
    Petition from Lewisham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Portsmouth; Leeds; Stoke Newington; Benhilton; Birmingham; Camden Town; Wombwell Main; Newark-on-Trent; Bedford (two); Hartlepool; Parkestone; Tongwynlais; Stratford; Glasgow; Sheffield; Barnsley; St. Asaph; Penrith; Runcorn; and Milton-next Sittingbourne; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Inverkeithing; Stirling; Paisley; Alyth; Coupar Angus; Partick; Glasgow (three); Alloa; Evanton; Stornoway; Blairgowrie; Kirkcaldy; Tillicoultry; and Leith; to lie upon the Table.
    SOLDIERS AND SAILORS ON ACTIVE SERVICE.
    Petition from Lewisham, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
    SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) HILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Newark-on-Trent; Portsmouth; Leeds; Birmingham; Bedford (two); and Carlisle; to lie upon the Table.
    TEMPERANCE REFORM THREEFOLD OPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Kirkcaldy; and Perth; to lie upon the Table.
    VAGRANTS' CHILDREN PROTECTION BILL.
    Petition from Bolton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

    SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
    Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 10th May, 1900, declaring that John Brand, postman, Saffron Walden, Post Office Department, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of
    572
    his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the

    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (TRAINING COLLEGES).
    Copy presented, of Reports and Papers relating to the Training Colleges of Scotland for the year 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    BOARD OF EDUCATION,
    Copy presented, of Draft Order in Council for transferring to, and making exerciseable by, the Board of Education certain powers of the Charity Commissioners [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
    Return ordered, "showing (1) the names of the Lay Assistant Commissioners in connection with the Irish Land Commission holding office on the, 15th day of May, 1900; (2.) date of original appointment; (3) date upon, which appointment expires; (4) age on appointment; (5) residence at time of appointment; (6) locality in which practical experience of land was acquired; (7) where educated; (8) previous occupation; (9) acreage of land farmed; whether held as owner or tenant; what other experience in agriculture; and (12) what experience in valuing, mapping, and surveying (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 417, of Session 1897."—(Mr. Patrick O'Brien.)

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)
    Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Sir Charles Dilke, Sir Edward Hill, and Mr. Tennant; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Lloyd-George, General Russell, and Mr. Hedderwick.
    MR. HALSEY further reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure added in respect of the Borough Funds Bill):—Sir Charles Dilke.
    Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had

    573
    discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure: —Mr. Lloyd-George, Viscount Cranborne, and Mr. Bromley-Davenport; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Charles Dilke, Lord Hugh Cecil, and Mr. Griffith Boscawen.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—KOORN SPRUIT DESPATCHES.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government have yet received any despatches, which were recently believed to be on their way home, with reference to the loss in convoys, prisoners, and horse artillery guns at Koorn Spruit.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I am afraid I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on this subject yesterday†.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The hon. Gentleman told us on 4th May‡ he believed these despatches are on their way home. Has he altered his opinion, and does he now believe that they are not on the way home?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must refer to the reply I gave yesterday. The hon. Member will see on reflection that if I were to give the number and nature and date of all the documents which reach the Secretary of State I should be interfering with his discretion, as they are confidential.

  ROYAL INNISKILLING FUSILIERS— PROMOTIONS OF OFFICE US.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the appointment of two gentlemen from other regiments who have not been on active service in the present war in South Africa, to the posts of lieutenant-colonels in the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, will have the effect of retarding the promotion of Irish gentle-
  † See page 391 of this volume.
  ‡ See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxii., p. 753.
  574
  men of the rank of majors and captains so long that they will have to leave the service before obtaining the promotion to which in ordinary course they would have-succeeded; and whether he will consider the advisability of providing that the gaps caused by death among the officers of this Irish regiment shall be filled by officers of the regiment who have recently been engaged in active service.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have nothing to add to my replies to previous questions put by the hon. Member on the same subject. The selection rests with the Commander-in-Chief and Army Board, whose discretion the Secretary of State for War does not propose to fetter in the manner suggested.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is the greatest dissatisfaction among the officers of this regiment at being passed over and War Office favourites being put over their heads?
  [No answer was given.]

  CASUALTIES AMONG NON-COMBATANTS.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can give a Return of the number of casualties during the war among the non-combatants serving with the Army, distinguishing those caused by wounds and by disease.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A Return can be given of all the cases that have been, reported to the War Office.

  MARTIAL LAW—MR. BOTHA'S CASE, AND OTHERS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Mr. Botha, a farmer of Griqualand West, sixty years of age, was, on the evidence of native servants with whom he had quarrelled, arrested on the 28th November last at Modder River; if he was taken on foot six miles by English soldiers, sent to De Aar and then to Capo Town; if he was returned to the place of his arrest and tried before a military court; if he was refused legal assistance, sentenced to two years hard labour, but subsequently released on investigation of his case; and why was he

  575
  sent to Cape Town and then sent back, and will the cases of Messrs. Botha, Michau, De Coch, the Du Presses, and Uys be inquired into.
  MR. WYNDHAM: We have no further information on these cases; the records of the trials under martial law have not yet come from South Africa.
  DR. TANNER: I shall raise the question on the Estimates.

  MARTIAL LAW—COURT RECORDS.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the nature of the records of the courts purporting to be held under martial law in Cape Colony, whether they include the depositions or copies thereof, and what measures are taken to secure their accuracy and completeness.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The record of but one court held under martial law has as yet reached the War Office. Copies of the depositions formed part of the proceedings in that case—following exactly the forms of an ordinary court-martial. There is no reason, therefore, to suppose that the records will be inaccurate or incomplete.

  TRANSVAAL WOOL TRADE.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY (Yorkshire, West Riding, Shipley): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that wool grown in the Transvaal is being made the regular subject of trade by the intervention of steamers under the German flag; whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that there has recently been sold in London wool ex German steamers, "Herzog," 1,229 bales; "Bundesrath," 650 bales; "General," 121 bales; "Kanzler," 121 bales; "Admiral," 163 bales: making a total of 2,284 bales; and whether he can now see his way to give order to the Commandant at Durban that British steamers may be employed in the transport of all wools which are tendered to them by neutral shippers.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): I am aware that wool grown in the Transvaal has been conveyed to Europe by the intervention of German or other neutral steamers, and
  576
  my attention has not previously been drawn to the precise amounts—which, however, I see no reason to doubt—but it is impossible to issue such orders as are suggested to the Commandant at Durban, as British steamers cannot trade with the enemy.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the object for which this regulation was established is not being accomplished?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a matter of argument.

  MAFEKING—RELIEF OPERATIONS.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask permission to explain that I have been reported in the newspapers to have asked last night in the House whether the British relief column for Mafeking had been repulsed with loss. I did not, and should not, ask such a question. I asked whether the Boers attacking Mafeking had been repulsed with loss, and whether a prominent Boer commander had been taken prisoner, which is a very different question.

  TWELVE-AND-A-HALF POUNDER MOUNTAIN GUNS—PURCHASES FOR THE EGYPTIAN ARMY.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in 1896, Lord Kitchener, then Sirdar, purchased of Messrs. Vickers, Sons and Maxim, for the Egyptian Army, several batteries of improved 12½-pounder quick-firing field guns, and whether the same type of guns were at that time offered to the British War Office.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Purchases of guns for the Egyptian Government from private firms are not made by the War Office; it is believed, however, that some 12½-pounder mountain guns were purchased a few years ago by the Egyptian Government. These guns have been brought to the knowledge of the War Office, but they do not fulfil the conditions laid down for a mountain artillery gun by the Indian Government.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it the fact that these guns, which were the property of the Egyptian Government, were sent to the seat of war?
  MR. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the question.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Am I to understand that no quick-firing field guns were purchased or offered to us?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The 12½-pounder would be a mountain gun, as I have said. To respond to the question fully would necessitate a long reply.

  RIFLE CLUBS IN IRELAND.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the suggestion of the Prime Minister as to rifle clubs, the Government will sanction the establishment of such clubs throughout Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I understand that Irish rifle associations are already in existence. I do not, therefore, quite understand what the hon. Member means by the word "sanction."
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: What I mean is, will the Government allow the people of Ireland to obtain rifles and form clubs on the same lines as in this country?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Government does not propose, either in Great Britain or Ireland, obviously, to give facilities for offences against the existing law; but I believe that outside the proclaimed districts in Ireland the law is the same in the two countries.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the hon. Gentleman see and have the law assimilated in the two countries?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  DUKE OF YORK'S MILITARY SCHOOL, CHELSEA.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what are the conditions for entry of boys into the Duke of York's Military School, Chelsea; and whether he will inquire into the statements to the effect that children of soldiers at present serving in the Army, and holding good positions as non-commissioned officers, have been admitted in preference to sons of deceased soldiers, whoso circumstances entitle them to priority of entry, but which has been denied them.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The regulations for selection are set forth in Articles 1270 to 1272 of the Pay Warrant. They lay down that a preference is to be given to orphans. There is no reason to suppose that the Commissioners fail to carry out the instructions. If my hon. friend will give me particulars of the statements mentioned I shall be glad to inquire into them.

  H.M.S. "POWERFUL"—SPEED TRIALS.
  MR. ALLAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if Her Majesty's cruiser "Powerful," on being paid off, is to have her boilers broken up or repaired so as to enable her to go to sea again; and whether, if it is decided to repair or renew them, what is the nature and extent of the repairs or renewals; further, seeing that her average speed while commissioned was only twelve knots, will the vessel, after being repaired or renewed in the boiler department, be run at her designed speed of twenty-two knots for seventy-two hours at least.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): The "Powerful" is quite fit to go to sea again now if required. Her boilers and machinery will undergo the usual refit, which every ship has after a commission in due course. It is not yet decided when this will be commenced. The nature and extent of repairs required cannot be stated at present, or until a thorough examination has been made. With regard to the latter part of the question, the hon. Member must surely be aware that men-of-war do not steam about the world at full speed, but their speed is regulated by the service on which they are employed, and with duo regard to economy of coal. I may add that the "ordinary speed" of men - of - war when on service is, according to the Queen's Regulations, one-fifth of the full power. It has been frequently explained to the House that men-of-war are not designed to maintain their maximum speed for long periods. The designed speed of the "Powerful" for continuous steaming was twenty and three-quarters knots in smooth water. She made several full-speed trials while in China, in accordance with the usual Regulations, in which speeds of over twenty knots were maintained, and on one occasion she did 540 miles at an

  579
  average speed of twenty knots, which is a higher speed than any man-of-war with cylindrical boilers has ever maintained for this distance. It would be premature at present to make any statement as to any exceptional trials to be made with this ship after refit, but certainly she will go through all the usual trials on recommissioning.
  MR. ALLAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what is to hinder a 22-knot trial now if the vessel is in good condition, and has nothing wrong with her?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have told the hon. Member that the ship is going to be paid off, and we do not propose to make this further trial after all the crew have gone through. The ship has been two and a half years in commission, and there is every probability that a full-power trial now would not reach the necessary standard.
  MR. ALLAN: Will you take a full-power trial after she has been cleaned?
  MR. GOSCHEN: She will be treated like every other ship in Her Majesty's service. There is no reason for these exceptional questions. The hon. Member must see that the full-power trials during her commission have been perfectly satisfactory.

  CAPE COAL DEPOT.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what progress has been made with the work of improving the coal depÔt at the Cape of Good Hope, the estimated cost of which, as shown in the Navy Estimates, 1899–1900, is £6,000, towards which amount £2,000 only was taken for that year.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The £2,000 provided last year was expended on improvements to the existing coaling ground. No further expenditure will be incurred on this project in view of the greatly increased coaling facilities included in the scheme for the new dockyard extension.

  SWAZILAND—MURDER OF THE CHIEF MGUCESI.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether
  580
  any steps have been or will be taken to ascertain the circumstances of the murder of the chief Mgucesi, of two women, and infants assegaied in Swaziland, and if anything will be done to prevent further murders.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the reports of alleged disturbances in Swaziland emanate from Boer sources, and therefore should be received with great suspicion.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): Her Majesty's Government have not at present any control in Swaziland, nor are they in a position to make any inquiry there. The British Consul before leaving Swaziland in October last reminded the Swazis that their practice of "killing off" was against, the Queen's wishes, and my hon. friend the Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield spoke to them very strongly to the same effect at a later date.
  DR. TANNER: These women and children were murdered and—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question has been answered.

  CEYLON—WASTE LANDS LEGISLATION.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has information to the effect that the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce and the Ceylon Planters' Association have passed resolutions condemning the policy of Sir West Ridgeway in connection with the waste lands legislation in Ceylon; and if further inquiry will be made.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no. information to the effect indicated in the. hon. Member's question.

  AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH BILL, —SIR SAMUEL WAY'S PAMPHLET.
  MR. SWIFT MAC MEILL: I beg to. ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he or the Government have or have had in their possession a copy of a pamphlet by the right hon. Sir Samuel Way, Chief Justice of South Australia and Lieutenant Governor of that Colony, in advocacy of the power of appeal to the

  581
  Privy Council from the decisions of the Supreme Court of Australia, to be established under the provisions of the Commonwealth Bill, when their decisions interpret Australian Constitutions under that Bill; and, if so, whether a copy of this pamphlet will be circulated among Members before the Second Reading of the Commonwealth Bill.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No pamphlet has been received, but a printed paper marked "confidential," and enclosed in a confidential despatch, containing observations by Sir S. Way on the provisions of the draft Bill, was received at the Colonial Office in February last. It would be necessary to ask his consent before the publication of his confidential observations.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is not Sir Samuel Way Chief Justice and Lieutenant Governor of one of the colonies?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And he is absolutely against the proposal. Why keep it secret?
  [No answer was given.]

  INDIAN FAMINE—AMERICAN RELIEF CONTRIBUTIONS.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state whether, having regard to the fact that a Committee of the citizens of New York have issued an appeal for funds in aid of the sufferers from the famine in India, it is proposed to communicate with all the cities of the United States with a view to obtaining contributions towards the famine fund; and whether, in view of the sympathy manifested in the distress now prevailing in India and of the seriousness of the situation there, the Government will give the House an earlier opportunity than that provided by the Indian Budget of recognising the indications of sympathy alluded to, and of considering the gravity of the present condition of India as it is affected by a famine of such magnitude.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The hon. Member is aware that the charitable funds in aid of the sufferers
  582
  by the Indian famine are not managed by Government; and I am therefore unable to state what the procedure may be which those who have so generously initiated a. charitable famine fund in the United States will think it necessary to take. The discussion on the Indian Budget is mainly financial, and I do not think it would be advisable to fix the debate at a period when neither the past financial effect or probable duration of the famine could be adequately estimated.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Arising out of that answer, may I ask if it is not the fact that the Viceroy cabled to the United States saying that every dollar was necessary to save life; and whether in the circumstances the Government will undertake to provide the funds for the famine.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Member has, I think, confused two things. The work done by the charitable fund has nothing whatever to do with the work done by the Government fund. The charitable fund is supplementary, but in a different sphere altogether.

  CHINA—NAVIGATION OF THE YANG-TSZE.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received official information as to the experience of the gunboats "Woodcock" and "Woodlark" in their recent journey on the Yang-tsze from Ichang-fu to Chung-King-fu; if so, what is the nature of the report.
  MR. BRODRICK: We have only heard by telegraph of the arrival of the two vessels at Chung-King. A full report on the passage, which must necessarily be sent by mail, cannot be expected for some time.

  OSMAN DIGNA.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg; to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs where Osman Digna is imprisoned, and what are the conditions under which he is treated.
  MR. BRODRICK: Osman Digna is, so far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, imprisoned at Rosetta. They have

  583
  no information as to any special conditions under which he is treated.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the Government obtain the information?
  MR. BRODRICKwas understood to reply in the affirmative.

  UGANDA—SIR H. JOHNSTON'S AGREEMENT WITH THE CHIEFS.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Sir H. H. Johnston, Her Majesty's Special Commissioner in. Uganda, has drawn up a draft agreement with the regents and chiefs of that country; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of the agreement, and whether Papers dealing with the present condition of affairs in Uganda will shortly be laid upon the Table of the House.
  MR. BRODRICK: A Report has been received from Sir H. Johnston of the nature indicated, but the negotiations are not at a stage at which Papers could be laid. It is anticipated that a full Report on Uganda will be received from Sir H. Johnston which will be presented to Parliament.

  EAST AFRICAN MAIL SERVICE.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been made aware that the Third Reading of the African Mail Steamship Subsidy Amendment Bill has been passed without debate in the Reichstag in Berlin, and whether this Bill increases the subsidy paid for East African German mail service from £45,000 to £65,000 per annum; whether the company carrying out the service has increased its number of sailings per annum; whether there is any regular British line sailing from the United Kingdom to the East Coast of Africa without transhipment; and, if not, whether the Government intend to do anything in the shape of a moderate subsidy to encourage a direct line of steamers.
  MR. BRODRICK: The answer to the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. We do not know whether since the passage of the Bill the company has increased its
  584
  sailings, but such an increase was contemplated. There is no direct line from the United Kingdom to the East Coast of Africa without transhipment. It has not been hitherto the practice to grant subsidies except as payment for the carriage of mails.

  INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY— GRANT-IN-AID.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer is he now able to say whether he will lay upon the Table of this House an account showing how the sum of £2,500, representing the annual grant-in-aid to the Incorporated Law Society, was arrived at, and of what items that sum is composed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): Yes, Sir.

  POST OFFICE — MEDICAL ATTENDANCE AT MOSELEY SORTING OFFICE.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the privilege of free medical attendance has been withdrawn from the staff employed at the Moseley Sorting Office, Birmingham, although it has been enjoyed for fifteen years; and, if so, what are the reasons for such withdrawal.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): The privilege of free medical attendance is not authorised for the staff at sub-offices such as Moseley, and it was allowed to the men at that place through inadvertence. When this became known the postmaster rightly withdrew it.

  HOURS OF LABOUR OF FEMALE SORTING CLERKS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether at certain head post offices female sorting clerks and telegraphists are called upon to give official attendance till 10.30 p.m.; and if so, whether he will, on being furnished with details of such cases, take such steps as will obviate the necessity for so late an attendance by female clerks.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not aware of such an arrangement as the hon. Member describes, and will, on being furnished with details, cause inquiry to be made with a view to the readjustment of any attendances which may be found to be contrary to rule.

  SUNDAY DUTIES IN THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether two young officers of the Sorting Department of the Post Office, named Dineen and Lovegrove, recently retired from the service rather than accept the newly-imposed conditions which render Sunday work compulsory on all the staff; and whether, in the conditions of service supplied to these young men by the Civil Service Commissioners, any mention was made of their liability to perform such work.
  MR. HANBURY: No, Sir. One— Dineen—stated that he resigned because he had obtained a clerkship in the City. The other—Lovegrove—gave the reason stated in the question. Before taking up his appointment, however, he signed a declaration that he fully understood it to be his duty at all times to give such attendance both on week-days and on Sundays in any section of the Post Office as might be required by the Department.

  SCOTTISH ORPHAN HOMES—BRIDGE OF WEIR.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the Renfrew County Council have recently refused to receive into their hospital for infectious diseases cases of scarlet fever occurring at the Bridge of Weir Orphan Homes; and whether the Local Government Board has taken any, and, if so, what, steps to prevent the spread of the disease among the hundreds of children inhabiting the Homes, and through them to the general population.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The answer to the first branch of the question is in the affirmative. I am informed by the Local Government Board that the refusal was due to want of room, but that the
  586
  Board have had the position under their careful consideration, and if the steps they have recommended to the local authority are carried out, these will, in their opinion, effectually remove all cause for apprehension as to the spread of the disease. As a matter of fact, no case of scarlet fever has occurred in the Homes since the last week of March.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: What suggestions have been made?
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: An alteration of a section of the Public Health Act giving certain powers to the local authorities.

  SCOTTISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD — ST. MARGARET'S HOPE. PIER.
  SIR LEONARD LYELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Congested Districts Board has come to any decision with regard to the application by the District Committee of South Ronaldshay for sanction to their scheme for a pier at St. Margaret's Hope; and, if not, will he say what is the present position of the negotiations, and is there any prospect of a favourable answer being given at an early date.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that as the pier at Burray (within two miles of St. Margaret's Hope) is not yet finished, they consider it would be undesirable to come to any final decision just now as to the St. Margaret's Hope pier. The matter is, however, at present before the Board, and will receive full consideration in due course.
  SIR LEONARD LYELL: I will call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

  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, will he explain why, on the occasion of the recent visit of Her Majesty to Dublin, the order of the Irish Privy Council, granting a bank holiday applied to the clerical staff only of the Post Office in Dublin; and, whether he is prepared to grant a holiday to all the other staffs, or an extra day's pay in lieu thereof.
  MR. HANBURY: As I stated in reply to a similar question the other day,† instructions were given on the 26th ultimo that those officers in Dublin who could not be spared from duty on the occasion in question should be allowed a day in lieu at some other convenient time.

  IRISH TRAVELLING POST OFFICES-LAVATORY ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that it was recommended by the Tweedmouth Committee that lavatory accommodation would be supplied in Irish travelling post office carriages, he will see that this accommodation shall be supplied to the travelling officers who have applied for it.
  MR. HANBURY: Lavatory accommodation is being provided in certain new mail carriages now being constructed in Ireland; but it is proposed not to provide it in the carriages at present in use until it is seen whether the accommodation is appreciated by the sorters in the new carriages. In a number of cases in which such accommodation has been afforded in England, the men, although they asked for it in the first instance, have, after experience, applied that it might be withdrawn.

  DONAGHADEE (CO. DOWN) LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether his attention has been called to the destruction by fire of the lighthouse at Donaghadee, county Down; whether he can state when the new lighthouse will be erected there, and when it is likely to be ready for service to ships coming into Belfast Lough; whether any further attempt will be made for removal of the sand, stones, and silting which at present render Donaghadee Harbour dangerous to vessels coming there for commerce or for shelter; and if he can state at what cost the Belfast Harbour Commissioners would for a few weeks let their steam dredger for the purpose of cleaning and rendering the harbour safe.
  MR. HANBURY: The re-erection of the Donaghadee Harbour lighthouse does not rest with the Board of Works, but
  † See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxii., page 1103.
  588
  with the Board of Irish Lights, and I am not in a position to state when the new lighthouse is likely to be ready for service. In September, 1898, the Board of Works caused an inspection of the harbour to be made, and were advised that it was sufficiently safe for the boats frequenting it. There is no reason to believe that its condition has been to any substantial extent altered since that date. As the harbour was not constructed as a harbour of refuge, and cannot be regarded as one, there is no reason for undertaking the work suggested in paragraph three, and it is not proposed to do so. I am not in a position to state what the hire of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners' steam dredger would cost. It was ascertained in October, 1898, that the only dredger then possessed by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners available for hire was entirely unsuited for the economical removal of material at Donaghadee.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS' CLAIMS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if any appeals have reached the Treasury, under the Irish Local Government Act of 1898, Schedule 7, Part 2, Sub-section 4, and whether any procedure or rules had been prescribed as to the manner of dealing with claims by officers which have been disallowed or cut down by the local authorities.
  MR. HANBURY: Many such appeals have been received, and, for the most part, have been disposed of. No rules of procedure have been prescribed. An appeal may be made in the form of a letter to the Treasury, setting out the facts of the case, with copies of the relevant documents.

  FERMANAGH ROYAL SCHOOL ENDOWMENT.
  MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the division of the Fermanagh Royal School Endowment, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Clogher, the first chairman of the Roman Catholic Board, undertook to spend half the Roman Catholic portion of the endowment in Enniskillen, and that notwithstanding this promise, the whole funds of the Board are spent in Monaghan, while Fermanagh, which produces the endowment, is the

  589
  only county in Ireland which has not an intermediate school for Roman Catholics; whether he is aware that the Fermanagh Roman Catholic Board has refused to contribute to the funds for the support of a school at Enniskillen, unless the people establish such school and maintain it at their own expense until it is in a condition to compete with the college in Monaghan which for years past has monopolised the entire endowment, and that the town of Monaghan has three intermediate schools for Roman Catholics, while Enniskillen, a larger town, has none; whether the Lord Lieutenant has power, under the Educational Endowments Act of 1885, to require the Board to give effect to the Bishop's undertaking to the scheme of 1891 by establishing an intermediate school in Enniskillen; and can he state the average annual income of the Fermanagh Roman Catholic Board during the ten years ending 31st December, 1899; the amount of funds now possessed by the Board; the number of free places given to students during such ten years, specifying those given to Fermanagh boys; and the number of students admitted during such ten years from counties other than Fermanagh and Monaghan.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. G. W. BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): This question cannot be answered within the ordinary limits of a reply to a Parliamentary question, and I have forwarded to my hon. friend a written statement dealing with the several matters mentioned.

  IRISH LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT.
  SIR JAMES HASLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what taxes go to make up the Local Taxation Account of Ireland at present and up to April, 1899.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The question will best be answered by an examination of the form in use for the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account. I have forwarded to my hon. friend two such forms, one being the form at present in use, and the other the form in use up to April, 1899.

  DEATHS IN DUBLIN—LOCAL GOVERNMENT INQUIRIES.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg
  590
  to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return which appears on the Paper to-day in the name of the hon. Member for East Mayo.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The notes of the evidence taken at the two inquiries referred to form a very voluminous document, extending to upwards of 300 pages of type-written matter. The cost of printing the notes would be considerable, and there does not seem to be any special reason for incurring this expense in regard to a. matter which is merely of local interest, more especially as the notes have already been forwarded by the Local Government Board to the lecal authority concerned. The transcript of the evidence taken at the second inquiry is at present with the Rural District Council.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit my hon. friend to see it?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I think there would be no objection to that.

  EXTRA POLICE FORCE IN CORK COUNTY.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the police in Millstreet, Ballinagree, and that portion of the county of Cork, are still maintained at a number in excess of the usual number.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have called for, but not yet received, a report on this question. In any case the distribution of the police at the places mentioned is a matter which rests entirely in the hands of the local authorities responsible for the peace of the district. No charge to the ratepayers is involved by the police employed in any portion of the county Cork.

  IRISH URBAN COUNCILS-BORROWING POWERS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that difficulty is sometimes experienced by urban councils in Ireland in carrying out schemes for building workmen's houses, securing a water supply, or providing a system of sewerage, owing to the low limit of their borrowing powers; and whether he will consider the desirability of taking steps to extend such borrowing

  591
  powers when the loan is required for reproductive purposes.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: This is not a matter upon which I should be prepared to express a definite opinion off hand, but, as at present advised, I should be inclined to doubt the expediency of the course suggested in the question.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Have many cases similar to those mentioned in the question occurred?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: No doubt there has been a certain number, but it is a serious thing to pass a general enactment enlarging borrowing powers.

  IRISH WORKHOUSE DOCTORS' HOLIDAYS.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the congratulatory resolution, unanimously adopted by the Belfast Board of Guardians, in favour of the medical attendant who appealed against the interference of the Irish Local Government Board with reference to the power of the guardians to allow a certain number of holidays to the doctors to workhouses; and if the Local Government Board is considering the desirability of issuing circulars to the different boards of guardians upon the subject.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The resolution referred to in the question does not appear on the minutes of the proceedings of the guardians. The Local Government Board have made no regulations on the subject of the holidays of medical officers of workhouses.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT RETURNS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Report of the Local Government Board for Ireland, and the Returns of local taxation in Ireland for 1899 will be circulated.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Returns of local taxation for the period ended March, 1899, are being prepared and will, it is expected, be issued about the end of July next. The financial year being now
  592
  altered so as to end on the 31st March, the annual Report will be issued about six months later, and the Report published this year will not, consequently, be ready until October next. This Report will include two sets of tables—those relating to the financial year from March, 1899, to March, 1900, and those relating to the broken or transitory period from September, 1898, to March, 1899.

  LORDS OF APPEAL—ENGLISH, SCOTCH, AND IRISH APPOINTMENTS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether in view of the proposal to appoint Lords of Appeal for the colonies and India, a Lord of Appeal will be appointed from Ireland; and whether his attention has been called to a meeting of the Irish Bar recently on this subject.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg at the same time to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government has received the resolution of the Irish Bar protesting, against the departure from established precedent in filling up the recent vacancy in the Irish Lawlordship by an English appointment; what reply has been sent to this resolution; when will the Bill be introduced for the creation of Australian, Canadian, African, and Indian Lawlordships; and will the salaries of the new Peers be borne by the colonies and dependencies of the Empire or by the: taxpayers of Great Britain and Ireland.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): As regards the resolution of the Irish Bar, I have to say that I have not received any such resolution. With regard to the other questions, the Bill referred to not having been introduced, I think that any question as to what it will contain had better be deferred until its introduction.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can yet give the House any definite information as to the probable commencement and duration of the Whitsuntide Recess.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to be able to give an answer to this question early next week.
MR. STEADMAN: Does the First Lord intend taking the Housing of the Working Classes Bill before Whitsuntide?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I doubt very much whether it will be possible to take the Bill before Whitsuntide, but I cannot give a definite answer on the subject.
AN HON. MEMBER: Will the Savings Bank Bill be taken to-night?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We take no legislation on Fridays.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when the Public Record Office and the Office of Woods and Forests Votes will be taken in Committee of Supply.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not propose asking the House to take these Votes to-night. Often when one asks too much he gets very little. I shall not go beyond the Scotch Votes to-night.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
The Right Hon. Sir Edward Henry Carson, knight, Q.C., for the Dublin University.

FINAL COURT OF APPEAL (IRISH REPRESENTATION).
[MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.]
MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY, Member for North Louth, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—viz., "the refusal of Her Majesty's present advisers to recognise the just claim of Ireland to representation in the Final Court of Appeal for the three Kingdoms, and the breach of constitutional usage involved in the appointment of an English Judge to the vacancy created by the resignation of the Irish Law Lord"; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen:—
MR. T. M. HEALY: I venture to submit that this question is one of considerable importance, not only to Ireland,
594
but also to the constitutional arrangements which govern the three countries. It affects not only Ireland, but Scotland and England, quite as much as it affects ourselves, and I think I shall be able to demonstrate from the quotations and speeches of ministers, and from the statutes themselves, that the action of the Government on the present occasion is a breach of constitutional practice, and involves a needless and gratuitous departure from that practice. This should be considered, I submit, not from a personal point of view, and not from the point of view of the prerogatives of the judiciary, but it should be discussed from the higher standpoint of constitutional right. I propose to refer for a few moments to the history of the position, and the relation in which Ireland stands to the House of Lords itself. By the Treaty of Union, both for the people of Scotland and of Ireland, it was provided that final appeals should lie to the House of Lords in the conjoint Parliament. Mr. Disraeli, in his speech in 1873, relied upon that provision as a reason against the abolition of the House of Lords as the Judiciary for the three kingdoms by Mr. Gladstone's Government. In 1873 Mr. Gladstone brought in and passed into law a measure abolishing the House of Lords as the final Court of Appeal for England alone, but the Government dared not attempt to abolish the Lords appeal for Scotland or for Ireland, because the Irish and Scotch people were protected by the Articles of the Treaty of Union from being obliged to resort to a merely English court of law. Mr. Bouverie, the Member for Kilmarnock, brought forward a resolution on the 1873 Bill that the final Court of Appeal should embrace both Scotland and Ireland as well as England. A debate then arose as to whether this would not involve a breach of the Treaty of Union between Scotland, Ireland, and England. And what happened? A most remarkable thing happened. Seeing the absurdity of abolishing the House of Lords as a final Court of Appeal for England and leaving it intact for Scotland and Ireland, Mr. Gladstone, pressed by Mr. Disraeli, said he would yield to the contention of Mr. Bouverie, and the very words of the Amendment I have proposed are the words which came from Mr. Gladstone's own lips, namely, "the recognition of the just claims of Ireland" to representation in this final Court of

595
Appeal for the three kingdoms. As the result of Mr. Bouverie's motion these words were inserted in the Statute of 1873, providing for the nomination of Irish and Scottish Judges in the new Court of Appeal—
"And such three other persons as Her Majesty may be pleased to appoint by Letters Patent; such appointment may be made either within one month before, or at any time after, the day appointed for the commencement of this Act, but if made before shall take effect at the commencement of this Act."
Mr. Gladstone said that not only would he appoint these three ex officio gentlemen who should hold official appointments, but he said he would provide for ex officio appointments from Ireland and Scotland, and that was done in the very same section which provides—
"Besides the said ex officio Judges and ordinary Judges, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty (if she shall think fit) from time to time to appoint, under Her Royal Sign Manual, as additional Judges of the Court of Appeal, any persons who, having held in England the office of a Judge of the Superior Courts of Westminster, hereby united and consolidated, or if Her Majesty's Supreme Court hereby constituted, or in Scotland the office of Lord Justice General or Lord Justice Clerk, or in Ireland the office of Lord Chancellor or Lord Justice of Appeal, or in India the office of Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, or Madras, or Bombay, shall respectively signify in writing their willingness to serve as such additional Judges in the Court of Appeal."
What were the judges from Ireland, Scotland, India, Madras, and Bombay appointed and created for under this section unless this Act was intended to be what it was called at that time, namely, a great Imperial Court of Appeal? That was clearly the intention of the Act. But what next happened? In consequence of the strong representations made against the abolition of the House of Lords as the final Court of Appeal when the Liberal Government went out of office at the beginning of the year 1874, and Mr. Disraeli's Government came in, the new Ministry determined to preserve the ancient form and locus of this Appeal Court. Mr. Disraeli had throughout resisted the attempt to abolish the judicature of the House of Lords, and after the Tories came into power he brought in a Bill restoring the judicature of the House of Lords and repealing the Act of 1873. That Act did not pass in the first year that it was intro-
596
duced, but finally it became law in the year 187G, and the Court was constituted as originally agreed upon, and consisted of representatives both from England, Scotland, and Ireland. The principles agreed on in 1873 as to the personnel of the tribunal were not changed, but merely the title of the place in which it should sit. Let me quote from Hansard for 1873, when this first great revolution in English legal procedure was brought in, to show the policy then adopted, which was in no wise quarrelled with in 1876. On the 9th of June, 1873 (Volume 216, Third Series, page 651), the Attorney General of the day, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, described this purely English measure, which did not in any way deal with the judiciary of Ireland or Scotland, as follows—
"And three others—an ex-Lord Chancellor or Judge, and certain Scotch and Irish Judges if they thought fit to come."
Now what was the intention of this? Dr. Ball, afterwards Lord Chancellor and the then ex-Attorney General, made a speech objecting to the constitution of the Court, and objected to the bringing over of Irish judges to concern themselves in English appeals when, owing to the Act of Union, neither Scotch or Irish suitors had the right to appeal to that court. At page 895 of the same volume he said—
"The Irish Judges and the Irish Bar had passed some resolutions on the subject, the Judges declaring that it was of essential importance that there should be a right of final appeal from the Courts in Ireland to the same tribunal which decided English appeals, and that in the event of a new Court of Appeal being substituted for the House of Lords, a suitable number of Irish Judges, both of law and equity, should be associated with the English members of the appellate tribunal; while the Bar declared that in order to preserve uniformity of decision in the courts of law and equity in England and Ireland, it was essential that there should be the same final Court of Appeal for both countries."
The Scotch Bar arrived at the same conclusion, and therefore it was that Mr. Bouverie brought forward the resolution which was accepted by Mr. Gladstone's Government. In accepting Mr. Bouverie's motion on the 30th of June, 1873, Mr. Gladstone said, after referring to the agitation in Scotland and Ireland (page 1563)—
"That being so, those who represented Ireland and Scotland were not only willing but desirous that the jurisdiction as to Irish and Scotch appeals should be removed from the House of

597
Lords, and that the Bill should be adapted to those altered circumstances, so as to give the measure a character of greater completeness and efficiency."
Mr. Gladstone was very strongly pressed upon that day by Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Harcourt to state what were the changes he proposed, and what influx of English and Scotch Judges he proposed to introduce, but he deferred details to a later stage. Mr. Bouverie, however, said upon this occasion—
"It would be necessary to have a fair representation of the Judges of the two sister countries on the appellate tribunal. He was glad his right hon. friend had acceded to his proposal."
Mr. Gladstone, on the 1st of July, 1873 (page 1631), detailed the nature of the proposed changes, saying—
"It was intended to constitute one High Court of Appeal for the three kingdoms, and he did not think the just claim to have Irish and Scotch Judges upon the Court would be adequately met by the simple addition of ex-officio Judges. It would, therefore, not be wise to make it binding to transfer the three Judges at the moment in the Court of Appeal from the common law Judges. He did not say what proposal it might be the duty of the Government to make as to the number of persons to be put in the Court of Appeal, but the earliest opportunity would be taken of announcing their decision on the matter to the House."
Then the Solicitor General of the day, speaking immediately after Mr. Gladstone on the same occasion (page 1633), said—
"That they might reckon on having to appoint members of the Scotch and Irish Bench or Bar, not with the view of increasing the charge on the public, but simply to provide for carrying out fairly the plan proposed by his right hon. friend the Member for Kilmarnock."
On the same date Mr. Gladstone, in a subsequent speech, speaking under pressure from the House, outlined a little more fully what was the nature of the pledge he had given. On page 1640 of the volume of Hansard from which I have been quoting, this is how he met the difficult conundrums put to him. He said—
"The Government thought it would be necessary to introduce into the Court of Appeal one ordinary member from the legal profession in Ireland and one ordinary member from the legal profession in Scotland. Together with the ordinary members so appointed, it would be right to make an addition to the ex officio members of the Court of Appeal, and this addition would consist of no fewer than one from Scotland and one from Ireland."
598
Therefore you have the admission of Mr. Gladstone in proposing this Court of Appeal that Ireland should have two members as members of this Court, and that Scotland should have an equal number. The Attorney General, on the same occasion, said that all the Committee had to do was to consider the constitution of the Court as the English Appellate Court, and that any Scotch or Irish elements afterwards introduced would not alter it. Yet we are now told that Ireland is to be denied a vote in the supreme Court of Appeal in these kingdoms, but that unknown gentlemen are to be brought either from India, from Mafeking perhaps, at any rate from the Transvaal and South Africa, from the wilds of Australia, and from distant Canada, and are to be paid by the taxes found by the people of Ireland, as well as by the people of England and of Scotland, in order to smooth and alleviate an ephemeral difficulty in which the Government are placed as regards Australia, and that these four gentlemen are to pronounce their opinions on Irish and Scotch legislation, while the right of Ireland and of Scotland is denied. That innovation is to be made after a century of union, and on an occasion when we are told "the golden moment" has been created for Ireland by the visit of the Queen. I ask upon what pretext does the Government enter on such a course? If our appellate tribunal is to be invigorated by the introduction of Dutchmen from South Africa, Hindoos from India, as well as by Australians and Canadians, I ask are the arguments of Mr. Disraeli to have no weight as regards the introduction of Irishmen or Scotchmen to sit on the then purely English Court constituted by the Act of 1873? Speaking on 3rd July, 1873, Mr. Disraeli suggested, as The Times newspaper has recently done, that the intellect of Ireland was of so mean and poor a, character, so to speak, that the appellate Court would be watered down if any Caledonian or Hibernian blood were allowed to introduce itself. Having attacked the Irish Bar for having had the audacity to make such a demand, he said—
"In Dublin we have a most extraordinary meeting of lawyers, who pass a resolution the result of which is that they want to keep their own intermediary Court of Appeal, which furnishes them with plenty of business, and enjoy the privilege of having a couple of their

599
members nominated Judges of the Court of Appeal for England."
That was his understanding of the bargain, and the fact that he was opposed to it is all the stronger argument in favour of the position I take. He goes on—
"There is another point with reference to these changes which I. must bring before the consideration of the Committee, and that is the great importance that has always been attached—if we are to have a single Court of Appeal—to this, that that Court of Appeal should consist of first-rate men, and that those who construct and select the Court should have the power and privilege of selecting men for their merits "
—not because they come from Canada or Western Australia—
"and for their merits alone, and that nothing but the possession of transcendent qualities as to learning, experience, sagacity, and character should sway the decision."
Is it learning or experience or sagacity or character that brings this quartet of gentlemen here to water down the intellect of England, Ireland, and Scotland? Mr. Disraeli went on—he was not a bit too nice in his remarks—
"There are to be two Scotch and two Irish members of this tribunal."
One can imagine the scorn with which Mr. Disraeli uttered these words and how his lip curled. But his shade can rest in peace at Hughenden because there is no longer any Irish member on this tribunal. He proceeds—
"I do not wish to make an invidious remark"
—that is generally said when a man is about to make one—
"but both the Bench and the Bar of these countries at present furnish men quite adequate to this business. But this has not always been the case, for there have been times when neither Bench nor Bar of either Scotland or England could furnish such men."
I wonder would the Scotch Lord Advocate back up the statement—
"There may have been times when we have found it very difficult even in England, with its large area, to find adequate men."
Scroggs and Jeffries, for instance.
"By this new change in the Bill we are no longer to appoint only such men, because so far as four of the Judges are concerned you will select them not for excellence, but for nationality."
Why, the whole of Mr. Disraeli's argument applies to the condition of affairs which would arise if the suggestions of
600
Her Majesty's Government are carried out.
"When these four men have transacted their special business"
—their Scotch and their Irish business—
"they will then be deciding English business,"
—what a profanation!—
"and therefore, instead of securing in your Court of Appeal those only who have been appointed for excellence, it is quite possible that you may have your appeals from England decided by Scotch and Irish Judges, who have-not been appointed for excellence, but for nationality."
He thought the phrase so admirable that he repeated it, there being at that time no rule against tedious repetition. Mr. Gladstone followed the right hon. Gentleman and bade him be of good heart. He said—
"He contemplates the arrival of a period when it will be necessary for the Prime Minister of the day to till up the vacancies in the Court of Appeal with inferior men from Ireland and Scotland. This doctrine as to the inferiority of Irishmen and Scotchmen is an awkward doctrine. I do not understand what experience has led him to lay down this despairing doctrine."
And then he asks whether it is the choice of a Lord Advocate in his own Government that led him to lay it down. We have happily gone a long way from those times. The Government of the day, forgetting all their traditions and finding a vacancy, now think they are entitled to fill it not by an Irish appointment, but may roam at large and put in whom they please. It is not for me to say a word against the distinguished lawyer who has been appointed in the place of Lord Morris. Lord Morris resigned on account of old age, and Lord Lindley has the great advantage of being one year younger. I understand that his lordship is the author of a great work on Partnership. He will now in his leisure be able to revise it, and to- write a chapter on "Predominant Partnership." That is the advantage he and we owe to "Unionist" principles. Let me now make some further citations from the debates which I have quoted. The Bouverie plan was apparently cavilled at by some Irishmen, and Mr. Butt and others held out for the arrangement under the Act of Union whereby Ireland and Scotland were entitled to press their suits to the House of Lords. Mr. Glad-

601
stone, therefore, on 14th July, 1873, praised Dr. Ball, afterwards Lord Chancellor, and attacked Mr. Butt for the view he took. Dr. Ball had stated that he was in favour of the Government proposal, and that he believed it would consolidate the union of the three kingdoms, but Mr. Butt opposed it. Mr. Gladstone patted Dr. Ball on the back for taking up the Unionist attitude, and condemned Mr. Butt for supporting the ancient right of the Irish people to resort to the House of Lords. Mr. Gladstone then used these words, as they are to be found in Hansard, Third Series, vol. 217, page 360—
"I have no doubt that there will be one Court of Appeal for the three kingdoms, and that the just claim of Ireland has received a recognition which I believe will be permanent and effectual."
How has it been made permanent, and how has it been made effectual? Let Lord Lindley's appointment in 1900 to the recent Irish vacancy answer! When the Tory Government repealed these sections of the Act of 1873, and proposed the Appellate Judicature Act of 1876, they throughout accepted the Parliamentary bargain which had been struck. The three judicial persons who wore to sit as Peers from the three nations were constituted for the moment in this way. Lord O'Hagan had been Mr. Gladstone's Chancellor; he had a seat in the House of Lords at that time; he had been in the House of Lords since 1868—and Lord O'Hagan became instantly, by the mere operation of the Act, a member of the new Court of Appeal. The Government took two paid members of the Privy Council, and made peers of them, and the Court so constituted consisted of an Irish, an English, and a Scotch Judge. So it went on from 1876, until one of those members who had been transferred from the Privy Council died in 1882. He was an English member. Mr. Gladstone was then in office, and what did he do? He gave that office in redemption of the pledge which the Government had made in the Bill of 1873 to an Irish Judge, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, afterwards Lord Fitzgerald, a well-known member of the Irish judicial bench. Lord Fitzgerald continued a member of the House of Lords, in his capacity as an Irish Law Lord, until he died in 1889. What happened then? A Conservative Administration was in office. Did that Conservative Administration
602
then say, "Whether it be an Englishman an Irishman or a Scotsman who shall succeed is a matter of indifference to us. We will appoint whom we please; we will look among our friends and supporters, and give the vacancy thus created by Lord Fitzgerald's death to an Englishman or a Scotsman"? Nothing of the kind. They went to Ireland, and appointed Sir Michael Morris (afterwards Lord Morris), Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, to the vacancy caused by the death of Lord Fitzgerald. Therefore, you have not only the original arrangement of 1873, confirmed afterwards by Mr. Gladstone in 1882 and endorsed in 1889 by Lord Salisbury himself. Now, can a matter of this kind, affecting not merely the judiciary, but the national sentiment of the three kingdoms, be overlooked as a question of no moment? For if such a departure from precedent, principle, and understanding be right and proper as regards Ireland, why should not the same apply to Scotland or England? What would the English people think if the Court of Appeal in the House of Lords was constituted of a number of barristers drawn from the four Courts in Dublin? Practically that is a constitutional possibility, but everybody knows that if a Government were to attempt anything of the kind it would not survive a week after. The only thing that I know of which can have induced this change is that some two years ago when the Irish Members consented to the reduction of the Irish Judiciary; in giving that consent it was provided, upon a proposal I made, that any saving which had been effected would be applied to Irish purposes. Then the Treasury, although they never allow us to see their accounts or to audit their ledgers, wore pleased to earmark the amount of the saving at £10,000 a year. The Treasury, therefore, the moment they got this vacancy, immediately took revenge upon Ireland and seized for an English Judge £6,000 a year out of the savings which were nominally handed over to the Agricultural Department or some other Board in Ireland. I have shown that by the Act of Union it was the right of the Irish people as well as the Scotch people to have their appeals brought in this country to the House of Lords. Up to O'Connell's case, and still theoretically, it is the right of every Irish peer to come into the House of Lords and give his vote on any subject

603
of appeal from Ireland. If these noblemen, in resentment at the treatment of Ireland by the Government in this matter—and I hope they will seize the occasion—were to swarm down to the Palace of Westminster and wait until some high equity question, or something affecting the Treasury, or the estate duty, or the Finance Act, or something affecting their pockets and the right of the Crown to levy on their estates or the estates of their followers—if they waited outside for a while and then came into the House of Lords and took their places on the benches, and gave their votes against Lord Lindley and the Lord Chancellor, and all the other law Lords, I wonder what face there would be in Downing Street the next day at this so-called departure from constitutional practice. I have some hope that something of that kind may be done. There are a great many Irish Peers. You have placated Lord Londonderry and some of his friends, but there is still Lord Ardilaun lying " outside the breastworks." I have great faith that some of these Irish Peers, when stirred up to a proper pitch, understanding their own wrongs and grievances, will see an obvious way of remedying them. I will now refer to the historical position which Ireland takes in regard to this question of appeal, to show the House that this is not merely a question of a Koolgardie legislature, of some new legislative shanty set up in the wilds of Africa, or in the forests of Canada, but that it is a grave and ancient historical constitutional question, having its roots far back in the centuries. There had been long a question between the Irish and the English House of Lords in regard to the assertion of their judicial powers. Mr. Disraeli referred to it, in the debate which I have quoted, as one of the important questions which had affected the international relations of the two countries. In the Annesley case in 1717, the right of the Irish House of Lords to be the final Court of Appeal on all Irish matters was asserted, and to resist this the English Parliament by the Act of 6 George I., Chapter VI., enacted—
"Whereas the House of Lords of Ireland have of late, against law, assumed to themselves a power and jurisdiction to examine, correct, and amend the judgments and decrees of the courts of justice in the Kingdom of Ireland; therefore, for the better securing of
604
the dependency of Ireland upon the Crown of Great Britain, may it please your most Excellent Majesty that it may be declared, and be it declared by the King's most. Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that the said Kingdom of Ireland hath been, is, and of right ought to be subordinate unto and dependent upon the Imperial Crown of Great Britain, as being inseparably united and annexed thereunto; and that the King's Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of Great Britain in Parliament assembled, both, and of right, ought to have full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind! the Kingdom and people of Ireland. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that the House of Lords, of Ireland have not, nor of right ought to have, any jurisdiction to judge of, affirm, or reverse any judgment, sentence, or decree, given or made in any court within the said Kingdom, and that all proceedings before the said House of Lords upon any such judgment, sentence, or decree, are, and are hereby declared to be, utterly null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever."
Now, how did the Irish Parliament receive that declaration? The Irish Parliament and House of Lords no doubt for a few years felt themselves bound to. submit to the insult of Irish suitors being compelled to resort to a purely English tribunal, which had no sympathy with Irish sentiment. But in 1782 the Irish Parliament compelled the English Government of the day to repeal that Act, and then when Lord Mansfield had presumed to give an opinion in reference to an Irish appeal, notwithstanding such repeal the Irish Parliament compelled the English Parliament to pass not merely a, repeal but a declaratory Act in 1783. That Act set forth—
"That no writ of error or appeal shall be. received or adjudged, or any other proceeding be had by or in any of His Majesty's Courts in this Kingdom, in any action or suit at law, or in equity, instituted in any of His Majesty's Courts in the Kingdom of Ireland; and that all such writs, appeals, or proceedings, shall be and they are hereby, declared null and void to all intents and purposes; and that all records,, transcripts of records or proceedings, which have been transmitted from Ireland to Great Britain, by virtue of any writ of error or appeal, and upon which no judgment has been given or decree pronounced before the first day of June, 1782, shall, upon application made by or in behalf of the party in whose favour-judgment was given, or decree pronounced in Ireland, be delivered to such party, or any person by him authorised to apply for and, receive the same."

605
And this statute goes on to say—
"That the said right claimed by the people of Ireland to be bound only by laws enacted by His Majesty's and the Parliament of that Kingdom, in all cases whatever, and to have all actions and suits at law or in equity, which may be instituted in that Kingdom, decided in His Majesty's Courts therein finally, and without appeal from thence, shall be, and it is hereby declared to be, established and ascertained for ever, and shall, at no time hereafter, be questioned or questionable."
That is the historic position. I now come to the lowest point of view of this question—the litigant or personal position. What is the excuse of the Government for this English appointment? It is that the appeals from Ireland to the House of Lords are very few. I do not care whether they are only six or seven in the year. If there was not one I do not think it would matter in the least degree for the House of Lords, I must remind the House, is engaged every day in making the laws of the three kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland and of the whole Empire. I take three great instances which, although not nominally affecting the rights of Ireland, really do affect not merely the rights of Ireland, but of all portions of the United Kingdom. I take the question of habeas corpus decided in Barnardo's case. The question was whether Catholic children could be kept in custody under particular circumstances, and the House of Lords affirmed the rights of parents and guardians and defined their powers. Am I to be told that the decision of the House of Lords in this matter does not go to the homes of the humblest peasants in Ireland as well as to the highest in the land in England or Scotland? I take another question —the question of conspiracy—which was recently decided in the House of Lords in the case of Allen v. Flood. Are there no workmen in Ireland as well as in England or Scotland? And are the rights and privileges of Irish workmen, aye, and of Irish masters, not to be considered by Irish judges acting as constituent members of the final court of the Empire? Does the legislation that emanates from the judicial lips of the Lords of Appeal not affect us in our country as you in yours Take another ease. What is it that causes sometimes the greatest agitation and arouses the keenest legislative conflict? We know, as the Duke of Devonshire said the other day, that it is
606
the question of temperance and the drink traffic. Take the decision of their Lordships in the case of Sharp v. Wakefield. You could not now legislate in this House, or the House of Lords, contrary to the way the Sharp v. Wakefield case was decided. Although it may be that technically the law of Sharp v. Wakefield does not affect Ireland, it affects it indirectly in this way: while the English publican has only a yearly term, inferentially the House of Lords' decision set up that the Irish vintner has practically a durable or permanent claim. In all such decisions and many others Ireland is interested. I do not refer to the land question, the law of ejectment, or the Irish law of bankruptcy. I disdain to consider the matter merely as. regards the differences in the legal systems of the three countries. I think that is putting it upon a low ground, and I decline to do so; but I claim that Ireland, which was bribed out of its own final House of Appeal by the Act of Union, and is compelled to come here and be represented legislatively in this House and the House of Peers, has as good a right to be represented judicially as legislatively in this Parliament of Westminster. That is the position I assume. Now I come to the last question, and possibly the lowest of all, namely, the impossibility at times of obtaining in Ireland men of competence, and the necessity that exists for strengthening the House of Lords. I hope the Scotch Members, when there is a Scotch vacancy, will bear in mind that it is not the law of Scotland or the ancient claims of that kingdom which, according to the new English doctrine, are to be considered when the judiciary is being reconstituted, although when a Scotch vacancy lately occurred you appointed a Scotchman, Lord Robertson, on the death of Lord Watson. Lord Robertson was once Lord Advocate, and sat in this House, and was afterwards a distinguished judge. When the vacancy occurred you at once went up to Edinburgh, obtained his services, and created him a peer. It is only in Ireland that you dare act otherwise in this matter. We have hoard a great deal about the wearing of the shamrock, and we have heard magnificent allusions to the motto, Quis separabit? It seems to me that the shamrock has already been dumped out of the orchid house. I do not think I need say a word

607
for the capacity of the Irish judiciary lately sneered at by The Times. All the men, I think I may say, of that judiciary are opposed to me in politics; but I can say that, although I have often had occasion to criticise them in this House and out of it, no one has received more kindness and courtesy at their hands. The action which I take in bringing forward this matter would probably have come more forcibly from some member of the Unionist party opposite, who may have aspirations to some of those great offices; but I argue the question from the point of view of the national claims of Ireland. I think this is a matter that may properly be brought forward by an Irish Nationalist, as one affecting Irish public rights. I have constantly preached to those Irish lawyers in Dublin in this way: "The moment England gets the chance she will sell you." What is more, they believe it. There is not a man among the Irish Tories, so far as I know, who is satisfied with the position. The best they say is, "Better the devil we know of than the devil we don't." That is the very highest praise you have from them. Was the Irish Attorney General entitled to no consideration at your hands? He served you long and well, but forsooth Lord Lindley had to be provided for. I notice in the "Life of Lord Plunket," the distinguished ancestor of a very distinguished member of the House of Lords, who sat long in this House as Member for the University of Dublin, a very remarkable passage. Lord Plunket had some curious experience of the English bar. He was appointed by the King Master of the Rolls. He had been a very distinguished man in his day, but being a mere Irishman, and being appointed Master of the Rolls in England, the English bar met and unanimously resolved that they would not practise before Lord Plunket, and within three days he was compelled to resign his office. Lord Plunket received the office later on of Lord Chancellor in Ireland. In a letter from Lord Melbourne to Lord Plunkot, dated Downing Street, June 6th, 1841, it is suggested that he should resign his office. Why? The letter says—
"You see the struggle in which we are engaged, and you are aware that many ministerial arrangements must be necessary on the occasion of the approaching dissolution of Parliament. Amongst these it would be most convenient, and we are most anxious, to provide for the Attorney General, which the
608
present state of the courts of law does not allow us to do in this country."
They were at it in 1841, and they are at it in 1900. They wanted to provide for the Attorney General, and so they suggested that the Irish Lord Chancellor should make way for him. A mere Irishman should give way to the high and mighty Attorney General of the day to suit the convenience of Ministerial arrangement. There is this to be said, I think, for Lord Morris. I do not believe for one moment it entered into his wildest dreams that the office he vacated would be filled up by the English Master of the Rolls. I am sure that I do Lord Morris justice when I say that I do not believe he knew his office was to be gifted away in that extraordinary manner. Whom have you satisfied and pleased? Is Australia pleased? We, the Irish people, are to have questions under the Land Act decided by a gentleman from the bush in Australia. I may be told that there is no direct appeal from the Land Commission to the House of Lords. But in the case of Westropp v. Elligott, which was decided by the House of Lords on a question of ejectment, the law as laid down by the House of Lords has governed the practice of the Land Commission and the Irish Court of Appeal on Pasture Holdings under the Land Acts for the last fifteen years. In future we shall have the Chief Justice of Coolgardie giving his profound opinion on those intricate questions of Irish law, while Irish Judges, competent and able, are deprived of the position which they are entitled to, not only by reason of their training but by reason of the constitutional arrangement arrived at so far back as the dates I have indicated. The Government have held out to their supporters in Ireland a charming prospect. I don't believe they fear that an Irish Home Rule Government could do worse. Many of them are already thinking with us. I think they will no doubt find, as the clutch of the Treasury Thug tightens, that gradually all the great offices which used to be the prizes of Ireland's intellect will disappear, and that Ireland firmly manacled is no longer a factor worth counting in the international arrangements of the two countries. You have sufficient strength to act in the manner I have exposed, and for that mode of acting no doubt to some extent the Irish Bar and the Irish Judiciary are largely themselves to blame.

609
They stood by while millions of their countrymen emigrated, and they stood by, I may say, almost without a complaint. The Irish Judiciary has gone on administering English law without having regard to the sentiments of the country. They have looked not to the Irish interest but to the English interest, and now England, in the time of trial, has deserted them. That will be the fate of any Irishman, or class, that puts its trust in the English Government. I have often said that considerations of a dunghill in London are dealt with as if they are more important than the entire affairs of the Irish nation. You think half-an-hour thrown away when an Irish topic is introduced. That is the inevitable result of the system which I have assailed, and although perhaps I have undertaken a task which might have devolved on other shoulders, I have great pleasure myself in having brought it forward as a protest and arraignment of the British mode of ruling our country, and therefore beg to move the adjournment of the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. T. M. Healy.)
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has travelled over a very large number of topics, some of them only remotely connected with the subject he has brought before the House. No inconsiderable portion of his speech, as I understood it, was directed, not against the recent exercise of the power of appointment in connection with the House of Lords, but against a Bill, not yet introduced, dealing not with the House of Lords, but with the Privy Council in this country. I see no connection between those two subjects; I see no relevancy in the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman upon them; and I shall confine my remarks to that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech which seemed to me directly relevant to the case he brought before us. I shall begin by dealing with an argument which I agree is in some ways the least important of the arguments that may be urged on either side of this question, but which is nevertheless an argument that cannot be passed by altogether. I mean the interest of liti-
610
gants, and the number of the appeals actually brought before the House of Lords from Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he did not care whether the number of Irish appeals dealt with by the House of Lords was six, seven, or eight, or anything of that kind. It is nothing like six, seven, or eight at the present time. I understand that the number of Irish appeals adjudicated upon in 1895 was one, in 1896 one, in 1897 two, in 1898 none, and in 1899 two. That is a fact which, although it ought not, in my opinion, entirely to govern, or even in any serious or important sense to govern our action in this case, cannot be left out of our view. May I, though not an Englishman myself, put in a plea for England in this matter?
MR. T. M. HEALY: Poor England!
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, poor England, from the point of view from which the hon. and learned Gentleman advocated the case of Ireland. The appeals heard before the House of Lords are in an enormous proportion English appeals. The Scotch appeals are much more frequent than the Irish appeals, and, of course, they are much smaller in number than the English appeals. I understand that in the House of Lords these English appeals for months past have sometimes been decided by the Lord Chancellor, an Irishman, and a Scotchman. It appears to me that, if England were to take the line taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman, she might perhaps have something to say as to the injustice or inexpediency of such a state of things. For my own part I do not advance that argument. I believe that those gentlemen, although two of them wore not Englishmen, were perfectly competent to deal with the English appeals brought before them. But I leave that argument to go to a far more important contention of the non. Gentleman—namely, that, owing either to Parliamentary pledges or to the arrangements made under the Act of Union, there is a moral obligation upon the Government of the day always to see that one of the Lords of Appeal is an Irishman. With all respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I really fail to follow his argument with regard to Parliamentary pledges; he read us long and very interesting extracts from Hansard, which,

611
however, had not to do with the law as it now stands, or with anything which now governs our proceedings, but which had to do with a Bill which is now repealed, and with that clause of that repealed Bill which never came into force. I must say that in those circumstances it seems to me to be of very little importance what Mr. Gladstone said to Mr. Disraeli, or what Mr. Disraeli replied to Mr. Gladstone; the whole of that debate is absolutely irrelevant. What we have got to consider is whether there was any Parliamentary pledge in connection with the Act of 1876, which now governs us, which has been violated either in the letter or in the spirit by the recent appointments. It appeared to me as I listened to the hon. Gentleman that he himself supplied a complete and conclusive answer to his own argument. His argument was that there had been an invariable practice, now broken for the first time; but he himself informed us—he was the person from whom I have learnt the fact—that when the Court of Appeal was first constituted in 1876 there was no Lord of Appeal from Ireland—no Irish life peer from Ireland, or belonging to the Irish Bar, was appointed under the Act of 1876.
An HON. MEMBER: There was no vacancy.
MR, A. J. BALFOUR: If there was not there might have been.
MR. WILLIAM MOORE: The Act provided for the case of a vacancy arising.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Very well; what does that prove? It conclusively proves that the framers of the Act deliberately intended to launch the Act without an Irish Lord of Appeal. In those circumstances how can you say that the in variable practice since the Act came into force was of the kind that the hon. and learned Gentleman contended? There was no pledge given, and although the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose industry is beyond question, has searched volume after volume of Hansard to find a Parliamentary pledge, he has really read nothing from Hansard relevant to this debate, as far as I can see, except the speech of Mr. Disraeli, which was de-
612
livered in defence of the action the Government took. But why the hon. and learned Gentleman should think it would move us to be told that Mr. Disraeli entertained a view which certainly would have precluded him from regarding himself as invariably bound to appoint a member of the Irish Bar, I really do not understand. Having, as I venture to think, completely disposed of that part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech which dealt with Parliamentary pledges, I go back to the wider issues he has raised in connec-tion with the position of the House of Lords. He says, as I understand, that Ireland by the Act of Union had a right to appeal to the House of Lords of the United Kingdom as a final Court of Appeal, and he seems to think the position of Ireland is now worse than it was during the generations which immediately succeeded the passing of the Act of Union. Can that contention be supported in substance? The hon. and learned Gentleman plunged into technicalities into which I do not think he is accustomed to plunge, although some of his profession may be, and told us that this was a safeguard for Ireland, because the Irish representative peers had a right to vote in the Court of Appeal. I am not going to argue the technical constitutional right of the Irish representative peers, or of any other peers, to take part in the proceedings of the House of Lords as a judicial assembly. Everybody knows that whatever the technical right may be it never was a substantial right, it never was exercised. There was, indeed, one famous attempt to exercise it, and as far as I know only one.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: There were several.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not profess to have looked up the question. I am speaking, of course, without preparation, but I have never heard myself of any attempt on the part of lay lords since the Union to exorcise any jurisdiction in the House of Lords considered as a final Court of Appeal, except in the famous case of O'Connell, and there the technical right was opposed by a technical plea, and practically the lay lords exercised no influence whatever upon the decision to which the law lords ultimately came. I have not had the time nor the

613
opportunity to look into the matter, but I greatly doubt whether you will find in the first sixty years that elapsed since the Union that Irish lay lords took any important part in the judicial deliberations of the House of Lords.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Certainly; there was Lord Clare.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Lord Clare must have taken a very small part in the judicial work of the House of Lords since the Union. I am considering, recollect, a period of sixty or sixty-five years, and I say absolutely without hesitation that the position of Ireland in the House of Lords at the time was incomparably weaker than the position of Ireland is at the present moment. I do not think anybody will doubt that. This is not a question merely of members of the Irish Par; it is a question also, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, of Irishmen, men of Irish blood. The hon. and learned Gentleman expressly made allusion to that point. How many men either belonging to the Irish Bar, or Irishmen in any sense of the word, now take part or have a right to take part in the judicial proceedings of the House of Lords as a final Court of Appeal? In the first place, there is Lord Ashbourne, the Irish Lord Chancellor. There is, in the second place, Lord Morris, who, though no longer a Lord of Appeal, has, of course, still a right to sit in the Court of Appeal. Lord Russell, the Chief Justice of England, whose right to be considered an Irishman will not be disputed, also has a right to sit as a member of the Court of Appeal; and there is Lord Macnaghten, an Irishman, who is actually a member of the Court of Appeal. I challenge the hon. Gentleman who interrupts me—not rudely, but because his interest is so much excited over this matter—I challenge him, with all his historical reading, to find a single period of Irish history, from the Union in 1800 down to 1870, when so many men belonging to Ireland or of Irish extraction had a right to take part in the proceedings of the House of Lords as a Court. Surely if that be so the grievance of Ireland is a grievance which entirely vanishes. There remains the grievance of the Irish Bar. I must say I regret in that connection some observations that fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to the
614
treatment Lord Plunket received at the English Bar in his day. I should have thought that there was sufficient evidence of the most striking kind in recent years that the English Bar regards with no jealousy these who come to it from Ireland. But I quite understand that when, after two appointments have been made of members of the Irish Bar to the House of Lords, and when the third appointment is given to a member of the English Bar, there should be some feeling among members of the Irish Bar. I hope no member of the Irish Bar thinks that what has occurred is due to any low valuation put on its merits by Her Majesty's Government. Certainly that is not the case. I, at all events, have had sufficient experience of the ability of that Bar never to say a word in derogation of it in this House. It ought to have and it has the respect of all Members of this House and all those who are interested in the legal profession, whether in England, in Scotland, or in Ireland; but do not lot anybody carry away the idea which they might carry away from the hon. and learned gentleman's speech, that because what he regards as an old precedent has been broken, a new precedent has been set up. That is not the case. All that those who have had to advise Her Majesty upon this subject have kept in view is this—that there ought to be liberty to select either from one Bar or the other to fill up vacancies as occasion serves. That liberty, I think, is of great importance. Though I should imagine that probably it will not be very commonly used in the future, it is of the highest importance that it should be maintained. Let me say one word, and it will be my last, as to the comparative position of Ireland and Scotland in this matter. Scotland differs from Ireland in more than one respect, which ought to entitle it to special consideration. Scotland has no Lord Chancellor. Scotland has a separate system of jurisprudence. The jurisprudence of Ireland is almost identical with the jurisprudence of England. Though here and there there are no doubt differences in the laws, they are slight, infrequent, and relatively unimportant, and the two Bars might be amalgamated to-morrow without any difficulty from the point of view of legal training and learning, and with some advantage to both. That is not the case

615
with Scotland. the whole law of Scot-land is derived from a different source to the common law of England and Ireland. Therefore it is peculiarly necessary that there should be somebody in the Court of Appeal thoroughly conversant with the peculiarities of Scotch law. There is one Scotch lawyer.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Two.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: One, I think.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No, two; Lord Shand and Lord Moncrieff.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is quite right—one Scotch lawyer and one Scotch Lord of Appeal. But even then the share which Scotland has in the Court of Appeal will, after what I have said, be seen to be very much less than the share of Ireland. I, therefore, do not think it rests with Ireland to complain because upon one occasion the Prime Minister has filled up a vacancy with a Gentleman who is not a member of the Irish Bar. In these circumstances I hope the House, by rejecting the motion of the hon. Gentleman, will affirm their approval of the course which the Prime Minister has taken on this occasion.
MR. ASQUITH (Fife, E.): As an Englishman representing a Scotch constituency, I enter this controversy in a perfectly detached and disinterested spirit, but I must confess that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman in the speech he has just made has adequately met the case which has been presented by my hon. and learned friend. Let me say at the outset that I am very glad that no question has been raised—as I am certain no question will be raised—as to the excellence on its merits of the appointment. Every one who has had the privilege of practising at the English Bar knows that it would be a work of supererogation, and most distasteful to the learned Judge himself, that anyone should dilate upon the many and undisputed qualifications of Lord Lindley for the highest judicial post in this country. There is no question whatever, I am certain, in the minds of the Irish Members as to the propriety on its merits of the appointment which has been made. But the case, as I understand it and to which
616
it does not appear to me that the right hon. Gentleman has properly addressed himself, is twofold. In the first place, my hon. and learned friend refers to the declarations which were made in this House at the time when the original Court of Appeal was proposed to be constituted in 1873, but for which the present House of Lords was substituted. Both from the declarations made in reference to the contemplated Court which never came into existence, and from the practice which has been uniformly followed in the case of the Court which took its place, it appears that it was the intention and that it has been the practice of successive Governments that one of these Lords of Appeal should be chosen from the Irish Bar as a representative of the Irish profession. It is quite true that in 1876 when the first appointments were made, as there were only two places vacant, the persons who filled those two places were selected from the English and Scotch branches of the legal profession. As soon as a vacancy occurred and it was possible to give representation to the branches of the three countries, the Government of that day—and I think it was a Liberal Government—appointed Lord Fitzgerald, and when in course of time his term of office came to an end through death, the Government—I think it happened to be a Conservative Government—appointed Lord Morris to take his place. You cannot in the case of a Court of such recent origin go back to the mists of antiquity, but you have a practically unbroken usage. Since it was possible to make an appointment of this kind, one of these places has been reserved for a representative of the Irish Bar. That is the first point, and the Government do not deny that they are departing from that practice. The second point seems to me to be a stronger one still—at any rate, against the present occupants of the Treasury Bench. At this moment you are proposing to recruit the judicial strength of the House of Lords upon the principle of representation — not to add to its strength, that is not the pretext, but upon the principle of representation—and in order to give confidence to our colonial fellow-subjects in a tribunal which is the supreme Court of Appeal for the Empire. That is one of the grounds put forward by the Colonial Secretary. Just at the moment when you are recognising the

617
principle of representation as regards India, Australia, Canada, and the rest of the Empire, you take it away as regards Ireland. That, I think, accentuates and intensifies the sense of wrong felt by Irishmen in relation to these recent appointments. As a disinterested spectator I cannot help sympathising with their feelings in the matter, and I think my hon. friend did well to call attention to it.
MR. WILLIAM MOOREfelt bound to say that in some respects he found himself in conflict with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. Although it was unsatisfactory to differ with the right hon. Gentleman, he had no apology to make upon this occasion when he said that if the hon. and learned Member for North Louth went to a division he and every Irish Unionist in the House would follow him into the lobby. He had never disguised the fact that he was an Irishman first and a Unionist afterwards, and while he had been a consistent supporter of the Government, it seemed to him as an Irishman that it was the duty of those of the Irish nationality who shared the views of the Government to protest against what was considered to be an undue interference with the rights of Ireland under the scheme of the Union. He spoke not only for himself but for a mooting of the Irish Bar, which was the largest that had ever taken place in his experience. He also took this opportunity to acquaint the right hon. Gentleman of the fact that the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland had taken precisely the same view, and had denounced the appointment as being an undue interference with the rights of the Irish people, as they considered it. Under those circumstances he should consider it inconsistent with his duty if he did not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman into the lobby. He wished to preface the remarks which he intended to make by expressing his desire to deal only with the matter generally. He heartily concurred as to the admirable qualities of the English Judge who had been appointed to the vacancy in succession to Lord Morris. He also wished to say that from his point of view it was absolutely immaterial what Irish Judge was appointed to the office of Law Lord, or to go into the merits or the intellectual capacity of either the English or the Irish Judge, because the question was
618
not so much who was appointed, but the right of Ireland to be represented in the supreme appellate tribunal of the United Kingdom. Objection was taken by the right hon. gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to certain remarks of the hon. and learned gentleman for North Louth, with reference to a Bill which never became law; but there were subsequent debates in 1874. Lord Moncrieff said that nothing could be more anomalous than to put Irish and Scotch Judges on appeals from the English Courts. The result of those debates was that immediately after, when the Appellate Act was passed, in 1876, the persons qualified to receive appointments under that Act were the members of the English, Irish, and Scotch Bars of sixteen years standing. More than that, little evidence was required short of a contract in writing. At the time that Act was passed there was a vacancy for two Law Lords, and what was done was to appoint Lord Blackburn for England and Lord Bowden for Scotland. But when there was a vacancy in 1882 the Government elected a member of the Irish Bar. He protested against the idea that, because members of the House of Lords who were members of the English Bar were Irishmen by birth or blood, the Irish litigant or barrister would derive any consolation from their adjudicating on matters brought before them, because what the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords had to do was to decide Irish law, not to make it. Irish law was made up of a long course of Irish decisions; as well as by statutes, and it was the duty of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords not to lay down the law according to English ideas, but to make, their decision according to the law of Ireland and according to the decisions, that had been made under which titles had passed and which had themselves, accumulated after many years. Had, for instance, the well-known case of Allen v. Flood been decided according to Irish law, the English people would have been up in revolt. It was this state of things that Ireland suffered from. The Law Lords comprised four Englishmen and one Scotchman, and if a question came up from Ireland he did not sec how they could give a decision which would command the confidence of that country. The First Lord of the Treasury had referred to a fact which was not, in

619
his (Mr. Moore's) opinion, a very important one, so far as the question of Irish appeals was concerned. When the Appellate Act was passed the number of appeals from the English Courts was twenty-seven, from Scotland twenty-two, and from Ireland five. But from 1874 the rate of appeals rose, and that disposed of one of the grounds for not giving Ireland an Irish Lord of Appeal. It was perfectly true that there was little, if any, Irish representation from 1833 to 1876, but what had that to do with the present case? It was because that system was so unsatisfactory that the Appellate Act was passed. The right hon. Gentleman also said that Scotland was in a different position to Ireland because they had a separate jurisprudence, the origin of which was essentially dissimilar to that of England. No doubt it was dissimilar, but so was Irish jurisprudence, and whenever an Irishman attempted to get an appointment in the English Courts the great point raised by the English barristers was the great dissimilarity of the law. It was said, "Irish law is so different; you have no knowledge of our system." He would not detain the House further, but in loyalty to his countrymen he thought it was his duty to take the stand which he had taken, and to have regard to old Parliamentary precedent, and, above all, to protest against the theory that Ireland, whose generals were admitted into the councils of the Empire, could not supply lawyers wise enough to be admitted until they had undergone the hardships and the drudgery of the English Bar.
SERJEANT HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.): I confess I was disappointed with the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury mot the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Louth. I can assure the House that no question has more excited, I might say, the indignation of not merely the profession but people generally in Ireland than this last appointment on the part of Her Majesty's present Government. As the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down mentioned, at one of the largest meetings of the Irish Bar at which I was ever present in the course of my long experience, a resolution was adopted which I now take the liberty of handing over to the right hon. Gentle-
620
man the First Lord of the Treasury, in which they protested against the violation of the understanding which was come to when the Appellate Act of 1876 was passed. As that resolution has not been put before the House, I beg leave to read it—
"That the members of the Irish Bar, in general meeting assembled, hereby record their protest against the appointment of a member of the English Bench, however distinguished, to fill the vacancy created among the Lords of Appeal-in-Ordinary by the retirement of Lord Morris. The Bar consider that this appointment is a distinct violation of the understanding hitherto observed, that Ireland should be represented in the Court of Ultimate Appeal by the selection from the Irish Bench or Bar of at least one of the four Lords of Appeal-in-Ordinary."
A similar resolution was also adopted by the Incorporated Law Society in Ireland, representing the entire body of solicitors in that country. There are no two bodies which in their majority have been more consistent in what I may call their loyalty to the Unionist party, and therefore any protest coining from that quarter should be received in a very serious spirit. These resolutions rest upon grounds not only of right, but of expediency. It is quite in vain to cry, as the First Lord of the Treasury did, to date the whole question from 1876. We have to consider what the rights of the Irish people were. This is not a Bar question; it is not a mere question as to whether a member of the Irish Bar or a member of the English Bar is or is not to be the recipient of a good salary; it is a question affecting the interests of the Irish people and their independence so far as that independence is consistent with the present constitution of the United Kingdom. The Irish House of Lords up to 1716 had the sole right of entertaining appeals from the courts of law and equity in Ireland. An extraordinary thing took place in 1716. In a certain action which has been referred to, the English House of Lords arrogated to themselves the right of deciding an appeal coming from an Irish Court. Ft being protested against, what did the English Parliament do? It passed an Act in 1716 declaring that the right of appeal should lie from the Irish courts to the English courts. That Act was in operation up to 1782, when in a gleam of independence an Act was passed by the Irish House of Parliament declaring that

621
the right of appeal from the Irish courts of law lay only to the Irish House of Lords. What happened next? Lord Mansfield, in defiance of the Irish Act, and in contempt of the Irish legislature, endeavoured to fall back upon the old practice, and entertained an appeal from an Irish court. That was seen to be a flagrant violation of the constitutional rights of Ireland. At that time the English Government were alarmed at such an infringement of our rights, and in the very next year, 1783, the English House of Commons passed an Act of Parliament declaring that the Irish House of Lords alone had the right to entertain appeals from the Irish courts of law. That existed from 1783 to the time of the Union, and here conies in the question of that Union—the Treaty between two independent countries represented by their respective Parliaments. This is another illustration of the efforts by which the present Government, and indeed latterly all Governments, have endeavoured, on the one hand, to hold Ireland tightly by the Act of Union, and, on the other hand, to escape from the articles of that Act when they bear in favour of Ireland. Just as in the case of the Financial Relations question they endeavour to violate the eighth article of the Treaty of Union, so now by this appointment they are treating us in the very same way. By the eighth article of the Act of Union it was expressly declared that the right of appeal from all Irish Courts should be to—what? To the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That was necessary because the Irish Houses of Parliament were abolished. But what was the Parliament of the United Kingdom? It had the Irish House of Lords incorporated in it. Twenty-eight representative Irish peers were always to be members of that Parliament, and therefore it still retained the Irish element in the appeal from the Irish courts of law. This Act of 1876 would never have been passed or tolerated by the representatives of Ireland except on the understanding that Ireland, by its Bench and Bar, should always be represented in the new Court of Appeal. The First Lord of the Treasury has said that all this history has no application. I deny that altogether. You cannot construe the Act of Parliament, or understand what took place in bringing it about, without bearing in mind what the relations of the two countries
622
were at the time. So far back as 1872 it was found that the right of appeal lying to the House of Peers caused delay; so far back as 1872 an agitation was commenced, and Bills wore introduced to remedy this defect. I must trouble the House by quoting what Lord Redesdale said on one occasion in 1873, when arguing against the abolition of the appeal to the House of Lords—
"Not only, he might add, had Scotland and Ireland a right to protest against the jurisdiction of the House of Lords being done away with on the score of efficiency, but because it was a tiling to which they were entitled by their several Acts of Union."
On an earlier occasion, when the same question was agitated in 1872, Lord Cairns, in arguing against abolishing the House of Lords as the Court of Appeal for Scotland and Ireland, is reported in Vol. CCX. of Hansard [Third Series], page 1990, to have said—
"Now, as to Ireland, the subject of the appellate jurisdiction was one that caused very great contests in Ireland in the last century. In 1783, after much controversy and debate, Ireland succeeded in having the House of Lords, which then existed in Dublin, the tribunal of final appeal for Irish eases, and for that reason, on the union of Ireland with this country, there was an agreement that Irish appeals should be heard by this House only; but what will the Irish people say if they hear that appeals for their Courts may be brought before three English barristers of ten years standing?"
That was the proposition of the Bill then in question.
"Is this a moment—when Home Rule is exciting so much agitation in Ireland—is this a moment for you to open a door which you may hereafter be very glad to shut, and to give those who are agitating for Home Rule an opportunity of saying to their countrymen— ' Do not carry your appeals to London, to have them heard by three barristers of ten years standing.' Remember, my Lords, when you talk of the 'imperial Parliament,' those words have a substantial meaning—they are not words of mere formal description; and I take it that one of the greatest advantages in a tripartite country like ours, is that the supreme appellate jurisdiction is exercised by a tribunal composed of Members of this House, which House itself is composed of Peers who represent every part of the kingdom."
That is the principle which was embodied in this Act of 1876, and you must take the whole history, and what occurred between 1872 and 1876, in order to put a fair construction upon the Act in question. Then came the Act of 1876. It so happened that there was an eminent member of the Irish Bench, Lord O'Hagan, who was then

623
ex-Lord Chancellor, and who therefore was able to, and did constantly, attend in the House of Lords. The original Bill of 1876 appointed only two Lords of Appeal, it being understood that on certain events happening two more would be added. The Government added Lord Blackburne, the English Lord of Appeal, and made the Lord Advocate, Lord Gordon, the Scottish Lord of Appeal. Lord O'Hagan sat as representing the Irish element in that Court of Appeal, because by the Act ex-Lord Chancellors were made members of the Court. Lord O'Hagan continued to attend during the whole of his life, and he did not die until after the appointment of Lord FitzGerald as the Irish representative, who was succeeded by Lord Morris, who has just retired. Therefore we have this unbroken succession—the appeal to the House of Lords for the earliest period of Irish history up to 1876, and in 1876 on the new tripartite tribunal was an English, a Scotch, and an Irish representative. That went on until, for some reason that no one can fathom, though about which there may be various conjectures, the Irish Bench and the whole of the Irish Bar are treated with contempt and indifference, and a member of the English Bench, no matter how distinguished—I have not a word to say in disparagement of the noble lord—is promoted. That is most unjust and unreasonable. I have spoken thus far on the grounds of right and of constitutional principle. But on the ground of expediency is it not clear to everyone that there are great distinctions between the English and the Irish law? There are branches of the Irish law of which English lawyers know nothing, and which it is not their province to learn. English lawyers have quite enough to do to learn their own business without travelling into the wild regions of Irish law, which would rather puzzle them and perhaps divert them from more lucrative and profitable pursuits. There is the Landlord and Tenant's Code altogether peculiar to Ireland. There is the Local Government Act, which in principle is altogether different from the English Act. That Act bristles with difficulties; it is dependent altogether on the Grand Jury system in Ireland, which, as everybody knows, is peculiar to that country. Questions must constantly arise in which the purely English trained judicial mind, no matter how brilliant, will be more or less
624
a novice. What has taken place is unfair not merely to the Bar of Ireland, but to the people of Ireland. They want judges who know the peculiar law and customs of the country. The very language of the people—I am not speaking of the Celtic language, but their ordinary phraseology—their peculiar customs, the peculiar traditions, and the failings and the virtues of the race—of all these matters it is necessary to have some knowledge in order that an adequate opinion may be formed on cases which may arise. Why, then, is it that on this particular occasion a new Law Lord, who probably has never set foot in Ireland, is substituted to represent the Irish element on this judicial tribunal? It cannot be said that at this moment there are not on the Irish Bench men who would be an ornament to any Bench in any community, and who would add brilliancy even to the Court of Appeal in the House of Lords. It is a slight to them and to the Irish Bar, and one, as I said on another occasion, they deserve, because they have always sacrificed the natural tendency and aspirations of Irishmen in their anxiety to uphold and to conciliate first the Tory and now the Unionist party. And behold! their reward.
MR. BIRRELL (Fifeshire, W.): If we were at liberty to consider this most important question simply from the point of view of the interests of the suitor and the benefits to jurisprudence, I believe we should all, whether we be Englishmen, Scotchmen, or Irishmen, at the bottom of our hearts be in cordial agreement with Mr. Disraeli—not indeed in his humorous aspersions (as I am quite sure they were intended to be) upon the Scottish and Irish intellect, but in thinking that when the Crown has to appoint men to such positions as the one under discussion, it is a thousand pities that it should not be free to choose those of the finest intellectual calibre instead of having to consider the question of their birth and breeding. We may in this House have the utmost confidence in the principle of representation, but in matters of law I protest that I do not know any principle which appeals less to me. What we want in the Court of Appeal are men of the highest intellectual calibre, and I am sure a Scotsman would far sooner have his case tried by an Irishman of that character than by a Scottish judge for whose intel-

625
lect he had a supreme contempt. But unfortunately, in this matter we are, in my judgment, bound hand and foot. You cannot have a federation, and you cannot have all the glory and charm that are supposed to belong to a number of federated countries, without making very considerable sacrifices, because these countries will not willingly join in these federations unless it is distinctly understood that some of the spoils of office are reserved respectively for each, and not thrown into hotchpotch where only the best men can get them. Although the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury seemed to think it was very irrelevant of my hon. and learned friend behind me to introduce the topic of impending changes in our Court of Final Appeal, it seemed to me that his observations were perfectly relevant. But, however that may be, speaking as an English practising barrister of twenty-five years standing, during the whole period which has elapsed since 1873 I do not think there ever was a member of the Bar who either followed the various legislative changes which took place between 1873 and 1876, or listened to the traditions and talk of the profession, who had it not firmly embedded in his mind that it was part of the bargain, understanding, or arrangement, that Ireland should always have in the House of Lords, as the final Court of Appeal, an Irish Lord sitting there, not because he happened to have been born in Ire-land, or because he happened to have some Irish blood in his veins—I hope we all have a trace of that blood—but as an Irish judge or barrister. Therefore I submit it is entirely irrelevant to turn now and ask us to look at the pedigree and to examine the circumstances of the birth of noble Lords sitting in that assembly. We are told that Lord Macnaghten is an Irishman. All I can say is that when I came to the Chancery Bar I found him in chambers in New Court, Lincoln's Inn; apparently he had been there a long time, he enjoyed a lucrative practice, and I gazed upon him with envy. He sat as leader in one of the Chancery Courts for a long time, and we regarded him as an English Chancery barrister. We might occasionally guess from his peculiar humour that either he or his mother before him must have resided in Ireland, but the source from
626
which a member of the English bar gets his wit—or his dulness—must remain to most of us a matter of complete indifference. Lord Macnaghten was an English barrister, brought up in all the traditions of the Chancery Bar, and it was as such that he was called to the House of Lords. It is, therefore, not fair to say to the Irish people, "Well, it is quite true that in the place of Lord Morris we have appointed Lord Lindley, but if you look round the House of Lords you will find several Irish gentlemen sitting on those scarlet benches." That is not the point. The point is that they are not there as Irish Judges or barristers, but simply as talented and distinguished Irishmen who have left their own country and made fortunes elsewhere. I say we ought carefully to preserve this tradition, and certainly this was a most unfortunate time to choose to depart from it. Although I do not think this federal way of choosing persons from far-off bits of country whom you wish to conciliate is altogether the best mode of getting the finest legal intellect into one room, still we all know that the Irish legal intellect is of the very finest order. But the real mischief of our system is— and I shall always consider it a scandal— that appointments of this character to the very highest judicial office it is possible to conceive should be of a party and political character. It is no disrespect to the Irishmen who have sat in that final Court of Appeal during the last ten or fifteen years to say that it is notorious that they are inferior in intellect and legal calibre to the judges sitting on the Irish Bench. There were men in Ireland better fitted, had it been a mere question of judicial eminence, to occupy these positions, and that will always be so while you allow appointments of this kind to follow political lines. Each party has always somebody to reward, some services to repay. The man who is so paid is not rewarded because he is more fit than anybody else for the office, but because he has done political service for his party. Therefore, if you want to get over any difficulty which attaches to this federal system of representation, to make it stronger than it is, you will never do it unless on both sides of politics those appointments are not made as a reward for political services. But, on the question which has been raised, I entirely agree, speaking

627
as an English barrister, with my hon. and learned friend behind me. The view of the profession has always been, since that Court was constituted in 1876, that an Irish and a Scottish Judge or an Irish and a Scottish barrister of great standing
should be there to represent the jurisprudence of those countries.
Question put.
The House divided: — Ayes, 99; Noes, 144. (Division List No. 127.)

AYES.

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

Gourley, Sir. Edward Temperley

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Malley, William

Barlow, John Emmott

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Pickard, Benjamin

Birrell, Augustine

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Blake, Edward

Horniman, Frederick John

Reckitt, Harold James

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Howell, William Tudor

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Broadhurst, Henry

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Burns, John

Labouchere, Henry

Rentoul, James Alexander

Burt, Thomas

Lambert, George

Rickett, J. Compton

Butcher, John George

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Caldwell, James

Leng, Sir John

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

Lewis, John Herbert

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Lloyd-George, David

Souttar, Robinson

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Steadman, William Charles

Channing, Francis Allston

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Clarke, Dr. G. B.

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Colville, John

Macaleese, Daniel

Tennant, Harold John

Commins, Andrew

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu'n'sC)

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

Crilly, Daniel

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Crombie, John William

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E)

Wallace, Robert

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

M'Crae, George

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Dermott, Patrick

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Doogan, P. C.

M'Ghee, Richard

Wason, Eugene

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Maddison, Fred.

Weir, James Galloway

Duckworth, James

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

Dunn, Sir William

Molloy, Bernard Charles

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

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsfd.)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Fenwick, Charles

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Yoxall, James Henry

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Moss, Samuel

TELLERS FOE THE AYES—

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

William Moore.

NOES.

Aird, John

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

FitzGerald, Sir. Robert Penrose

Allsopp, Hon. George

Charrington, Spencer

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Arrol, Sir William

Chelsea, Viscount

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Baird, John George Alexander

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Forster, Henry William

Baldwin, Alfred

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

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

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

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

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fry, Lewis

Banbury, Frederic George

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Galloway, William Johnson

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Garfit, William

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

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Bethell, Commander

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Bhownaggree, Sir. M. M.

Currie, Sir Donald.

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Curzon, Viscount

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geor.)

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Donkin, Richard Sim

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Bullard, Sir Harry

Doxford, Sir. William Theodore

Hamilton Rt. Hon. Lord George

Carlile, William Walter

Drage, Geoffrey

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Henderson, Alexander

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

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Hickman, Sir Alfred

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

Faber, George Denison

Houston, R. P.

Cayzer. Sir Charles William

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Howard, Joseph

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

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

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worcester)

Fisher, William Hayes

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Morrell, George Herbert

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

Keswick, William

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

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

Kimber, Henry

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Knowles, Lees

Newdigate, Francis Alex.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

Pierpoint, Robert

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

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Thornton, Percy M.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace Curzon

Tollemache, Henry James

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)

Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward

Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffild)

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Lowles, John

Rankin, Sir James

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton)

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Remnant, James Farquharson

Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

Macdona, John Cumming

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

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

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir. Matthew W.

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

M'Killop, James

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

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

Manners, Lord Edw. Wm. J.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wylie, Alexander

Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

Wyndham, George

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Sandon, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Milward, Colonel Victor

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Sir William Walrond and

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Mr. Anstruther.

SUPPLY [9TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.

  CLASS II.
  Motion made and Question proposed, " That a sum, not exceeding £8,095, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Offices, including a Grant in Aid of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Fund."
  MR. WEIRsaid that so much of the time of the House had been taken up that evening by Irish business that he would be very brief in his observations. He wished to draw attention to the inadequate and unsatisfactory representation of the Secretary for Scotland in that House. Under a Liberal Administration they had the Secretary for Scotland in the House of Commons. The Lord Advocate had many outside duties to perform, for he was a director of various companies. He had also to attend upstairs to Bills relating to Scotland, and he had also to be in a position to justify Cabinet Ministers holding directorships. The Lord Advocate had far too
  630
  many irons in the fire to attend to Scotch affairs. He was not alone in this complaint, for on the 20th March last✶ the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire said the Lord Advocate was, as usual, absent, and he also stated that the right hon. Gentleman had not the courtesy to be in his place to hear what was said upon Scotch business. The result was that Scotland had to suffer very seriously in this respect. The Lord Advocate was ignorant of many of the subjects with which he had to deal in the House, and he had too many irons in the fire to attend to the work of his own Department. The Solicitor General for Scotland was not in the House of Commons, and if the Lord Advocate was absent Scotch business was then handed over to a junior Lord of the Treasury, who knew nothing about Scotland. He contended that Scotland should have at least another representative in the House of Commons, and the Government ought to take care to appoint deputies to attend to the work satisfactorily and not in the way it had been done by the right hon. Gentleman. There were various other matters he had intended to speak upon, but having regard to the lateness of the evening he would not deal with them. He begged to move that the salary of the Secretary for Scotland be reduced by £100.
  Motion made, and Question put, " That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100,
  ✶ See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxx., page 1348.

  631
  in respect of the Salary of the Secretary for Scotland."—(Mr. Weir.)
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: While I do not wish to endorse every item which the hon. Member has brought as a charge against this particular Government, I entirely sympathise with the desire he expressed to see the Secretary for Scotland a Member of this House. I was in the House of Commons when the office was created, and I am perfectly certain, and I know that the large number of hon. Members who supported the proposal will agree with me, that the original intention was that we should have the office of Secretary for Scotland held by a Member of this House, and not be exposed to the inconvenience of having a gentleman of ability who, without any knowledge of Parliamentary affairs, should be put in charge of Scotch business in this House. That was the principle which guided Scotch Members in pressing for the establishment of the Scotch Secretaryship, and I must say that that object appears to have been entirely frustrated by the practice which has been adopted by the present Government. On the discussion of this Vote last year it was ruled that matters pertaining to the administrative duties of the Secretary for Scotland might be brought up on this Vote, although it was competent to bring them up under another Vote. I brought up last year a matter which I thought might have been more conveniently brought up on another Vote. You, Mr. Lowther, saw the difference between the administrative and official work of the Secretary for Scotland, and you allowed a discussion on that point. The point I wish to call attention to is one of policy, in connection with which the Secretary for Scotland is entirely responsible, and which he has dealt with personally. It relates to education. The Secretary for Scotland has had the matter in hand, and he has personally gone into it. I refer to the continued neglect to provide 1,100 children in Renfrewshire with education. That is a policy which the Secretary for Scotland has allowed to continue.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): This matter does not come under this Vote,
  632
  but it is absolutely immaterial to me which Vote the question is taken upon.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I think: it will be perhaps more convenient upon this Vote, because the Secretary for Scotland has been personally and directly responsible for the policy pursued in. this matter. He has had personal interviews, on the subject, and made suggestions and proposals, and I think, under those circumstances, one is perfectly entitled to discuss this matter on this Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think this matter ought to be raised on the Education Vote.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: It was raised before on a Vote in connection with a grant given to the School Board. In this case what has transpired since has been direct negotiations between the Secretary for Scotland, and what I contend is that he has adopted a policy contrary to the well-being of those requiring education, and that he is responsible for the fact that 1,100 children have been neglected in this respect.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the matter belongs to education, for it is a criticism of the system now being carried on. I think, therefore, it ought to be raised on the Education Vote.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I listened with great attention to the opening remarks of my hon. friend the Member for Ross-shire, and as far as I was able to follow the drift of what he said, I came to the conclusion that he was moving a reduction of the salary of the Secretary for Scotland. That is a motion for which I intend to vote if it is pressed to a division, and I desire to state the reasons for which I will do so as briefly as possible. I have, I may say, a high respect for the present Secretary for Scotland, both as a man and a Minister. Therefore, I desire to dissociate my action from any supposition that, in voting for a reduction of his salary, I am actuated by any personal feeling or anything of that sort. I wish also to dissociate myself from the reflection made in the heat of the moment by my hon. friend upon the competency of the Lord Advocate.
  MR. WEIR: I made no reference to the incompetency of the Lord Advocate.

  633
  He is a most capable and a most brilliant lawyer, but he is not the official Minister who is responsible.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: Then I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I understood that he had said that the Lord Advocate was ignorant, but I will not pursue that point further. I think there is some just ground for the complaint made by my hon. friend, that we have no one in this House who really represents the Scotch Office with knowledge, and who can answer with responsibility and authority the very important questions which are sometimes put not only from this side, but also from the opposite side of the House. So far as the Lord Advocate is concerned I wish to say, without using the expression offensively, that in regard to this matter the Lord Advocate is merely a conduit pipe between the Scotch Office in Whitehall Gardens and this House. That is an exceedingly unsatisfactory state of affairs, and but for the fact that the Lord Advocate possesses a great knowledge of nearly all Scotch business and is an exceedingly able man, the position would be infinitely worse. We are now in a different position from that in which we were before the creation of the office of Secretary for Scotland. Up to that time the office of Lord Advocate was a great office. The Lord Advocate, in point of fact, had not only all Scotch legal business, but it might be said that he had all Scotch Parliamentary business in his hands. He was a great official personage who, of course, was always in the House of Commons, and therefore as long as these conditions prevailed there was every reason to be perfectly satisfied that adequate attention was secured for Scottish affairs; but since the great mass of Scotch business has been divorced from the office of the Lord Advocate, and especially since the Government have transferred the Scotch Office to the House of Lords, we who represent Scotch constituencies in this Chamber are obliged to be content with such perfunctory answers as we can get, and which we know to be perfunctory, not from any fault of the Lord Advocate, but because we know he is merely a conduit pipe between Whitehall and Westminster. That is a very unsatisfactory position, and it is on that ground, and on that ground alone, without meaning any disrespect
  634
  whatever, either to the Scotch Secretary or to the Lord Advocate personally, that I feel myself bound to vote with my hon. friend.
  MR. CALDWELL: I quite coincide with everything that has been said by my hon. friend the Member for Wick Burghs. There is no doubt whatever that Scotland suffers enormously from the fact that the Secretary for Scotland is not in this House. I do not, of course, complain of the adequacy of the Lord Advocate as representing the Secretary for Scotland, nor of his ability. So far as that is concerned, there is no question on this side of the House. But every hon. Member knows perfectly well that the Lord Advocate has not got a free hand. When a measure comes down to the House the Lord Advocate has got his brief, and is instructed with regard to what he can concede, and he can make no concession beyond that until he can consult his chief. That is a very serious matter, and for this reason: if Scotch business were managed by the Lord Advocate he would be the only responsible Minister in charge of a Bill, and, subject to the Cabinet, could make any concessions he thought fit. Everyone knows that when a Bill comes forward, however carefully it may be prepared, the Minister in charge of it feels it necessary from time to time, after hearing the arguments brought forward in this House, to make concessions, and after these concessions the Bill is oftentimes immensely improved and its progress is expedited. That is an advantage which we have for instance in the case of the President of the Board of Trade, and indeed of almost every other Department of the Government. The member of the Government in charge of a Bill has, as a rule, the most perfect control over it and is, either on the spur of the moment or after consultation with his colleagues on the Treasury Bench, able to make concessions whenever they are considered desirable. But in this particular case the Lord Advocate has no power to make a concession. The man who has the power to make a concession is the man who never hears the arguments. We may speak to these benches, be they empty or be they full, but the man who should hear is the man

  635
  who never hears. He is never in this House. He does not even come to the gallery provided for him, like the Secretary of State for War when the Army Estimates are under discussion. The Secretary for Scotland, on whom the whole legislation of Scotland depends, is a man who notoriously never sits in the gallery of this House to listen to the discussion of Scotch business. Where is he to-night? He is the man whose salary we are considering, and why does he not come to the gallery and listen to the discussion and hear the grievances of the people of Scotland. Look at the power of the Secretary for Scotland. There is not one single thing connected with the government of the people of Scotland that he does not control. He is President of the Local Government Board, he has control of the Lunacy Board, and he now also controls all the Private Bill legislation of Scotland. He has every department of Scotland under his thumb; no person can move without him, and yet that man with all that power never appears in this House to listen to the arguments that may be addressed to the Government. What is the result? It is, of course, that we get a cast-iron Bill sent down here, which it is impossible to amend. We may discuss it as long as we like, but the man who alone is capable of being moved in the matter is the man who never bears our arguments. The Lord Advocate, with all his ability and eloquence as an advocate, has to get up and plead the case put before him in the Bill, whereas, if he had the measure under his own control, I venture to say he would in many cases alter it far more than he is able to do at present. There never was a more justifiable reduction than that which has been moved on this Vote. It is bad enough that the Secretary for Scotland should be in the other House, that he should not be in touch with the constituencies, and that he has not to seek election. But all that in itself would not be a sufficient justification to move a reduction of his salary, because there are undoubtedly in the other House men on both sides with very wide views. But I maintain that it is not doing justice to Scotland when a Scotch measure is before the House, or when the Scotch Estimates are under discussion, that he should not think it worth his while to come here and acquaint himself with the views of
  636
  Scotch Members, and adapt his policy more in accordance with the views of the House of Commons. If we have a Scotch. Bill it is sent to a Grand Committee and Scotch Members are ignored, and when it is passing through this House we are given no opportunity of amending it. On the ground, therefore, that the Secretary of Scotland is not represented in this House by one having full authority to make concessions, and that Scotch business is entirely in the control of a man who is not acquainted with the views of the Scotch Members, I certainly shall support the reduction that has been moved.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Two questions have arisen in this discussion. One is as to the general undesirability, according to hon. Members opposite, of the Secretary of Scotland not being in this House, and the other, which is somewhat a matter personal to myself, refers to my personal inadequacy to represent the Secretary for Scotland, and the various-evils which follow in its train. I may perhaps be permitted to take the last subject first, as it is the less considerable of the two. So far as I myself am concerned, I find it very difficult to know exactly where I stand, because on the one hand I am told by hon. Gentlemen that I am a person of great ability, and the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty declared that the furthest thing from his mind was. to consider me in any way incompetent.
  MR. WEIR: As a brilliant lawyer.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I quite understand. All these compliments are very dear to me; but then, on the other hand, I find that, according to the view of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I am very ignorant, and have no grasp of Scotch affairs. That is a sad thing. How it is possible to be at one time a competent lawyer, as he is so-anxious to assure me I am, and at the same time to be very ignorant and to have no grasp for Scotch affairs, is to me a puzzle. I was born in Scotland, which is, perhaps more than many hon. Members opposite can say; I have passed my whole professional life in Scotland; and though

  637
  it is undesirable to talk about oneself, I have an idea I can stand a competitive examination regarding public affairs in Scotland against any Member of this House. I have not yet found any superior knowledge on the part of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty or anyone else. The hon. Member brought in a question which is really germane to quite another subject which we were talking about the other evening. Whatever may be said on the question of Ministers being directors of companies, my being a director of a private company does not interfere with my labours in this House, and so far as I remember, I have not been a single day absent since I have been in office; and if the hon. Member will look at the division lists he will find corroboration of my statement. So far as private practice is concerned, which under the existing Minute I am allowed, that is merely theoretical, because, considering the duties to be discharged in this House, it is quite impossible for me to conduct a private practice in Edinburgh. The hon. Member complains that I am very ignorant and have no grasp of Scotch affairs, and it is perfectly evident that whatever I may say to the contrary will not convince him or anyone else. After all, I shall have to trust to the general sense of the House on that subject. I have never found that the House fails to discriminate between Members who do their business and those who do not, and I can therefore repose on the general verdict of the House regarding my knowledge of Scotch affairs. The hon. Member complained particularly about questions and said that the answers showed that I had no knowledge of the subject. I may point out at once that that argument does not square with the argument of the hon. Member for Wick Burghs. Allow me to assure the hon. Member that so far as questions are concerned the Secretary of Scotland and myself both take an entire responsibility for them. The answers are prepared in the Scotch Office, but except in the case of illness or of unavoidable absence, no question is ever answered by me which has not been considered by my noble friend and myself, and we take entire responsibility in that matter. It is not a question of the answers being framed for us by clerks, as has been suggested in one of the speeches. The hon. Member for Wick Burghs said the answers were
  638
  perfunctory, but that is, of course, a matter which must be judged of by those who hear them. When the hon. Member suggests that I rarely see the Scotch Secretary he is very far afield, because I can assure him that I see the Scotch Secretary every single day, except, of course, when on rare occasions he is absent in Scotland. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty quoted from a. speech delivered on the 20th of March by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen-shire, in which he said that I had not the courtesy to appear in the House when Scotch business was brought on. I did not know that that had been said until afterwards; and, perhaps, it is just as well that the Committee should know now the particular occasion of my absence. The question discussed by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire was something referring to Scotch fisheries, and the occasion was the Consolidated Fund Bill No. 2. I see two hon. Members opposite who have been in this. House a long time, and I think they will admit that it is absolutely out of the question that a Minister should be continually in his place on the Consolidated Fund Bill No. 2, unless, of course, he has had intimation from an hon. Gentleman that he proposes to raise some question. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire did not, as he knows, give me any intimation that he was about to raise any question, and when I asked him why he charged me with discourtesy he said that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty had told him that he was going to raise the question. Certainly the hon. Member did not communicate that to me, and if I was aware that a question were to be raised I should, as an ordinary matter of House of Commons etiquette, have been present, but I never heard anything about it, and it is absurd to charge a Minister with being guilty of discourtesy because he was not in his place in the Consolidated Fund Bill No. 2, on which it is extremely rare to raise questions of the kind raised by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire. That ends the matter so far as I am concerned. Now I come to the larger question of the presence of the Secretary for Scotland in the House of Lords. Everything the hon. Gentleman has said seems to me to be absolutely applicable to any collocation of offices of which the head is in the House of Lords. The hon. Member for

  639
  Mid Lanark says that if I am in charge of a Bill I cannot make any concessions without the consent of my chief. It is very far the opposite. Certainly I can say no one has ever had a freer hand given him by the chief of his office, and I am glad I have, because I can say without any hesitation that I thoroughly enjoy the confidence of my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland. As a matter of fact the hon. Gentleman knows that I have again and again made concessions in Bills. Of course on any occasion on which I proposed to give up some vital part of a Bill I have exactly what any Under Secretary has, if his chief is not here, namely, the advantage of being able to consult with my right hon. friend the Leader of the House, and undoubtedly, with the sanction of the Leader of the House, there is nothing I may not do with a Bill that is expedient. So far as the actual power of making concessions is concerned, what is the difference in my position from, say, the position of the Under Secretary for War? At this moment his chief is in the Upper House; where is the difference between his Department and mine at the present moment? Take again, for instance, the Post Office or the Foreign Office, though of course I admit that the Foreign Office is not, as a rule, concerned in Bills. When the party opposite was in office there was a time when Lord Kimberley was at the Colonial Office, Lord Spencer at the Admiralty, and Lord Ripon at the India Office, and they were represented by Under Secretaries in this House, and surely hon. Gentlemen opposite have not forgotten that under their own regime Lord Dalhousie—whose early death we all deplore—was Secretary for Scotland in the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Wick Burghs said that it was quite different in the old days, before the office of Secretary for Scotland was created, but I must inform him that the Home Secretary had precisely the same relation to the Lord Advocate in those days as the Secretary for Scotland has now.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: That was a very late arrangement.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Not at all. Really the hon. Gentleman does not know the history of this matter. The Lord Advocate was never in the Cabinet,
  640
  and therefore never had direct audience of Her Majesty, and consequently, in matters which required direct audience he always had to go to a Secretary of State. If the hon. Member will look at the older Acts of Parliament he will find that the Secretary of State is mentioned over and over again, and all the so-called creation of the position of Secretary for Scotland did was merely to transfer to a new official the power which had previously been exercised by one of the Secretaries for State, generally the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Then the Lord Advocate had relations with more than one Secretary of State; now he practically has relations only with the Secretary for Scotland, so far as the business of his office is concerned. But the creation of the position of Secretary for Scotland—except in so far as it might lead to what might be called a personal eclipse of the Lord Advocate if the Secretary for Scotland happened to be in the House of Commons and had conduct of Bills, and would therefore be more in the eye of the House than the Minister who had not—made no difference whatever so far as the conduct of business was concerned. The matter comes back to this. Unless hon. Members hold that the head of a Department is never to sit in the House of Lords there is no real grievance in the Secretary for Scotland being in the Upper Chamber. That is a proposition which I do not think can be controverted. The practical knowledge which the Lord Advocate has of Scottish affairs is certainly no harm to him; and I do not think that hon. Members can contend that a Lord Advocate is more unfit to represent the Secretary for Scotland than an Under Secretary to represent a Secretary of State. Without desiring to make any comparisons I confess I am personally comforted by this, that if it is a question of what the hon. Member for Ross speaks of—namely, of knowledge or ignorance of Scottish affairs, I think it is likely that I should have quite as much a tincture of that particular knowledge as was displayed in the House in halcyon days when an English gentleman, although a Scotch Member—Sir George Trevelyan—was Secretary for Scotland. And I think, if the comparison were made, though I would not enter into it personally, that I would not have very much to fear from the result.
  MR. WEIR: Not on Highland matters. Sir George Trevelyan was head and shoulders above you in Highland affairs.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: It is very difficult to understand the hon. Gentleman's standard, but I have been intimately acquainted with the Highlands all my life. The matter really comes to a general discussion as to the advisability of having any practical representative of the Department in the House of Lords at all. Unless the whole system of dealing with office is to be interfered with, it is impossible for hon. Members to show that there is any peculiar grievance in the Secretary for Scotland being in the other House.
  MR. BUCHANANregretted that he was not present in the House when the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate referred to remarks which he had made on a previous occasion. The right hon. Gentleman had called his attention to them at the time they were made, and he had given an explanation of them. He regretted that he had used any words which had wounded the right hon. Gentleman in any way. The last desire he had in the world was to impute to him any want of courtesy. The best merit of the Lord Advocate was that in answer to questions he always gave the answer yes or no, and whatever he did say he stuck to. The position of the Lord Advocate in the House of Commons, previous to the creation of the post of the Scottish Secretary, was totally different to the position which the right hon. Gentleman now occupied. He was the one Scotch official in the House to whom every Scotch Member went upon any subject which came up. He conducted all the legislative business of the House. He answered questions on his own responsibility, and was in a totally different position to an Under Secretary of State for War, for instance, whose superior occupied a seat in the House of Lords. The grievance before the House was one of old standing, and resolved itself into a question of whether the Scottish Secretary should be in the House of Commons or the House of Lords. It was disadvantageous to both parties that he should sit in the House of Lords—to the Scotch Members because he
  642
  was the person in authority mainly responsible for the conduct of Scottish business, and he could not be approached in the same way as the Lord Advocate or any other Minister who occupied a seat in the House of Commons. The disadvantage to Scotch Members was amply illustrated by the fact that there were at the present moment, and had been for some few years, little trifling reforms of a non-contentious character which he firmly believed, had Scotch Members been able to have approached the Scottish Secretary in the House of Commons, would have been dealt with long ago. The disadvantage to the Scottish Secretary, for whom he had the greatest regard, was that although he was a good Scotchman and knew Scottish business thoroughly, he had never held a seat in the House of Commons. The result was that he did not know the House, that he overestimated the difficulty of getting legislation passed, and therefore was unduly timid in pressing forward such measures of reform which, had he been familiar with the House, he would have passed into law at a much earlier period. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, with considerable ingenuity, referred to various instances of Government officers who had seats in the Upper House, and who were represented by an Under Secretary in the House of Commons. The great difference between those Gentlemen and the Secretary for Scotland was that he was the supreme executive officer for Scotland. Whoever heard of the Chief Secretary for Ireland being in the House of Lords? Never since 1830, when Lord Melbourne occupied the office of Homo Secretary, had that Minister been in the House of Lords. What was wanted for Scotland was the same thing. What Scottish Members demanded was that the executive Minister' for Scotland should be in the House of Commons.
  MR. WASONdesired to call the attention of the Lord Advocate to a grievance which, though small, was very substantial, affecting the smaller towns in Scotland. It was the absence of any restriction by the authorities dealing with the sale of ice cream. [Laughter.] No doubt such a grievance excited the risibility of hon. Members, and everything that contributed to that was advantageous to the House. But

  643
  there was no question that it was a great grievance, and all that Scotland asked was that the shops should be brought under the control of the liquor licensing laws, so that they might not, as they frequently do, keep open all night long, and that they should not be allowed to be open on Sundays.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Such an important matter as that would require legislation, and cannot be dealt with under the Votes.
  MR. WASONregretted that that was so, and called attention to the fact that in the Sanitary and Police Acts every provision was made for the city of Aberdeen, and what was good for that city was surely good for the rest of the country.
  MR. WYLIE (Dumbartonshire)thought it was a pity that any Members of the House, whatever their opinions might be with regard to the desirability of the Secretary of Scotland occupying a seat in the House of Commons, should allow themselves to make an almost personal attack upon the Lord Advocate, whose ability and courtesy were very well known to all Scottish Members. He deprecated that such attacks should be made.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid the hon. Gentleman had entirely misunderstood the remarks of his hon. friend, who attributed no personal incapacity to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate.
  MR. WYLIEpointed out that he was not referring to the hon. Gentleman's hon. friend, but to other remarks made by
  previous speakers when the hon. Gentleman was not in the House.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIRexpressed his opinion that the remarks referred to were expressions of commiseration with the Lord Advocate at the difficult position in which he often found himself. He agreed with the remark of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, and thought that as the Scotch Secretary was the chief executive officer for Scottish affairs, and that the entire power of administering that country centred in him, it was necessary that he should be in the House of Commons.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERONsaid he was sorry personalities had bulked so largely in the discussion. He could not help thinking, however, that it was to a large extent the fault of the Lord Advocate himself, who had at great length gone into his qualifications for his post, and had besides been extremely unhappy in the comparison he made between himself and the late Secretary for Scotland. Those who had had the pleasure of sitting in that House with Sir George Trevelyan should be the last to undervalue the great services he rendered to Scotland.. He thought the Lord Advocate's defence of his position was utterly untenable. The right hon. gentleman must remember that the Scottish Secretary was for Scotland Home Secretary and President of the Local Government Board, and represented to a. very large extent the Board of Trade. In fact, he occupied positions which in England were occupied by half a dozen Ministers with seats in the House of Commons.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 51;. Noes, 95. (Division List No. 128.)

  AYES.

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Duckworth, James

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Dunn, Sir William

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q'n'sCo)

  Buchanan, Thomas Rybun

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Burns, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Crae, George

  Caldwell, James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Clark, Dr. G.B.(Caithness-sh.)

  Healy Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Moss, Samuel

  Colville John

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Commins, Andrew

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Crombie, John William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Doogan, P. C.

  Leng, Sir John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsfld)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Wallace, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Souttar, Robinson

  Wason, Eugene

  Mr. Weir and Sir Charles.

  Steadman, William Charles

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

  Cameron.

  NOES.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

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

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

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Plat-Higgins, Frederick

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

  Bethell, Commander

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Haslett, Sir James Homer

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Blundell Colonel Henry

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Houston, R. P.

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Billiard, Sir Harry

  Howell, William Tudor

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Robinson, Brooke

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jenkins, Sir J. Jones

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Knowles, Lees

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Curzon, Viscount

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'nsea)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Faber, George Denison

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Fellowes Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lowe, Francis William

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

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinbgh, W.)

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  M'Killop, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Milddlemore, J. Throgmorton)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Garfit, William

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. WEIRsaid he proposed to move a reduction of £10, with a view to obtaining a little further information. He noticed one item of £200 for "inspection," and he desired to know how that had been expended, as the charge appeared to him to be excessive. There was a further sum put down for " messengers," but nothing to say what those messengers were for. There was also provision made for the migration of crofters. The Congested Districts Board was established for the purpose, among other things, of developing agriculture, dairy farming, and the breeding of live stock and poultry in the congested districts. The Board had only spent a small sum of money in connection with these objects. There was on the part of the Board a great want of business capacity. There was a screw loose somewhere.
  646
  There was something seriously wrong. He complained that the Board had not provided meal mills, which were very much wanted in certain districts, although that was one of the objects the Board was appointed to carry out. With regard to the migration of crofters from the congested districts he pointed out that not one had been sent away, although it was, now three years since the Government provided money for that purpose. In reply to a question on 30th March last the Lord Advocate stated that the whole subject would be dealt with in the forthcoming Report of the Congested Districts Board. That Report ought to have been in the hands of Members before this Vote was taken, but it was not yet submitted. This was extremely unsatisfactory, for they would have no opportunity of discussing the Report for another year. He further called attention to the failure of the Board to erect lighthouses at

  647
  points where they were required. The Lord Advocate had stated, in reply to a question, that he did not know how they were to be maintained after they were erected. There was a sum of £400 at the disposal of the Secretary for Scotland for the purpose of maintaining lighthouses, and the Scotch Office did not know anything about it. He had to toil through the Appropriation Accounts, and do the work that ought to be done by the Scotch Office.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The statement is perfectly accurate. The Board have not arrived at any conclusion as to whether they should or should not maintain all these lighthouses.
  MR. WEIR: A very convenient way to get out of it. He was not surprised that the affairs of the Congested Districts Board wore not attended to as they ought to be. The secretary of the Board was a clerk in the Exchequer Office. That gentleman for his duties in the Exchequer Office received £650 a year, and he also received £150 a year for acting as secretary of the Congested Districts Board. There was also £150 paid from the funds for certain officers in the Exchequer Office. Was that the way to conduct business? For £300 they would get a man who would devote his whole time to the work of the Congested Districts Board. As a protest against the conduct of the Congested Districts Board he moved that the Vote be reduced by £10.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item E (Congested Districts Board, Scotland, Grant-in-aid) be reduced by £10."—(Mr. Weir.)
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that up to the 31st March the Congested Districts Board had got £85,000, and no Report had been given since one which was dated 31st January, 1899. Why was there no Report of what the Board had been doing since then The Board was getting money at the rate of £35,000 a year, and the Lord Advocate should have information to give to the Committee as to what was being done when he came with a Vote of that kind, What was the policy they were going to
  648
  pursue in regard to the expenditure of this money? They were at the present moment perfectly in the dark. He ventured to say that they had far more money in their pocket than they could possibly spend during the current year.
  SIR LEONARD LYELL: I should like to press the right hon. Gentleman for some explanation as to why nothing has been done in regard to the erection and maintenance of lighthouses. I believe that some arrangement could be made whereby the maintenance of the lights would be shared by the Congested Districts Board and the local authorities. I would specially call attention to the inadequate provision made for certain harbour works in Orkney. I brought this question before the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate, and received a most unsatisfactory reply. The harbour I specially refer to is that of St. Margaret's Hope. The population of the island consists of small farmers who are unable to provide the money themselves, although the total trade of the place is not inconsiderable. Although every requirement has been complied with, the smallest possible grant has so far been withheld. There has been no distinct refusal; the matter still awaits consideration and termination. I want to know why this matter has been hung up for so long. The Lord Advocate gave me an evasive answer to-day, saying that grants had been given to other places not very far off, and therefore this place, which the county authorities of every description maintain has the first claim upon the attention of the Government, has to stand over for some indefinite period. It is no satisfaction to the people of one island that a neighbouring island is to have a pier but they are to be left out. The constitution of this Congested Districts Board is most unsatisfactory. It is especially unsatisfactory to the people of the country and to Members of this House that the really responsible person who has to deal with these matters, the Secretary for Scotland, is not a member of the House of Commons so that questions could be put straight to him. The Congested Districts Board consists of the Secretary for Scotland, the Under Secretary, and the heads of im-

  649
  portant Boards. But these gentlemen are all fully occupied in their respective offices; they do not get any additional pay for sitting on the Congested Districts Board, and the work is performed in a perfunctory manner. We do not know whether or not they entertain or give any attention to the representations which are made, or upon whose advice they come to their conclusions. The result is extremely unsatisfactory. For these reasons I most strongly support the motion of my hon. friend, and I hope the Committee will enter their protest by dividing upon this important question.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I know something, though not perhaps very much, about the question which has been raised by the hon. Baronet, and there is no doubt that in the part of the country to which he has referred the action of the Congested Districts Board in regard to the harbour at St. Margaret's Hope constitutes a very distinct grievance. In fact, the Congested Districts Board have played with the question; they have put the inhabitants of the island to very considerable expense in preparing at least two surveys and possible schemes for a harbour, and then, after all, have hung the matter up. In the meantime they have undertaken to erect a pier at a place called Burray, in the neighbourhood of St. Margaret's Hope, which is absolutely unsuitable, as compared with St. Margaret's Hope, for any useful purpose. No seaman who knows anything about the place or the traffic between the north of Scotland and the Orkneys, would hesitate for one moment in a choice between the proposed harbour at St. Margaret's Hope and at Burray where the Congested Districts Board have agreed to put up a pier. I suppose the reason is that the pier at Burray is less expensive than the pier at St. Margaret's Hope, but I do not understand that it is the busi- of the Congested Districts Board to erect piers at places where they will be of comparatively little value, simply because they cost less than piers which might be erected at places where they would be of distinct value, not only to the coasting-trade, but also to the mail steamers travelling between the north of Scotland and the Orkneys. I will pass from that point to the consideration of the Con-
  650
  gested Districts Board itself. That board was created three years ago under pressure for a distinct purpose, but up to this date it has absolutely failed to accomplish that purpose or to justify its existence upon any ground whatever. The Board has done practically nothing. It was created in 1897, and from that time it has gone on accumulating sums of money which have been annually voted by Parliament for the very specific purpose of relieving the districts in certain congested areas in the Highlands, and it has not relieved a single area or spot in any congested district throughout the Highlands, In February last, in answer to a question addressed to him, the Lord Advocate stated, by way of showing how much this Board was doing, that out of a balance of £62,000 it had promised, in conformity with recommendations of committees appointed by the Board, to expend about £27,000. But there has been absolutely no evidence given by the Lord Advocate or anybody else that a single sovereign of that money has been expended. Further, the Lord Advocate said that the Board was negotiating for the purchase of certain lands in order to relieve congested areas, a purchase which might possibly involve the Board in a further expenditure of £18,000. But when information was asked in regard to this land purchase scheme it turned out that the Board had devised some totally unworkable scheme, a scheme so unworkable and so ill calculated to meet the wants of the people for: whom it was intended that not a single applicant came forward for a portion of the land. The scheme was too preposterous to enter into the imagination of any man who understood the difficulties of the people for whose benefit this Act was intended. If I remember rightly, under that scheme, with the advantage of money advanced by the Congested Districts Board, a crofter coming from a congested area where poverty was rampant was to be offered a tenancy which would have cost him something like £23 per annum, and he would further have had the inestimable benefit of a loan of £300 for the erection of buildings at an interest of 2¾ per cent. The total cost to the man, therefore, would amount to about £30 per annum. "But," said the Lord Advocate, " we should arrange that the shooting will be let for some £12 10s. per annum, so that the rent will be reduced to about £18." Just imagine a

  651
  scheme of that character! Who was going to guarantee the value of shooting over holdings which were cut into miserable patches to be cultivated by crofters? The scheme was too preposterous. It was even worse than that, because as originally designed these crofters were to be compelled to take over at a valuation the sheep which happened to be on these large grazing farms. Nobody who knows anything about the system of sheep and cattle valuation in the Highlands would for a moment dream of buying sheep at a Highland valuation. So far as that particular is concerned the scheme was seen to be so absurd that the sheep valuation was speedily dropped; but the praises of the rest of the scheme were sung by the Lord Advocate, as anyone who desires to pursue the subject may see by a reference to Hansard of February last.✶ But there is something more than that. I believe it was upon the same occasion the Lord Advocate told us that the Congested Districts Board had actually paid £1,451 for the purposes of migration. The principal object of this Act, which took this House some time to pass, was in the first place to purchase land for the people in congested areas, and, in the next place, to migrate some of the people from the congested areas to other parts of the kingdom. We were told at that time that £1,451 had been actually paid by the Board, but a month later, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Ross as to whether or not any crofters had been migrated, the Lord Advocate confessed that not a single crofter in the Highlands had been migrated under the Act. It is a curious thing that we should have this Act in operation for three years, during which period the members of the Board have been drawing their salaries annually, and yet, so far as we know, not a single farthing of the sum voted by the House has been expended for the purposes intended by Parliament. I therefore think that, in the absence of the Report, we ought to have a very full explanation from the Lord Advocate, and an assurance that the Board is not one of the legislative farces which have been passed in recent years.
  ✶ Refer to Debate on Mr. Weir's Amendment to the Address, 8th February, 1900, The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxviii., page 973.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty referred to the salary of the inspector of alkaline works in the Scotch Office. He is appointed under the Alkali Acts, and the same gentleman acts for Scotland as for England, and his salary is divided equitably between the two countries, and I have no hesitation in saying that it has been fairly apportioned between them. That is the meaning of the sum in the Vote. The hon. Member also asked why the messengers in the Scotch Education Department are borne on the Scotch Office Vote instead of on the Education Vote. That can also be simply explained. It might be arranged otherwise, but the whole office expenses of Dover House—which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, contains the Scotch Office, the Education Department for Scotland, and the Lord Advocate's office—are borne on the Scotch Office Vote. The travelling expenses referred to are the travelling expenses incurred under the Alkali Acts. Of course, the inspector has to visit the works he inspects. I do not know precisely what sum is actually spent, but I take it that this is an estimate of what would ordinarily be spent in travelling during the year. Now I come to a topic of much more general interest, raised by hon. Gentlemen, and that is the question of the Congested Districts Board. First of all, lot me say this about the Report. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark complained that this Report was overdue, because he said that the last one had been issued on 31st January, 1899. I think he will remember that, at the end of that Report, it was intimated that hereafter the Reports would coincide with the financial year, an arrangement which is obviously more convenient for the House, because it will enable hon. Members to see precisely how the account stands at the end of the financial year. Of course that delayed the issue of the Report for three months, but in future I have no doubt the Report will be issued soon after the end of each financial year. That is the reason why the Report is later than it would be if it were only brought up to 1st January. As regards the statement that the Report has been held back there is nothing of the sort. The reason why the Report is not in the hands of Members during the

  653
  discussion of the Scotch estimates is what I have stated, and also because we are taking the estimates earlier this year than usual. I am very sorry the Report is not in the hands of Members, because I cannot help thinking that if it were we should have been spared some of the very wild statements, I cannot call them anything else, as to the action of the Congested Districts Board. When that Report is issued I think a perusal of it will show that the very last charge that can justly be brought against the Board is that it has been perfunctory and careless or has not done anything at all. In regard to the purely irresponsible charges which the hon. Member for Wick Burghs has uttered against the Board, it is all very well to say that the members of the Board are holders of other positions. They were chosen for that precise reason. I do not know that there is anything more difficult than the proper administration of funds of this sort. Of course, if we were to follow the policy of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty and to pauperise the people by giving them doles and grants, it would be easy enough, but to spend money among a poor population who naturally—as we all would if we were poor—want to got help in a pecuniary direction, in order not to patronise them but to help the district, is a matter of very great difficulty. It is a matter which clever men find it hard to perform, and one that we could not do better than bring to our side the very best experience that the country could give us. Accordingly, these Gentlemen were selected, not because they had or had not salaries for other positions, but because, so far as we could, we wanted to avail ourselves of the best possible experience. No doubt my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland is chairman of the Board, and rightly so, but he is responsible for the policy of the Board. There is the Vice-President of the Local Government Board, who, by daily communication with the inspectors of the poor in every part of the country, has immense local knowledge. Then there is the Chairman of the Fishery Board, who of course is in direct touch with many parts of the very country to be relieved. Then there is the chairman of the Crofter Committee, whom I have heard praised by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and who ought to know something about the congested districts, and three
  654
  other gentlemen chosen as representatives of the Highlands, the death of one of whom we have unfortunately to deplore —I mean Sir Kenneth McKenzie—who brought not only immense knowledge but assiduity to the work he had to perform. All I can say regarding these gentlemen is that I do not know that you could select in Scotland gentlemen who are more likely to bring knowledge and experience to the very difficult matter they have to attend to. As to what they have done, let me first refer to the question of money. The state of the account on 31st March, 1900, was that there was a balance no doubt of £60,000 in the hands of the Board, but at the same time there was a possible expenditure on liabilities of £40,000; that is to say, the account only showed the actual expenditure up to 31st March, but in addition the Board had a large liability in connection with various schemes for which payment had been promised on certain conditions, and it was estimated that if these conditions wore fulfilled £40,000 might be required. In regard to the mere fact of the Board having a balance, I must humbly confess that that appears to me an indication of a very wise policy. The Board state at the end of the Report, which will shortly be in the hands of hon. Members, that they consider it is much better to proceed with caution than by precipitate action, and not run the risk of making a mistake which might defeat the purpose for which the Board was established. [An HON. MEMBER: What have they done?] I am going to tell the hon. Member. They certainly have not spared themselves in the work they were appointed to carry out. The language of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they have done nothing, and that they have been perfunctory, and this language is used without the slightest knowledge of what the Board has or has not done. In the first place I should like to mention one thing they have not done. They found again and again in their inquiries, with a view to helping the inhabitants of the congested districts, that one of the greatest difficulties with which the young person of either sex in these districts had to contend with was the disadvantage that he or she, when the time came to go out into the world, had never had that early training which children in other districts necessarily get from their surround-

  655
  ings. In an ordinary country district a boy has continually brought before him the general idea of taking to a trade, but in these districts in the Highlands and along the seaboard a boy gets no such idea, because there are no trades and no worker in wood or iron to get a chance of looking at. The lives he sees his elders lead is that they fish for a certain part of the year, they do a little in the way of cultivation, and they get an occasional job in connection with sport, but that they have long periods of enforced idleness. The Western Highlander has never by right of descent, so to speak, been a real fisherman. I do not mean by that that very many Western Highlanders are not very competent boatmen and accustomed to the sea, but somehow or other he has never brought himself, like the East Coast fisherman has with such conspicuous success, to look to the sea as a means of livelihood altogether, and to take to the sea as his occupation. The West Coast man has always been accustomed to look to a certain extent to the land for a modicum of cultivation, and to the sea for the purpose of fishing. The girls have no chance of knowing what domestic service really is, even of the most rudimentary kind, and the result is that they are put at an immense disadvantage, as compared with others more favourably situated elsewhere. One thing which is especially noticeable when we come to consider seafaring life is that these west country boys are ignorant of its ordinary conditions, and they are very often exposed to ridicule. Ridicule to the sensitive nature found in the Celt is a very serious thing when a person has not had much experience of life. In this House we learn to be thick-skinned, but to the sensitive young man we find that ridicule is a very serious thing, and much of it will very often kill that spirit of enterprise which we are doing our very best to foster. Certain experiments have been made in the way of trying to give some of these children a certain amount of experience in what I may call the very rudiments of trade, and in the case of the girls giving them some sort of experience in what I may call the ABC of domestic service. The Congested Districts Board felt very strongly that they would be helping these districts very much if in some way or other, through the school boards or otherwise, they could impart some kind of rudimentary instruc-
  656
  tion in this direction. Unfortunately the powers of the Congested Districts Board are such that the Law Officers of the Crown had to advise the Board that they could not spend money in that direction. With a view to procuring that power my noble friend introduced last year a Bill which passed all its stages in the House of Lords which would have allowed a sum of money to be used in this direction. Hon. Members know that that Bill was blocked by hon. Members opposite belonging to those very portions of the country whose constituents would have been benefited, and the responsibility for that failure I am very glad to put upon their shoulders.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I did nothing to block that Bill; in fact, I was rather in its favour.
  MR. WEIR: And I did not block the Bill, nor obstruct it in any way.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: But the hon. Member opposite was one of those who prevented it passing through the House.
  MR. WEIR: Certainly not.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Then I am not at one with the view of the hon. Member about that matter. But let me now come to what we have done. In the first place, let me take this question of migration, about which hon. Members are so much interested. Various attempts have been made in this direction, and some have been successful and others have not. I find that the total sum for loans was £1,310, and £210 in grants to the crofters, or an equivalent to £1,400. The hon. Member for Wick Burghs has spoken of one of our larger experiments as a scheme which is totally unworkable and too preposterous and absurd. I do not know what the hon. Member's knowledge is upon this question, but I think he will be scarcely prepared to compare his knowledge with that of the Rev. J. K. Maclean and the Rev. Donald Mackenzie. Here is what they say about this question. They made a communication to the Secretary for Scotland in his capacity of Secretary to the Congested Districts

  657
  Board, and they forwarded the following resolution—
  "Resolved: To express the thanks of those districts to Lord Balfour of Burleigh and the Congested Districts Board for their earnest and large attempt to meet the need of those districts for more land by devising such a liberal scheme of loans."
  That is the scheme which the hon. Member for Wick Burghs calls preposterous and absurd, and yet yon have two ministers of the Free Church supporting at a meeting a resolution in the terms which I have read. Whether the people have taken advantage of this scheme or not is a very different thing to calling it preposterous and absurd. They went on to describe the scheme as a large and earnest attempt to deal with the question, but, at the same time, they did want it altered in regard to the taking over of the stock at valuation. Accordingly, the Congested Districts Board modified that provision, and instead of asking the settlers to take over the stock at valuation, the Board themselves proposed to buy the stock at valuation, which should be disposed of by arrangement between themselves. Unfortunately applications were not made by a sufficient number of people with enough stock to allow the matter to go on, but the experiment is not necessarily a failure yet. So late as 23rd February, 1900—the resolution I read was passed on the 23rd October, 1899—a letter was received from Mr. Lindsay, the Convener of Sutherland, in which he says—
  "I noticed with much disappointment in the newspapers of last week that the negotiations for the purchase and settlement of Syre Farm, in this county, had been broken off and the scheme all but abandoned. The purchase of this farm by the Congested Districts Board, and the probable resale thereof to suitable tenants, raised hopes that the time had arrived when the restoration of the people to the land could be begun under very favourable circumstances. I attach so much importance to the success of this scheme, and the policy involved in it, that I think no reasonable effort ought to be spared in removing as far as possible all obstacles to such success.
  "From a careful perusal of the recital of the various steps already taken I am not fully satis-lied that there are not misunderstandings on both sides, and misconceptions on the part of the applicants as to the full bearing and very favourable nature of the terms offered by the Board."
  MR. BUCHANAN: I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman is quoting from the Report of this year?
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am quoting from the appendix of this year. The result of that was that an arrangement has been made with the town of Sutherland, and we hope that there may be still some chance of trying to bring this question to a successful issue. Upon this subject I want to show the Committee how utterly reckless the statements are which are made so lightly by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House in regard to the question of the Congested Districts Board being really in earnest in this matter. As far as the Congested Districts Board was concerned, experiments were made upon land near Stornoway, but there was only one applicant who seemed to show that the desire to acquire this land was not very large. There were other attempts made in Skye, one of which has already been reported upon. Now I have dealt with the subject of migration, but what I have mentioned does not by any means exhaust the operations of the Congested Districts Board. The Board have done much for the improvement of agriculture by providing live stock, and there was also a very large distribution of seed in the year 1899, and there will be another large distribution in 1900. The Board have also conducted certain experiments on potato sprays. One hon. Member opposite seemed to ridicule these experiments, but they were being watched with the very greatest interest in the Highlands. As a matter of fact, so far as we have got with our experiments, it seems to be shown that the effect of this spray has been decidedly beneficial. These experiments are all carried out under the supervision of a gentleman who came from Ireland, and who has been on the Congested Districts Board, and who has had a great deal of practical experience in this matter. There is also an experiment being carried out as to improved methods of cultivation. It is very difficult to get those west countrymen to adopt methods of cultivation other than those which they have been accustomed to for many years. They are in the habit of planting their potatoes near to each other, with the result that you do not get the same results as if they were planted a proper distance from each other. The only way of really bringing this fact home to people of this class is to provide them with an object

  659
  lesson in potato cultivation. Accordingly, provision had been made for planting certain patches of potatoes under precisely similar soil and similar manurial conditions. Some of those patches have the potatoes planted at the ordinary distances which obtain in those neighbourhoods, and others have been planted at distances which more enlightened agriculturists suggest. In this way a good deal has been done in the matter of providing facilities to impress upon the people the advantages of improved methods of cultivation. Besides this, in the year 1889, I think there wore thirty stud animals distributed in various parts of the country, and this departure has been found to be perfectly satisfactory. The demand for stallions has not been very great, and the Congested Districts Board hope it will be realised that there is much advantage to be gained in this direction. The rams have also been very successful. And now I come to the question of piers and harbours. I will pass at once to the question raised by the hon. Member for Orkney about this pier at St. Margaret's Hope. The hon. Member is really quite in error when he thinks that the pier at Burray is in any way in substitution of the pier at St. Margaret's Hope.
  SIR LEONAED LYELL: I did not say that, for it was the right hon. Gentleman's own statement.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: No, but the hon. Member inferred it, and it is the inference I am taking exception to. I am sure he will not find anything I have said which bears that inference. He said that he did not think it was the business of the Board to choose one pier rather than another. I do not think that anyone who knows the two towns would use that argument. I do not think I am at all misrepresenting him in saying that his complaint was that we had chosen to make a pier at Burray instead of at St. Margaret's Hope.
  SIR LEONARD LYELL: I never said anything of the sort. What I really referred to was that the piers which had the greatest claims upon the Secretary for Scotland were being neglected, while other piers with less claim were receiving attention.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I do not wish for a moment to enter into an argument as to what the hon. Member said or did not say. All I want to do is to assure him that, as a matter of fact, the question of Burray having got a pier has nothing to do with the reason assigned by the hon. Member. Now why did Burray come first instead of St. Margaret's? These two places both applied practically at once, and I have no doubt there was a good deal of local jealousy. One hon. Member opposite said it would be no comfort to the inhabitants of St. Margaret's Hope to know that Burray had got a pier. But the Burray people came forward in the first instance with a practical and feasible scheme, while the St. Margaret's Hope people did not. Their scheme was inadmissible, and it had to be sent back again. In the meantime the Burray people had got a start, and accordingly their pier was granted. Of course, it is very much more economical not to have two piers going on at once. The hon. Member for Ross has charged me with great ignorance of Scotch affairs, and he spoke as if he had got a complete ease. I called the hon. Member's attention at the time to some of the points he has raised, and he has totally misrepresented the very plain answer I gave to his questions. So far from being ignorant upon this question of the maintenance of lighthouses, I could not be quite ignorant, because I stated that last year the sum of £403 had been spent for the year 1899 upon lighthouses, and this year the sum of £731 has been set aside for this purpose. The question of policy is a much more difficult one. I think I have shown the Committee, though I am afraid at some length, but it was necessary to go into particulars, that the Congested Districts Board has been anything but idle and that it is not a perfunctory Board, and I cannot help thinking that the general sense of the Scotch people will be with it in its endeavours to do what it can not to pauperise the people by rushing blindfolded into schemes of migration which with pauper-

  661
  ism combined seems to be the only outcome of some of the proposals of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I do not propose to detain the Committee by reference other than brief to the details given by the right hon. Gentleman, but two questions of general importance have been raised more particularly with regard to the position of Scotch Members in this House and the information they receive for the purpose of conducting discussions. I regret extremely that my right hon. and learned friend should have spoken of the speech of my hon. friend the Member for the Wick Burghs in the terms which he thought fit to employ. His general charge against my hon. friend was that he was talking this evening without any know lodge, and accordingly with irresponsibility. That is a serious charge, and the basis of it is that my hon. friend was not in possession of the main body of the facts contained in the Report of the Congested Districts Board. My retort to the Government in this matter is that they are responsible for having selected this evening for the discussion of the Scotch Estimates, and that the responsibility is not alone theirs, but that we are asked this evening to discuss Scotch estimates in the absence of the Reports of the Congested Districts Board, the Lunacy Board, the Local Government Board, and the Fisheries Board. We are governed by public boards in Scotland, and I think that the Government, having selected this evening for the discussion of the Scotch Votes, ought to be the last to talk of this discussion being without knowledge, when want of knowledge has bean determined by the absence of these Reports. There is another more general question still. I agree that the main body of opinion on this Vote has been directed to the question of the Congested Districts Board, and the main subject discussed has been what this Board has done with regard to the migration of crofters, and the selection and purchase
  662
  of land for that operation. I need not repeat now what I stated in this House to the best of my strength and ability, when the Bill was passed in 1897, in urging that we should invest in the Board larger powers for the compulsory purchase of land. That advice was not, of course, acceded to, and I am bound to say, notwithstanding all the details that have been given by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Congested Districts Board up to this time has made practically no progress in the main item of its task, which was the acquisition of land for the purpose of relieving congestion in certain parts of Scotland, and settling the population on land from which they could earn a living, I will give the Committee by way of summary what the Board has done in this direction. It has boon vested by Parliament with about £80,000 of money, and it, has spent on its main enterprise £1,520. That is practically a contemptible result, and I think we are entitled to condemn the administration of a Board which has only that to show for its operations. What has been said by the Government with reference to the case of Strathnauer? Nothing has been done by way of migrating crofters into Strathnauer, and the result of the whole trans action is pronounced in these fatal words, "The scheme is not necessarily a failure yet." All that a public board can say is that the main item of its programme, with regard to the acquisition of land, cannot be said to be necessarily a failure yet. There is commendation! Here is Her Majesty's Government responsible for the creation of this Board, and for selecting and apportioning its duties, and for its composition; they have the Board and the money, and yet its main scheme is pronounced in the wonderful words I have quoted. The matter is to be kept open, it is said, and it is hoped that something may even yet be done. We hope so, too; but it is very trying indeed to the patience of the Highland population that that is all that can be said for the operations of the Congested Districts Board. Then there was another

  663
  very wonderful scheme the scheme for the selection of land and its division into quarter-acre plots. That was seriously mentioned as part of the labours of the Congested District Board, but after the scheme was fully fledged and placed before the population of the district, it was found that not a quarter-acre of land could be purchased on the arrangement made by the Board. I think even after the statement of the Lord Advocate that that is a very pitiful result of the operations of a great public body. The position in which we have been placed as Scotch Members when we are asked to discuss these matters in the dark, and are then reproached with discussing them without knowledge, is bad enough, but it is not that merely I complain of. There is something underlying the absence of success in these schemes which is far deeper than any party question, and that is this —what is the position of the population of these districts, the urgency of whose case was the reason for the measure of 1897? Their lot is as it was when the measure was introduced; it is still one of conspicuous hardship, and I submit that in voting for this Amendment hon. Members will be voting for the condemnation of the prolongation of a policy under which these congested districts still remain as congested as ever, and by which misery is being prolonged, simply because this Board will not abandon its policy of lethargy and adopt a policy of courage. The Board first of all made an investigation into certain schemes of educational requirements in the Western Highlands, and it made certain suggestions, and, I suppose, it wasted time—probably months—and at the end of all these negotiations or transactions it occurred to someone to inquire whether under the Act the Board had any power in the matter, and it was found it had not, and that it had been fruitlessly wasting its time. How can we respect a Board of that kind? I do protest against the methods of this Board and against the absence of any serious conviction on the
  664
  part of the Government that before we are asked to discuss Scotch Votes we ought to have information from these Boards. We have been asked to discuss four times over matters on which Reports should have been in our hands long ago. On the whole I say that the result of the action of the Congested Districts Board, if it continues, will be one of two things. Either the Board will go, as an administrative entity in Scotland, and you will have to get some Board which will address itself to administration and not to hoarding up money, or else the grant will go, and the people of Scotland will agree that the Board has disproved its right to a grant by the lethargy of its administration.
  DR. CLARK (Caithnessshire): I hope the Lord Advocate will withdraw this Vote, because we have no information which enables us to grant this money. I might draw his attention to the fact that he informed my hon. friend two months ago that the Report from which he has been reading to-night would be in our hands last month. In March we were told we would have it in April, and now, in the middle of May, he has got the Report to enable him to answer questions, but we are not to have it, and under those circumstances he ought not to ask for this Vote to-night. Unless the Government withdraws the Vote I will move to report progress, in order to discuss the conduct of the Government from that standpoint. I have always been opposed to the action of this Board. I said that the constitution, of the Board as proposed in the Bill of 1897 was a bad one, and I so far got the House of Commons to agree with me that an Amendment was passed that there should be three members appointed apart from the official members. I regret to say that these three members are not of. the class that ought to have been appointed. How can we have any confidence with a Board of this kind? I will give two illustrations of how it acts. In the Report of 1898 it is stated that the

  665
  Board has been engaged in negotiations for the purchase of a large farm. How does the matter stand with regard to that now? The Lord Advocate informed my hon. friend in March of this year that the Board had found that the farm referred to could not be got as it was under lease until 1902. One more instance. If, as the Lord Advocate says, wild language has been used by the hon. Member for the Wick Burghs, language just as wild has been used in the Highlands by important official persons with reference to the Board. What did Cameron of Lochiel say last week at a meeting of the County Council of Inverness? A report was brought before the Council to maintain a pier under the Act. I should like to know how the money for the pier was spent. It cost the Government £1,800, and here is the language used by Cameron of Lochiel after a report made by Captain Moore, of H.M.S. " Research," which showed that the money was spent in building a pier where there were no roads for miles, and where it was dangerous for a ship to go near. Here is what Cameron of Lochiel said at the meeting of the County Council—
  "There is no more stupendous monument of folly or waste of public money existing in the Queen's dominions."
  I think the phraseology of my hon. friend is mild compared with the language used by the Convener of the county of Inverness. That is the character of the work which is being carried out, and I for one am opposed to granting further money to this Board. Regarding the constitution of the Board the Secretary for Scotland has plenty of work to do besides, and he cannot give attention to minute details, and the other official members of the Board are exactly in the same position. The Chairman of the Crofters' Commission is also sheriff of his county, and you cannot expect him to do more work. It is physically impossible. Indeed, it is wonderful how he can do the work he has to do. The same thing applies to the other official members, and practically we have a board composed of officials whose own work would occupy all their time. As to the case of Strathnaver, it is a bad scheme and can never be carried out. It is quite true that meetings have been held and that petitions have been forwarded by parish ministers
  666
  and Free Church ministers; but what is the evidence brought forward? These gentlemen simply point out the absurdity of the Government's own scheme. If that be the condition of things I do not see why we should vote this money. Nothing has been done by the Board except to hoard up money. The Lord Advocate has given us information regarding the character of the Western Highlander as against the east coast man. The reason why fishermen on the east coast are so much more successful is that they have railways near all their harbours and can send their fish to market by rail. On the west coast we have got few railways, and no steamers in winter, and when fish is landed it often cannot be sent to the markets. It is not the case that the west coast men are not as good seamen as the east coast men. When they enter the Navy or the merchant service they show great efficiency, and masters who have them on their ships know that to be the case. I must say that such a statement comes with a very bad grace from the present Government, on whom my hon. friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty has been pressing the desirability of having a training ship on the west coast, where boys could be trained for the sea, but the Admiralty and the Scotch Office have refused to do anything in the matter. I do not think that a single penny either of the money voted by this House or of the money taken from Scotch sources should be spent in educational projects. The money voted was intended for the relief of the congestion in these districts, and only £1,500 has, in three years, been spent for that purpose. I hope the Government will withdraw the Vote in order that we may have the facts before us before we are asked to vote this money. It is three years now since the Board was constituted, and I do not think we ought to vote another penny until we have the Report. I move to report progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Chairman do report progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Clark.)
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Member for Caithness and the hon. Member for Wick know very well that

  667
  the Report cannot be completed in the ordinary course till the end of May.
  DR. CLARK: I was in the House at the time, and heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that the Report would be in the hands of Members in April.
  MR. A.GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Member has not been much in the House lately. The Report will be brought out at the usual time.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not think the Lord Advocate really appreciates the grounds on which we ask that this Vote should be postponed. I believe the speech which the Lord Advocate delivered an hour ago to be perfectly unexampled in the House of Commons. We are asked to pass Votes for a particular body without having the Report concerning that body in our possession. The Lord Advocate, in a speech occupying forty minutes, read extracts from a Report which we have not got, and then he complains of our ignorance. But he went
  further and told us that the Congested Districts Board in their Report blamed certain Members of the House, because some Bill of the Government did not pass last year. I say such a remark ought not to have been made. It is not treating the House of Commons, the representative body of the nation, with proper respect to ask them to vote this ,£20,000, when they have no Report of the proceedings of this Board before us, on which we can say "Yea" or "Nay" in a matter of confidence in them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is always talking of economy and protecting the public purse. Precious economy this, which does not allow us to know how this money is to be spent, and permits the representative of the Government to get up and read extracts from a Report which is not in our possession, and accuse us of ignorance of that which we can absolutely know nothing!
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 55; noes, 102. (Division List No. 129.)

  AYES.

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Burns, John

  Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

  Souttar, Robinson

  Caldwell, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Kilbride, Denis

  Tennant, Harold John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Wallace, Robert

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Wason, Eugene

  Colville, John

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Weir, James Galloway

  Commins, Andrew

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Crombie, John William

  M'Crae, George

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Duckworth, James

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Dunn, Sir William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Mr. Buchanan and Captain

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Sinclair.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eilion)

  NOES.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bethell, Commander

  Campbell J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Baird, John George Alex.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W.(Leeds)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

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

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Russell, Gen. P. S.(Cheltenham)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.(Renfrew)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Keswick, William

  Sidebottom, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Knowles, Lees

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swnsea)

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lonsdale. John Brownlee

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Finch, George H.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Strutt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir E.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Middlemore, In. Throgmorton

  Welby, Sir C. G. E (Notts.)

  Garfit, William

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Gedge, Sydney

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir J. Eldon

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worestersh, N.

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

  Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute)

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

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Wyndham, George

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace C.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Helder, Augustus

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Sir William Walrond and

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

  Robinson, Brooke

  Question again proposed, "That Item Elbe reduced by £10."
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100. Anything more likely to bring discussions in Committee of Supply into absolute discredit I cannot imagine than the circumstances related by hon. Members who were in the House immediately before the last division. We are called here to discuss not only this particular matter, but everything which concerns Scotch administration, and yet we are not provided with the necessary Reports, facts, and figures bearing on the questions at issue. For that reason alone I press on the Government the desirability, even now, of postponing the final voting of this money at this period of the session. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware that the responsibility of bringing on this Vote to-night does not lie with any Member on this side of the House, and we may fairly fail in support of his action. I should like to know what would be the feeling in England if English Members were called upon to discuss the Education Vote or the Board of Trade Vote without the Reports of those Departments being placed before them; and I need hardly remind the House how
  670
  careful the representatives of Ireland would be to safeguard on such an occasion the interests of their constituents. I most cordially support the contention raised on this point. I think it is derogatory to those who are not supporters of the Government, and to the House itself, and is likely to undermine proper and careful vigilance over public expenditure. The pointlessness of the discussion is due to the fact that we have not got the figures and facts before us; and this has been characteristic of more than one discussion on Scottish affairs. As a great favour we have given a day to discuss the Scotch Estimates, but the evening is frittered away, and no advance made, because we have not in our possession the Reports of the Departments for which we are called upon to vote money. I maintain that the manner in which that money has been spent has been demoralising and pauperising. The Lord Advocate spoke of the necessity of making experiments, and said we had got some help from Ireland in regard to seed potatoes. It is pleasing to look to Ireland and see how agricultural development has progressed there; but no similar development has been introduced into Scotland. Nothing is, to me, more to be regretted than that we do not cultivate our own resources; and the

  671
  Scotch Office, not content with doing nothing, endeavours to withdraw its operations from the control of the British Parliament, and from the pressure of public opinion. There is no doubt whatever that there is room for a wise policy in regard to Scottish administration, and I protest against the idea that you are dealing fairly with the remote parts of the country, which are not so fully or so constantly represented in the House as the Metropolis and other parts of the kingdom, by throwing at them a lump sum of money. I can see nothing more demoralising to any part of the country than to have a lump sum of money put aside every year by Parliament for which no useful purpose is to be found. The Lord Advocate has admitted himself tonight that a great deal is to be regretted in the condition of the north of Scotland on account of the lack of communication with markets. The people there are struggling with great difficulties, and have not the same chance in the race of life as those down here. I am not blaming the Lord Advocate for voting money which these Departments do not know what to do with. I do not suppose that of the £80,000 voted to the Congested Districts Board they have spent £5,000; and I am certain that the day will come when it will be generally realised that we ought to have some more vigorous policy in Scottish administration than we now possess. The real evil is the lack of time and attention of Parliament to Scottish affairs.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: My right hon. friend the Leader of the House has always shown anxiety to meet the convenience of all sections of the House in regard to these discussions on the Estimates. No communication was made, directly or indirectly, to me objecting to this Vote being taken to-night on the ground that the Reports of the different Boards had not been issued. Hon. Members know that early in the week I communicated with the Leader of the Opposition, and intimated to him that in
  672
  he would be kind enough to discover if the Scottish Members desired to discuss any particular Vote, we would endeavour to meet their wishes. It was never suggested that the Vote for the Congested Districts Board should not be taken tonight. It was only after four hours discussion that the hon. Member for Caithness-shire moved that we should report progress. Under those circumstances I do not think it would be justifiable to report progress, and I think that the Vote might now be taken.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—RELIEF OF MAFEKING.
  Oil the Motion for Adjournment,
  MR. HEDDEEWICK: I would like to ask the Leader of the House if he has any news to communicate to the House with reference to the relief of Mafeking.
  MR. A.J. BALFOUE: No, Sir; the only news I have received is through the courtesy of the press, and it consists of Renter telegrams which profess to give official information through Lorenzo Marques to the effect that Mafeking has been relieved. We have no official information to that effect at the War Office, nor could we have it so soon as it would arrive by other channels of information, and therefore the fact that we have not got it neither proves nor disproves the truth of the information. Therefore I think it would be premature to make any announcement; but we hope and trust and have good reason to think it may be true.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock.