Commons Sitting of 13 August 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended for the remainder of the Session.
  That as regards Private Bills already returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments be now considered.
  That as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments such Amendments to be considered forthwith.
  That when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

  LOCH LEVEN WATER POWER BILL.
  (IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE HOUSE OF THIS DAY.)
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  PAISLEY DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  [UNDER SECTION 9, SUB-SECTION (4), OF THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.]
  Considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to London County Council (Tramways and Street Widenings) Bill; Devonport Corporation (Gas) Bill; Southampton and Winchester Great Western Junction Railway Bill; London County Council (General Powers) Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have agreed to Amendments to Leeds Corporation Water Bill [Lords]; Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway Bill [Lords]; Weston-super-Mare Gas Bill [Lords]; Bristol Corporation (Docks and Railways, Etc.) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896, ETC., CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Petition from Abington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT OF MALTA.
  Petition of Members of the Council of Government of Malta, for the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Praze (two); Rotherhithe; and Scottish National Sabbath School Union; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Speymouth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL AND ROYAL DECLARATION BILL.
  Petition from Bristol, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FEE FUND (HOUSE OF LORDS).
  Account presented, of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords from 1st April, 1900, to 31st March, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PARKS AND GARDENS (LONDON AND DUBLIN).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st July; Mr. T. M. Healy]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 341.]
  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT AT THE AGE OF 65).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 12th August; Mr. Austen Chamberlain]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 342.]
  ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKINGS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st April; Mr. Bartley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 343.]
  ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKINGS (COMPANIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st April; Mr. Bartley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 344.]
  LOCAL TAXATION (ENGLAND) ACCOUNT, 1900–1901.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 9th July; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 345.]
  SECONDARY EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report for the year 1901 by Sir Henry Craik, K.C.B., on the Inspection of Higher Class Schools in Scotland, and the Examination for leaving Certificates [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHINA (No. 6, 1901).
  Copy presented, of Further Correspondence respecting the Disturbances in China (in continuation of China (No. 5, 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2691 to 2693 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Adjournment Motions under Standing Order No. 17.—Return relative thereto [ordered 12th August; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed. [No. 346.]
  2. Closure of Debate (Standing Order No. 25).—Return relative thereto [ordered 12th August; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed. [No. 347.]
  3. Divisions of the House.—Return relative thereto [ordered 12th August; Mr. Coldwell]; to be printed.
  4. Private Bills and Private Business.—Return relative thereto [ordered 12th August; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.
  5. Public Bills.—Return relative thereto [ordered 12th August; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.
  6. Public Petitions.—Return relative thereto [ordered 12th August; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.
  7. Select Committees.—Return relative thereto [ordered 12th August; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.
  8. Sittings of the House.—Return relative thereto [ordered 12th August; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.
  9. Business of the House (Days occupied by Government and by Private Members).—Return relative thereto [ordered 12th August; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed. [No. 348.]
  10. Sittings of the House (Divisions and Questions).—Return relative thereto [ordered 8th August; Mr. Loder]; to be printed.

  EAST INDIA (INDIAN RAILWAY MATERIALS).
  Address for "Return, in tons and value, of all rolling stock, railway material,

  591
  and stores supplied for Indian State and Guaranteed Railways during the years 1896 to 1900, inclusive, distinguishing those supplied by British and Foreign

  Year.

  Supplied by British firms or persons.

  Supplied by Foreign firms or persons.

  Shipped in British vessels.

  Shipped in Foreign vessels.

  Tons.

  Value.

  Tons.

  Value.

  Tons.

  Value.

  Tons.

  Value.

  1896

  1897

  1898

  1899

  1900

  Totals

  —(Sir Charles Cayzer.)

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
  Address for "Return of the names of every Member returned to serve in each Parliament from the year 1885 to the dissolution of Parliament in the year 1900, specifying the names of the county, city, university, or place for which returned (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 21, of session 1887)."—(Mr. William Redmond.)

  LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) ACT, 1894.
  [ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 1 (7) OF THE ACT.]
  Return ordered, "showing, according to the Accounts for the twelve months preceding the 31st day of March, 1901, furnished to the Local Government Board under Section 1 (7) of the London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894—

  (1) The authorities to whom payments under the Act were made by the London County Council during the year;

  (2) The amount so received by each authority during the year;

  (3) The amount of the expenses incurred during the year by each such authority (a) under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (including expenses of scavenging streets); (b) in respect of lighting; and (c) in respect of streets (other than the expenses of scavenging); and

  firms or persons, and distinguishing whether shipped to India by foreign or British vessels, in the following form—
  (4) The amount expended during the year by each such authority out of the sums received by them under the Act
  (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 323, of Session 1900)."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)

  HARBOUR AUTHORITIES.
  Return ordered, "from the Authorities of the Harbours, etc., of the United Kingdom—

  (1) Giving a description of works executed within the last twenty years, distinguishing piers, docks, dredging, lighting and buoying, other works, and giving the total cost of Works under each head;

  (2) Giving present area and depth of accommodation in Harbour for ships and boats, as compared with area and depth twenty years since;

  (3) Giving the names of the engineers employed, stating if any engineers' reports on the Harbour Works have been made, and by whom and when;

  (4) Giving an account of the present state of the Works, including depth of water at low water on the bar at entrance;

  (5) Giving the time of high water at full and change of the moon, also the rise of the tide at ordinary springs and neaps above low water mean spring tide;

  593

  (6) Giving a statement of the Income for the last twenty years arising from tolls, dues, and rates;

  (7) Stating, in the case of a Fishery Harbour, the ordinary draft of fishing vessels when loaded;

  (8) Giving copies of existing Harbour bye-laws and regulations;

  (9) Giving the name and constitution of the trustees, managers, or owners of the Harbour or Harbour Works;

  (10) Stating whether the Harbour Authority is constituted by Statute or by Provisional Order, and quoting the Statute or Provisional Order;

  (11) Giving the limits of the harbour as defined by Statute or Provisional Order, distinguishing (1) conservancy jurisdiction and (2) rating area. In cases where the limits are not so defined, stating what are the recognised limits and quoting the authority therefor."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—LORD KITCHENER'S PROCLAMATION OF 7TH AUGUST.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLhad on the Paper the following question, but was not in his place to put it:—"To ask the right hon. Member for North Armagh whether he has asked or intends to ask the Government for facilities for the moving of a resolution of which he has given notice with reference to the terms of the proclamation issued by Lord Kitchener on 7th August."
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is in order to put such a question to a private Member of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes, as it appears to have reference to a resolution which the right hon. Member has set down on the Paper subsequently.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONasked the Leader of the House whether he could give him facilities for moving the resolution referred to.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The subject can be raised on the
  594
  Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, which I hope to put down for Thursday.

  MILITARY AMBULANCES.
  MR. ROUND: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state what progress has been made in the construction of ambulances of a lighter character than those used at the commencement of the war in South Africa, and if those sent out during last year, as stated by Lord Raglan, have given complete satisfaction,
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): Experiments are still in progress with an improved ambulance and a special Committee is considering the subject. No reports have been received in regard to the wagons referred to in the last paragraph.

  CASE OF THOMAS MACKIE.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the gross misconduct which led to Thomas Mackie being deprived of his pension consisted in his having, whilst smarting under a sense of what he believed to be an act of injustice involving him in pecuniary loss, sent a postcard to his superior officer with a view to inciting the latter to raise an action for libel against him; whether he is aware that apart from this Mackie's conduct was reported of the highest during the whole of his twenty years service in the Army; and whether, taking these facts into consideration, he will advise that this man's case be reconsidered by the Commissioners.
  LORD STANLEY: I have nothing to add to the replies which I have already given to the questions put by the hon. Member on this subject.

  PURCHASE OF FIELD GUNS IN GERMANY.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the

  595
  application by the authority of the Treasury of surpluses on certain grants for Army services to cover other grants for Army services in the year 1900–1901 includes the allocation of sums derived from the Clothing and other Votes to the purchase of field guns in Germany; and whether sanction will be sought next session for such application.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): Yes, Sir.
  MR. DILLON: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to bring on this resolution at a reasonable time?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot give any undertaking as to the conduct of public business.

  NON-EFFECTIVE WARSHIPS.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, having regard to the fact that the "Glatton," the "Gorgon," the "Hecate," the "Cyclops," the "Hotspur," the "Orion," and the "Wyvern," and also the gun vessels "Swift" and "Linnet," are armed with muzzle-loading guns, whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to strike these vessels off the effective list.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The "Glatton," "Gorgon," "Hecate," and "Cyclops" are ships of no military value, and will shortly be removed from the effective list of the Navy. The "Hotspur" is in commission and is at present performing useful duties as guardship. The question of removing her from the effective list will be considered at the end of her present commission. The "Orion" is in reserve at Malta, and it has not yet been decided to strike her off the list. The "Wyvern" is to be used as a target ship on the China Station. The "Linnet" and "Swift" have already been removed from the effective list.

  NAVAL MANŒUVRES—LEAVE TO SAILORS.
  MR. GROVES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty
  596
  if he can state whether the usual leave will be granted to the officers and men who have taken part in the recent Naval Manœuvres, including those engaged in the regular Channel Squadron, as has been the custom in former years on the conclusion of the said manœuvres.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Leave for ships commissioned for manœuvres will be granted as usual. Leave to ships not specially commissioned is entirely dependent on the exigencies of the Service.

  NEW ROYAL YACHT.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, with reference to the return of the new royal yacht to Portsmouth, he can give particulars of her defects and state what the Admiralty propose to do with the yacht.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Admiralty is not aware of any defects in the royal yacht. It is proposed to use the vessel for the purpose for which she was designed—namely, as a yacht for the use of His Majesty the King. I may add that during her recent voyage to Flushing and back the conduct of the ship was in every way satisfactory.

  NAVAL WORKS BILL—COALING FACILITIES AT NAVAL PORTS.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he can now specify the places for which coaling facilities are to be provided under the Naval Works Bill.
  *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): The ports at which coaling facilities are to be provided under the Naval Works Bill are Devonport, Portland, Portsmouth, the Medway, Malta, Gibraltar, Hong Kong; and, if there are sufficient funds, at Halifax, Bermuda, and Jamaica.

  COALING STATIONS—NAVAL OR MILITARY CONTROL.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the question between the War

  597
  Office and the Admiralty as to the transfer of the defence of the coaling stations to the Navy has been decided.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No decision has yet been come to.

  NAVAL EXPENDITURE.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will issue a statement of money spent under the Naval Works Acts, 1895, 1896, 1897, and 1899, bringing the account up to 31st March, 1901 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 80), before taking the Second Reading of the Naval Works Bill.
  *MR. PRETYMAN: As the accounts of expenditure for the year ending 31st March last will not be finally completed until January next, it is impossible to comply with the hon. Member's request.

  WEST AFRICAN CABLES.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in consequence of the recent purchase by the French Government of telegraph cables on the West Coast of Africa, the property of the West Africa Telegraph Company, the lines previously worked by that company will be so deviated as to avoid Bathurst and Accra, with which British possessions these lines are at present in connection.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The purchase by the French Government of the cables referred to by the right hon. Member has not yet been completed, but it has been arranged that the cables which are to be transferred to the French Government will be deviated so as not to touch at Bathurst and Accra. Those places will continue to be telegraphically connected with this country by other lines which are in British hands.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC PROCESSION AT WESTMINSTER.
  COLONEL SANDYS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government is aware that, on the
  598
  afternoon of 23rd June last, a Roman Catholic procession carrying a crucifix and images, with priests in robes exercising the rites and ceremonies of their religion and wearing the habits of their order, passed through the streets of Westminster protected by police, the public traffic being stopped to admit of the procession passing, much disapprobation being openly expressed at the time by those present; and, seeing that the ecclesiastics in this procession were acting in contravention of the statute, 10 Geo. 4, c. 7, s. 26, whether the Chief Commissioner of Police, who is responsible for permitting and protecting processions in the streets of London, will in future be directed to refuse permission and the protection of the police for processions of the kind mentioned.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is there any truth in the suggestion that these people required protection?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I am informed that the Commissioner of Police gave no permission for the passage of the procession in question through the streets, and that the police simply performed their ordinary duty, their action being limited to the regulation of the traffic and preservation of order.
  MR. FLAVIN: Why does not the hon. and gallant Member who put the question come down here with a proposal that the law be enforced?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member has no right to ask such a question of a private Member.

  BURNLEY WEAVING SHEDS.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the system which is in operation in the weaving sheds in Burnley which allows the employers to deduct from the operatives' wages one halfpenny per loom for the purpose of having the machinery oiled, and whether steps will be taken to have the practice abolished.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I have made inquiries and find that the practice described

  599
  in the question exists and is alleged to give rise to abuses. In any other industry the factory inspectors would be able to deal with such abuses under the Truck Act, 1896, but operatives engaged in cotton weaving were at their own request excluded from the operation of that Act, and the Factory Department is, therefore, powerless to intervene.

  RAILWAY RATES FOR FOREIGN TIMBER.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the rate for foreign timber is 8s. 6d. per ton, and the rate for native timber is 16s. 10d. per ton, and whether he will cause inquiries to be made and a remedy provided in this case of a preferential rate in favour of the foreigner.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): No, Sir, I am not aware that the figures are correct, and I cannot undertake to embark upon a general inquiry. I would point out to the hon. Member that he gives no particulars as to the incidence of the rate, where charged, or for what sort of timber. From a letter he has forwarded to me I gather that the rates are said to be charged between; Cardiff and Birmingham. This information is not, however, sufficiently definite to support a complaint under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act; such a complaint should contain a specific case of alleged undue preference, with full particulars, and should be made by or on behalf of a trader aggrieved.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT RETURN.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant the Return relating to Members of Parliament standing on to-day's Paper.
  *MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir.

  MEMBERS' BATHROOMS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is his intention to
  600
  reduce the number of bathrooms at present in the House for the convenience of Members; and, if so, whether, before reducing the number of rooms, he will inquire whether, because of the increased number of Members who use those bathrooms during the session, and the difficulty often experienced by Members to get the use of a room, an increased number of bathrooms is required; and whether he will provide more rooms.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): The Report of the House of Commons' Accommodation Committee recommended that the existing four bathrooms should be removed in order to provide the corridor to the additional smoking rooms; and, in lieu thereof, it was proposed to place three new bathrooms immediately adjoining the present dressing rooms. If, however, it is possible to increase the number of such rooms, I shall be most happy to consider it.

  WALSALL SCHOOL EXEMPTIONS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Walsall School Board, at its meeting in July, granted a number of complete and partial exemptions, and whether the Education Department propose to hold any inquiry or to take any steps to prevent this body from breaking its own bye-laws.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): The Board of Education have addressed a letter of inquiry to the Walsall School Board on the subject.

  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, under paragraph 8, page 9, of the Revised Instructions applicable to the Education Code of 1901, it is intended to withdraw from responsible certificated teachers in infant schools the right to administer, where necessary,

  601
  personal chastisement, even of the lightest and most trivial character.
  SIR J. GORST: The Board of Education intends to lay down the principles that punishments which excite the emotion of terror in a child should not be employed; that in an infant school no punishment should be permitted which causes bodily pain; and that in schools for older children corporal punishment should be discouraged as an ordinary expedient in boys' schools, and altogether in girls' schools. The application of these principles is left to the discretion of the managers and teachers.

  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE IN INCLEMENT WEATHER.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, under the new arrangements for not marking the school registers in country districts in the case of inclement weather, the Board of Education will rigidly insist upon the condition set forth in Article 83 of the Education Code for 1901 to the effect that the school must have been open not less than 400 times; or whether the Board of Education will issue a Minute adding a new exception to Article 83 of the Code, so as to render the new regulation of Appendix II., page 37, of the Revised Instructions, of greater practical utility to the country schools.
  SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, and, consequently, to the second in the negative.

  WOTTON-UNDER-EDGE POST OFFICE.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the Post Office at Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, has recently been made an R.S.O. office; whether the department will take into consideration the advisability of restoring it to its former position; and, if not, can he say whether the officials have been instructed to demand that the words R.S.O. shall be added to the address of all telegrams received in the town.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The substitution of a sub-post office for the former head office at Wotton-under-Edge was decided upon for administrative reasons, and, as the change does not involve any curtailment of the existing postal facilities for the public, the Postmaster General is not prepared to alter the decision. It is not necessary to add the letters R.S.O. to the address of telegrams, as "Wotton-under-Edge" is a sufficient address for telegrams for that place.

  PROSECUTION UNDER THE DEBTORS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1880—CASE OF SAMUEL WOLFFE.
  MR. PARKES: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Edgbaston Division of Birmingham, I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can give the reasons why in the case of Samuel Wolffe, late of 152, Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow (whose estate was sequestrated in 1899), the Procurator Fiscal, after having ordered a prosecution in respect of offences under the Debtors (Scotland) Act, 1880, and issued a warrant for the arrest of the debtor, caused the withdrawal of such warrant and the abandonment of the proceedings without communicating with the general body of creditors, and on what grounds he refuses to comply with the wishes of certain creditors who, on learning of the abandonment of the prosecution, communicated to him their desire that the same might be proceeded with.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgeton): The charge against the bankrupt was originally preferred by the trustee in the sequestration who represents the general body of creditors, and a warrant was issued for apprehension. Subsequently, and after further inquiries, the trustee communicated to Crown counsel the desire of himself and the principal creditors, as expressed both by letter and by a motion to that effect carried at a meeting of creditors, that the charge should be withdrawn. A pre-cognition was taken and Crown counsel came to be of opinion that there was not sufficient evidence to make a conviction at all probable. In these circumstances Crown counsel in November. 1900,

  603
  ordered the abandonment of the prosecution. That decision was communicated to the accused, and it would not be in accordance with practice now to reinstitute criminal proceedings.

  GOVERNMENT SERVANTS AND POOR RATES—CASE OF THOMAS EGLINGTON.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Thomas Eglington, who, after serving six years in the Army and a further period of six years as postman in the service of the Post Office, has become a burden on the ratepayers of the Kenmare Union, county Kerry, in consequence of ill-health as certified by the medical officer, and is in receipt of 3s. per week outdoor relief; and whether he will consider the grant of some pension to this man who has given the best period of his life to the service of the Government to prevent his thus becoming a charge on the ratepayers.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): I have no information on the first paragraph. The question of the grant of a pension in respect of service in the Army or Post Office does not rest with the Irish Government. I shall bring the question of the hon. Member under the notice of each of these Departments.

  BANAGHER GREAT FAIR.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, with reference to the forestalling of Banagher Great Fair, he will consider the effect of such forestalling on the attendance of foreign or outside buyers, who find themselves disappointed upon arriving on the legal day of the fair in securing the class of horses they came to purchase; and whether, as such buyers are often the principal purchasers of the more valuable animals, he will take steps in the interest of farmers and breeders of horses to prevent the destruction of the legal fair by the practice mentioned.
  MR. WYNDHAMpromised to see what steps could be taken in the matter.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the whole circumstances and not confine himself to one particular case?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir.

  PROHIBITION OF THE DROMOD MEETING.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a public meeting was to have been held at Dromod, county Monaghan, on the 3rd instant, and that a local sergeant of police, named Sullivan, went through the neighbourhood cautioning the people against attending the meeting, and if he can state by what authority Sergeant Sullivan acted in this case.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The police had reason to believe that it was intended to hold a meeting on the 4th, not 3rd instant, in close proximity to a certain holding at Dromod, and that if held at this place it would lead to a breach of the peace and would be an unlawful assembly. The promoters were accordingly warned that the meeting would not be permitted in the immediate vicinity of the holding in question. A meeting was held elsewhere, however, without interference.
  MR. DALY: Who instructed the sergeant to take this action?
  MR. WYNDHAM: That would be done on general instructions. It was done on the authority of the Government, and I accept full responsibility for it.
  MR. FLAVIN: May any policeman warn any person he likes?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a general question.
  MR. FLAVIN: It is a very pertinent one, though.

  IRISH AGRARIAN OFFENCES.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the Return of

  605
  Agrarian Outrages during the quarter ended 30th June, 1901, the number of offences classed as incendiary fires, twenty, and as intimidation, twenty-three, is correctly stated; and if so, whether, in view of the nature of the evidence given at the recent summer assizes in Ireland in regard to incendiary fires, inquiries will be made as to how these figures are arrived at.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Twenty-three threatening letters were reported during the quarter, and one case of intimidation (Donegal) other than by threatening letter. The number of incendiary fires reported was twenty. The reference to the evidence given at the recent assizes is not understood, but I may observe that in the majority of cases in which claims for compensation for malicious burnings are heard on appeal at assizes the offences are not of an agrarian character.
  MR. FLYNN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that it has transpired at the assizes that a large proportion of the cases were malicious only on the part of the persons claiming the compensation?
  MR. WYNDHAM: There have been cases of that kind, and there have been cases where malice has not been proved, but the discrepancy referred to by the hon. Member is not accounted for by what I have stated.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the constabulary to go more minutely into these Returns?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think they do inquire very closely already.
  MR. ROCHEasked as to the case of a man named Murphy, prosecuted by the Crown in connection with his evidence as to the burning of a cowshed.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now asking as to a case which is not on the Paper.

  CAVAN COURT HOUSE.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  606
  Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the agent to the Earl of Clanricarde, who is High Sheriff for the county of Cavan, on 1st July, without notice, broke open the door of the room in the courthouse which has been used by the finance committee of the County Council for its meetings, and by the secretary of the County Council for his private office, removed the papers therein, and put a lock of his own on it; and on same date took possession of a room which the Cavan Urban Council has used as an office and for its meetings since 1854; did the late secretary of the Cavan Grand Jury always use the room in which the finance committee transacted its business as a private office; and as neither of those rooms was required for the use of the judges or bar in discharge of their duties, do the Government intend to take any notice of this gentleman's conduct or make any change in the law, so that county councils in Ireland shall have full control over the courthouses which have been built and maintained at the expense of the ratepayers, except when required at assizes or quarter sessions.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The High Sheriff for the County of Cavan, who is the agent of Lord Clanricarde, desired to make the most convenient arrangements in the courthouse for the accommodation of the bar, the sub-sheriff, the county council, their secretary and his clerks, as well as for the finance committee, and, when and where possible, for the urban district council. He had the legal right to make these arrangements, which in themselves appear reasonable and proper. It is not true that he broke open the door of the room used by the finance committee or removed any papers, but it is true that he put a new lock on the door, as he designed the room for another purpose, offering the secretary a room in exchange. I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with the details of the re-arrangements, which are too complicated to give in answer to a question. I have already replied to the queries contained in the concluding part of the question.
  MR. CULLINAN: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that it is in the

  607
  power of sheriffs of Irish counties to enter these courthouses and upset the arrangements of the local authorities?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a matter of argument.
  MR. FLAVIN: Has the sheriff a right to go in and—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is the very question I have just ruled out of order.

  BOYCOTTING—TOBERCURRY CASE.
  COLONEL M'CALMONT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings at Tobercurry Petty Sessions Court, county Sligo, on Thursday last, from which it appears that a Mr. Perdue had been boycotted for taking a farm under the eleven months system; that the Protestant clergyman had been boycotted because he had been seen speaking to Mr. Perdue; that a Roman Catholic youth had been boycotted and assaulted because he worked for this Protestant clergyman; and that his mother had been boycotted, an attempt made to assault her in the chapel with a stick, and that subsequently the form of a coffin had been placed on her door; and whether the Government are taking steps to prevent a recurrence of such a state of things, either at Achonry or elsewhere?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are correctly stated in the first paragraph, except that Mr. Perdue did not take a farm on the eleven months system, but purchased a farm under the Land Purchase Acts, which the tenants in the locality considered should have been divided amongst themselves. The prosecution referred to was instituted by the Government. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative.

  KINVARA HARBOUR.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is no available authority to compel the receiver of tolls at Kinvara Harbour to take such measures as will
  608
  facilitate the entrance of vessels; and, seeing that the payment of tolls is levied for that purpose, he will institute inquiry as to the manner in which a remedy can be provided.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have nothing to add to my previous reply except that I will give the matter my personal attention during the recess.

  IRISH LAND PURCHASE.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing how much of the 30 millions of money voted for the purchase of land in Ireland under the Purchase Act of 1891 was allocated to each of the counties in Ireland, and how much of those various sums has been expended, and how much is yet available.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A Return, showing the capital value of the share of each county in the cash and contingent portions of the Guarantee Fund under the Act of 1891, will be laid on the Table in the course of the present week.

  TARA HILL.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Board of Public Works will take steps to prevent any further excavations at Tara Hill.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board have no power to prevent excavations carried on with the consent of the owner, inasmuch as the guardianship of the mounds has not been vested in the Board. The fact that the mounds are scheduled to the Ancient Monuments Act does not vest the guardianship in the Board, or entitle it to interfere with any action taken by the owner.
  MR. FLAVIN: Under the local Government Act, have the county council any control over these places? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps with a view to securing the preservation of this historic property?
  MR. WYNDHAM: It would be better if steps were taken by private individuals.

  DIAMOND NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHER.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state why Mr. William J. Walters, late teacher of the Diamond National School, Crumlin District, Register No. 8,310, has not received a retiring gratuity.
  MR. WYNHAM: Mr. Walters is not entitled to a retiring gratuity under the Pension Rules. He resigned his school on the 28th February, 1894, in consequence of a dispute with the school committee. If he intended to apply for a gratuity on the ground of ill-health he should have done so within one year from the date of resignation. This he failed to do. In 1897 and 1898 applications on his behalf were received from two clergymen, but they were informed that Mr. Walters could not be granted a retiring gratuity. Under Pension Rule 2 (1) of 1898 the Superintendent of the Pensions Office may extend the time within which notice of a claim for a gratuity under Rule 28 of the Superseded Pension Rides may be given, provided the Commissioners notify that there was reasonable excuse for the omission to make the application within one year, but no excuse has been given for the teacher's omission to comply with the rules in this case.

  IRISH REVISION BARRISTERS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state upon what principle the Lord Lieutenant proceeds in the annual appointments of assistant revising barristers; whether he is aware that of the thirty-one gentlemen appointed to those offices last year twenty-five were Unionists, and that the proportion has been about the same ever since the present Government came into office; and whether he will give an assurance that in the appointments to be made for this and subsequent years the selections will be made equally from both political parties.
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): At the request of my right
  610
  hon. friend I will reply to this question. The Lord Lieutenant proceeds upon the principle of selecting the men best qualified by knowledge and experience to discharge the duties of the post, and not on account of their political opinions. As far as my knowledge goes the figures given by the hon. Member in the question are entirely erroneous. The undertaking asked for cannot be given.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: In what respect are the figures entirely erroneous?
  MR. ATKINSON: As far as my memory serves me they are entirely erroneous in that they minimise the number of Nationalists appointed.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Do many Nationalists apply for the appointments?
  [No answer was returned.]

  IRISH DRIFT SURVEY—SOIL MAPS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Americans have recently decided on preparing a series of soil maps for the whole of the United States, and whether this example will be followed in Ireland, which is an agricultural country.
  SIR J. GORST: The hon. Member has called my attention to the proceedings in America; the drift survey in Ireland is being carried out with due despatch.
  MR. FIELD: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of my question.
  SIR J. GORST: The Geological Survey is only a drift survey; a soil survey is something quite different.
  MR. FIELD: I will repeat the question on Friday.

  BANTRY BAY FORESHORE.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the rights of the Crown to the foreshore of Bantry Bay, between Mr. Murphy's deal-yard and the old pier,

  611
  have been assigned to the trustees of the Bantry estate.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Assuming that the foreshore referred to forms part of that lying immediately to the west of the New Quay, Bantry Creek, the answer is, Yes.

  INNISKEEN POSTMASTERSHIP.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will in the future see that no inspector or representative of the Post Office be sent to a district to investigate any case where the friends of the inspector reside or are interested, as was the case at Inniskeen, county Monaghan, where an inspector named Lockington took part in the transferring of a post office to his brother from a man who held the position for twenty-six years at Inniskeen.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General cannot give any such undertaking. The action taken by Mr. Lockington is not accurately described in the latter part of the hon. Member's question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not accurate to say that the inspector dismissed the postmaster and put his brother into the job?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: He did not dismiss the postmaster or put his brother into the place.
  MR. DALY: Is it not the fact that Lockington conducted the inquiry as the result of which the postmaster was dismissed, and that Lockington's brother got the place?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have stated that Lockington conducted the inquiry. The postmaster was dismissed by the Postmaster General in consequence of what transpired at the inquiry, and at a trial which occurred in the locality. I should add that the post office has not been given to Lockington's brother, but to the occupant of a house which is owned by him, and this fact was stated by Lockington in his report to the Postmaster General when he
  612
  submitted this and other houses as suitable for post-office purposes. The appointment has been filled temporarily and not permanently.
  MR. DALY: Can the hon. Gentleman state how it came to the lot of this inspector to get Fitzpatrick dismissed after he had occupied the office so many years without complaint?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not the question on the Paper.
  MR. DALY: I will put it down then.

  DOWNPATRICK MAILS.
  MR. RENTOUL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that letters arriving by the English mail at Downpatrick at 10.32 a.m. are not delivered in the neighbouring villages of Ardglass and Killough till 4.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. respectively, and that letters for the English mail leaving Downpatrick at 3.0 p.m. must be posted in Killough and Ardglass at 7.0 and 8.0 a.m. respectively: and, seeing that arrangements could be made with the County Down Railway whereby the delivery of the letters referred to could be made at Killough and Ardglass at least four hours earlier, and the time of posting for the English mail at least six hours later than at present, whether he will consider the advisability of these improvements being carried out; whether he will consider if the remuneration of 5s. a week to the messenger delivering letters at Ardglass twice daily could be increased; and whether, in accordance with the requests made by the inhabitants of the district, he will take steps to have letter-boxes placed in High Street, Ardglass, and at Coney Island, midway between Ardglass and Killough.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The facts as regards the postal arrangements at Ardglass and Killough are substantially as stated in the first part of the question. The substitution of a day mail service by train for the present day mail service by car would, however, be objected to by many of the persons concerned. Moreover, the cost of the

  613
  existing service is so high that the Postmaster General would not feel justified in sanctioning any further expenditure on the post. The Postmaster General will cause further inquiry to be made as to the duties of the messenger at Ardglass, and will communicate with the hon. Member. The circumstances do not justify the establishment of letterboxes in High Street, Ardglass, or at Coney Island.

  DEPORTATION OF PAUPERS FROM SCOTLAND TO IRELAND.
  MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is aware that a warrant has been issued to Mr. John Reed, inspector of poor, at the instance of the local authority in Kilmarnock Union, for the removal to the Ballycastle Union, county Antrim, of Mary M'Auley, otherwise Kennedy, with eight children, from the parish of Kilmarnock; will he state the circumstances of this case; have any rules been made under Section 7 of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act of 1898, regulating appeals to the Scotch Local Government Board in such matters; and, seeing that the Ballycastle guardians wish to oppose the removal, will he ensure that no step shall be taken towards their actual deportation to Ireland until the fullest opportunities have been afforded the guardians for investigation in Scotland.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I learn from the Local Government Board for Scotland that they are informed that the pauper in question has resided in Scotland for about six years, and that during that time she has been frequently chargeable, in different parishes, as a pauper. She has not acquired a settlement in Scotland, and the conditions have not been complied with which would entitle either the pauper or the Irish board of guardians to appeal against the removal. The Local Government Board have framed rules under Section 7 of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1898.
  MR. MOORE: May I ask on what ground the Scottish authorities sent this woman to Ballycastle? There was no more reason for sending her there than to Ballyshannon.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Scotch Local Government Board have no duty in regard to place of removal.

  BISHOPRIC OF SOUTHWARK BILL.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that notices of amendment to the Second Reading of the Bishopric of Southwark Bill have been given from both sides of the House, it is his intention to give special facilities for proceeding with the Bill during the present session; and, if so, whether he will arrange that the Second Reading shall be moved at a time when its provisions can be adequately discussed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to my hon. friend I have to say that if this Bill is to be made the text in any quarter of the House for a general discussion on Church matters and matters ecclesiastical, it is evident that it is quite impossible to go on with it this session. I confess I had hoped that, as members of the Church of England and all shades of ecclesiastical opinion in the diocese desire the passing of the Bill, it might really be allowed to go through without discussion. But I have no control over that, and if it appears that the opportunity is to be taken, as technically it can be taken, for the wider discussion my hon. friend desires, of course it would be quite impossible to hope to pass the Bill into law in the course of this session.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I should like to ask whether the First Lord is aware that notice has been given from both sides of the House of motions for the rejection of the Bill on the Second Reading?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My opinion, which I give for what it is worth, is that the only obstacle to the passing of the Bill is this desire to discuss general ecclesiastical questions on this Bill. I cannot help thinking that if that stumbling-block were removed from its path the passing of the Bill would be assured.

  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury

  615
  whether he can promise any special facilities for proceeding with the Church Discipline Bill either this or next session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend will recognise that it is quite impossible for me to give any pledge on this subject.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS BILL.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can say when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Elementary School Teachers Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I stated the other day in answer to a question put to me from another quarter of the House, there does appear to be a desire to discuss this Bill which, if it exists, as I fear it does, will make it impossible for us to make further progress with the Bill.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very general agreement on both sides of the House as to the desirableness of securing this reform at as early a date as possible?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think there is a large body of opinion on both sides of the House of the kind the hon. Gentleman refers to; but nevertheless I believe there is a volume of opinion in the House which would never allow so large a change to come into operation without some opportunity for discussion.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are only two notices on the Paper, one in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich and the other in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University? Are these the notices which make him believe that it is impossible to pass the Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not the notices which make it impossible to proceed with the Bill. It is the indications that these notices afford and other symptoms that have come to my knowledge that make me fear that further progress with the Bill this session is impossible.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to make any arrangement of the business for next week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; not yet.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Will the Appropriation Bill be the first business on Thursday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is the first important business, but there may be some small matters before it.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I suppose the Naval Works Bill will be taken to-morrow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; that is my hope.

  MILITIA AND YEOMANRY BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
NEW BILL.
  WAITERS, WAITRESSES, AND BAR ATTENDANTS.
  Bill to limit the hours of employment of Waiters, Waitresses, and Bar Attendants, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nannetti, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Kendal O'Brien, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Field.
  WAITERS, WAITRESSES, AND BAR ATTENDANTS BILL.
  "To limit the hours of employment of Waiters, Waitresses, and Bar Attendants," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 293.]

  ROYAL TITLES BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he wished to move as an Amendment

  617
  the addition of the words "provided always that the style and title of the Defender of the Faith shall no longer be used, and is hereby relinquished." He said one of his objects in moving this Amendment was to release His Majesty the King from the false and absurd position in which he had been placed by the action of Parliament. Not only Roman Catholics, but members of the various denominations of Protestants, objected to the King being obliged to assume a title which had reference, if it referred to anything at all, to only one branch of the Protestant religion. He did not intend to go at any length into the history of this title, "Defender of the Faith," but he would refer as briefly as possible to the circumstances under which this title was first adopted by the Kings of England. At the time of Luther, Henry VIII. wrote a book denouncing Lutheran heresies, and sent a specially engrossed copy of the book to Pope Leo X. He found in an account of that transaction that on the last page of the book presented to Pope Leo there were two lines written in Latin, to the following effect, "Henry, King of England, sends to Leo X. this work, as a pledge of his fidelity and friendship." This work was accompanied by a letter which conclusively proves that the faith of which King Henry VIII. became the defender was the ancient Catholic faith, and had nothing to do with the Protestant Church. These were the words—
  "Not satisfied with this proof (this referring, it was to be presumed, to the statement of friendship earlier in the letter) of our zeal for the Catholic faith and our devotion to the Apostolic See, we resolved to show by our written words what we thought of Luther and his detestable books, thus to make it clear that we would be ever ready to defend and protect as well with the pen as with the sword the Holy Roman Church."
  Upon the receipt of that flattering letter Pope Leo X. issued a Bull in these terms—
  "Leo, servant of the servants" of the Lord, to his most dear son, Henry, King of England, Defender of the Faith; all health and happiness."
  Then the Bull goes on to say—
  "Sitting in this Holy See, and having with mature deliberation considered the business with our brethren, we do with their unanimous counsel and consent grant unto your Majesty, your heirs and successors, the title of 'Defender of the Faith,' and we do by these presents confirm it unto you, commanding all the Faithful to give your Majesty this title."
  618
  There could therefore be no doubt in the mind of any person who examined the historical records referring to those times that the origin of the title "Defender of the Faith" had reference to the Catholic faith and no other. He did not think he need dwell at length on historical matters, but there was, he would remind hon. Members, a fresco in the parliamentary buildings which set forth in a very interesting manner King Henry VIII. and his six wives, one after the other. He did not propose to debate on the matrimonial enterprise of His Majesty, but he did wish to recall the fact that when the Pope refused to approve of the King taking a fresh wife while he had a wife living, Henry VIII. threw off his allegiance to the See of Rome, and Leo X. thereupon withdrew the title of "Defender of the Faith," which he conferred on the King for his defence of the Church which subsequently he denounced, reviled, despoiled and plundered in every possible way. No doubt Henry got the English Parliament to confer on him the title of "Defender of the Faith," and there was thus created the curious state of affairs that whereas the Pope had originally given the title and withdrawn it, the Parliament of England re-created it and re-gave it to the Sovereign, calling him "Defender of the Faith," which he was at the moment engaged in destroying with all his might and main. The next step in the curious history of this title was taken in the reign of Philip and Mary, when the Act conferring the title on the King of England was repealed, and subsequently, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, there being some doubt as to the validity of the Act passed in Mary's reign, the same Act was again repealed. He could not, therefore, understand how it could be argued that the title was now held by Act of Parliament, seeing that the Act conferring it on Henry VIII. had been twice repealed, and no legislative step had since been taken to reimpose it on the King of England. He submitted with great respect that it was unfair to the present King to ask him to assume a title which had its origin in the times when England belonged to the Catholic faith—a title which was conferred by the Pope—and at the same time to insist by another Act of

  619
  Parliament that he should denounce as "idolatrous and superstitious" the very religion for the defence of which this title was conferred upon his distinguished but much-married ancestor Henry VIII. In his accession oath the King was compelled to declare that "the invocation of the Virgin Mary or any of the saints, and the Sacrifice of the Mass as now used in the Church of Rome, are idolatrous and superstitious practices," and it was an absurd and unworthy position in which to place the King when they asked him to assume this title of Defender of the Faith, and in the same breath denounce the doctrines of that faith as idolatrous and superstitious. Of course he had no personal knowledge of His Majesty's views, but the chances were a hundred to one, in his opinion, that if the King himself were consulted he would be glad if Parliament relieved him of this absurd title, and from making the unpleasant declaration in which he singled out one religion for special denunciation. It was not merely from the Catholic point of view he raised this question. He would appeal to the Nonconformists of the country to say whether, in this matter, they would make a stand in the interests of the creed they professed. If the title had no reference to the Catholic faith, it had reference to the Protestant Church as established by law, and why should that Church be singled out from all other Protestant sects for that distinction? It was an absurd and obsolete title, carrying no honour whatever. The history of it as connected with Henry VIII. was a history of shame and dishonour of which he doubted whether any Englishman was proud at the present time. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name, and to express a hope that it would be supported by gentlemen of varying religious persuasions on both sides of the House.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 11, after the words 'seem fit,' to insert the words 'Provided always that the style and title of Defender of the Faith shall no longer be used and is hereby relinquished.'"—(Mr. William Redmond.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.):
  620
  The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment has introduced us not merely into the realms of history, but of theology, and he has contrived not only to deal with history and theology, but to drag in the Royal declaration, which seems to me to be in no sense germane to the discussion now before the Committee. I am not going to deal with the theological topics which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I will only say, as a mere matter of historical relevance, that I do not think anyone would be more surprised than Henry VIII., if he could be consulted, to learn that at any period of his life he ceased to profess the Catholic religion. He was no doubt wrong from the point of view of the hon. Gentleman opposite, but he believed to the end of his life that the faith he professed was the Catholic faith, and that the particular form of faith which he denounced was a perversion of it, and not its fulfilment. Everyone, I suppose, will admit in regard to this, as in regard to many matters which we have inherited from generations long gone by, that probably if the whole thing had to be done again it might be done better or it might be done worse, but that at all events it would not be done in exactly the same way. I am not at all concerned to say that if the House, for the first time in our long parliamentary history, set itself to work to frame a proper adequate style and title for our Sovereign they would use the precise formula which our ancestors have handed down to us. If that is the argument of the hon. Gentleman or any Member of the House, it is a very thin and shallow argument, and not likely to carry weight inside or outside these walls. We belong to an historic monarchy, and the fact that it is an historic monarchy ought to oblige us—and I am sure inclines us—to treat with deference and respect any part of the historical traditions with which it is surrounded, unless it can be shown that any direct evil or offence arises out of this continuity of tradition. The title of "Defender of the Faith" has been borne by every single British Sovereign since Henry VIII, including Queen Mary. No doubt she rejected it, but it was resumed by her successor, and from the time of Elizabeth down to the present day the sovereigns of this country have been styled "Defender

  621
  of the Faith." It would be perfect folly for us to set to work on a priori principles to remodel an ancient title of this kind, that injures neither he who bears it nor the people over whom he rules. Under these circumstances it seems to me it would be the height of folly if we, with no circumstances requiring it, unprovoked by any change in the position of the country or the opinion of its inhabitants, were to suddenly take in hand the task of remodelling the ancient, historic title of our kings.
  MR. O'DOHERTYpointed out that this was not the first proposal to interfere with an old and historic title, for a change in it was made in 1876, when Mr. Disraeli, against the opposition of the Liberal party, conferred on Her late Majesty the title of Empress of India. It was not merely the Irish Members who then resisted, but it was Mr. Lowe, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, and other Liberal leaders who objected to any interference, either by legislation or by proclamation, with the ancient title of the sovereigns of this country. It certainly was not fitting that a sovereign should style himself defender of a faith he was required to declare indolatrous and superstitious. The Leader of the House had stated that Henry VIII. believed himself to be a Catholic down to the day of his death. He agreed with him, and he found support for that view in a copy of a letter still extant, in which that monarch bequeathed money for Masses for the repose of his soul. It was clear that Leo X. conferred the title in recognition of work done by Henry VIII. in refuting the heresies of Luther, and he ventured to think that its retention under present circumstances could not afford satisfaction to the members of any religious creed in this country.
  MR. CAINEsaid he intended to vote in favour of the Amendment. It was impossible to define the faith of which the King was the defender, and it was, therefore, an unmeaning title. Even if the Church of England were united in faith and doctrine it still would not be the faith of the people. Nonconformists and Roman Catholics being largely in the majority, and both objecting to the title. It was time it fell
  622
  out of use, and he should vote against it unless some better reason than antiquity could be given for it.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he had some philosophic doubt in regard to the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had defended the title on historic grounds, and upon no other, and thereby emphatically admitted the Catholic case. Look at the wretched condition of the Protestants and the magnificent position which the Catholics occupied in regard to this question. The Protestants were always reviling Rome and denouncing Roman jurisdiction, so that, from the Catholic point of view, there was no greater proof of the power of Popery than the persistence in the adoption of this title. It was idle to say that the title rested on statute, because when Cardinal Pole came over to this country Queen Mary repealed the Act of Henry VIII., and as soon as Elizabeth came to the throne she also repealed the same statute. It was said that the Pope could not derogate from his own grant, and that, having once granted the title to the King, there was no power in the Pontiff to withdraw what was really a complimentary title. It was some satisfaction to him as a Catholic to reflect that, so far as the statute was concerned, the King had no legal title whatever to the title of "Defender of the Faith," that it was a usurpation, and that he held it in the teeth of the statute, and solely by reason that it had been conferred upon him as a compliment by the Roman Pontiff. It was very satisfactory to Catholics that, although the King was not defender of the faith, or the eldest son of the Church, he held the title of defender of the faith by a Papal brief. He never could make out why it was that William III., who was to protect us all from brass money and wooden shoes, was regarded as a sound Protestant. He had always doubted King William III.'s soundness, and looked upon him as a Jesuit in disguise, because King William III. himself had been in certain relations with the Pope. He knew that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who claimed to be loyal Protestants, were absolutely obliged, three hundred years after their great and glorious Reformation, which was to redeem the country

  623
  from all sin and sorrow, to go into the lobby practically to uphold and support a gift from Rome to this country. He would vote for the Amendment of his hon. friend purely as a matter of convenience to relieve His Majesty from what he believed was an embarrassment to him every time he had to write down the title, while at the same time he heartily rejoiced that the Protestants of this country were now compelled to uphold the ancient jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome.
  *MR. TULLYdid not think that the First Lord had given any substantial reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. He said the title had been borne by sovereigns of this country since the days of Henry VIII., but that was not exactly the fact, for there were issued in 1849 coins now known as "Godless florins," on which the title of "Defender of the Faith" was not borne.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: That was when you had an Irish Roman Catholic, Richard Lalor Sheil, as Master of the Mint.
  *MR. TULLY (continuing)said that, whatever the reason, the title was undoubtedly dropped at that time, and although every effort was subsequently made to call all the florins in, there were some in the possession of private individuals who highly prized them. He did not believe that the King himself, as a common-sense man, would wish to continue to hold the title. It was just as absurd as the practice which formerly prevailed of calling sovereigns of this realm "Kings of France." Think of the position of the hon. Member for South Belfast. Was he staunch or true in his Protestantism in defending the retention of this title which was conferred by the Pope?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to order, Sir. Is it in order to suggest that the hon. Member for South Belfast is not staunch or true in his Protestantism?

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Boland, John

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Barry, E. (Cork. S.)

  Boyle, James

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Bell, Richard

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Cogan, Denis J.

  *MR. TULLYsaid he was not aware that he had trodden on the corns of any of them. He had been listening in the vain hope that the hon. Member for South Belfast would stand up and declare his views on the subject. It was a matter of perfect indifference to him where King Henry VIII. was. The hon. Member for Belfast was not consistent in voting against this Amendment, for he found that a gentleman who posed as an authority on religions matters had written a letter to the Standard, in which he said—
  "Of what faith is His Majesty the Defender? During the Investiture with the ring the Archbishop is directed to say, 'Receive this Ring, the Ensign of Kingly Dignity, and of defence of the Catholic Faith.'"
  The objection of the Irish Catholic Members to this title was that these words, used in this connection, added to the insult contained in the Royal Declaration that Catholics were idolatrous and superstitious. He hoped hon. Members on the opposite side of the House who were Nonconformists would follow the example of the hon. Member for Camborne and vote for the Amendment. To give such a title to the King conveyed a false impression, just as when the King of England was called the King of France. The Government had already announced that they would not proceed with the Royal Declaration Bill, which modified the Coronation Oath, and which had passed through the House of Lords.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will not be entitled to discuss the provisions of that Bill.
  *MR. TULLYsaid he bowed to the Chairman's ruling, but he might say that he, for one, preferred the naked brutality of the present King's Declaration to the watered-down Declaration the Bill proposed to adopt.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, GO; Noes, 188. (Division List No. 466.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Crean, Eugene

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Cullinan, J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  O'Malley, William

  Daly, James

  M'Fadden, Edward

  O'Mara, James

  Delany, William

  M'Govern, T.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Dillon, John

  Murnaghan, George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Donelan, Capt A.

  Murphy, John

  Reddy, M.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Duffy, William J.

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Roche, John

  Field, William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Sullivan, Donal

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

  Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n N.

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tully, Jasper

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  White. Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Doherty, William

  Wilson, Henry J. (Yorks. W. R.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. William Redmond and Mr. Caine

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Dowd, John

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Balcarres, Lord

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, Col. F. (Lowestoft)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Lucas, B. J. (Portsmouth)

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. E.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Brassey, Albert

  Grant, Corrie

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Mitchell, William

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Groves, James Grimble

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Caldwell, James

  Hain, Edward

  More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Moss, Samuel

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Harwood, George

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Parker, Gilbert

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Chapman, Edward

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Charrington, Spencer

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Holland, William Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pryce-Johns, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Purvis, Robert

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry

  Randles, John S.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hoult, Joseph

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Colville, John

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Crombie, John William

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Round, James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

  Rutherford, John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lawson, John Grant

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Strachey, Edward

  White, Luke (Yorks. E. H.)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Sinclair. Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  William S. Osmond (Merioneth

  Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks. E. R.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Thomson, F. W. (Yorks. W. R.

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Spear, John Ward

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

  Tritton, Chas. Ernest

  Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. DILLONsaid that this was a Bill to which many of them strongly objected. It was an unbroken practice of the House that the third reading of a Bill should not be taken on the same day as that on which it had passed in Committee, except by general agreement of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will not press the Third Reading to-day.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

  PACIFIC CABLE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.
  Clause 1:—
  MR. O'MARAsaid it seemed to him to be a very extraordinary thing that a cable which was to connect Australia with Canada, and which would not come within 3,000 miles of England, should have to be built with funds provided out of the Imperial resources. If the cable was to benefit Canada and Australia so much, it ought to be built by money provided by the colonies. The working expenses were to paid for in the ratio of five-eighteenths by this country, and the remainder by the colonies, and he could not see any reason why the same ratio should have been adopted in defraying the cost of building the cable.
  628
  In fact, that was a view that had been taken by the Colonial Secretary himself when the matter was first under discussion, as could be seen by his despatches to the Governor General of Canada and the Governors of the Australian colonies. That was a monstrous divergence from the traditional policy of the country, and if the country had to bear a part of the expense, it was logical that a portion of it should also be borne by the colonies.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 27, afther the word 'of,' to insert the words 'five-eighteenths of."—(Mr. O'Mara.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershre, E.)said he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. It was perfectly true that the original proposal of His Majesty's Government was merely to subsidise the cable, and not themselves to take any part in its construction or management, but it was also a part of that proposal that His Majesty's Government should not share in the profits of the cable. That arrangement was not satisfactory to the colonies, and, in deference to their views, His Majesty's Government agreed to a plan which found greater favour with the colonies, and which was that this country should take part in the construction of the cable with the colonies, should be joint owners with them, and should be jointly represented on the board of control. Nothing would be gained by the adoption of the hon. Member's Amendment. He understood the object of the hon. Member was to limit the liability and the ultimate loss which might fall on this country. The hon. Member need not be really anxious

  629
  about that matter, nor would he secure anything more by his Amendment than was secured under the present agreement. In order that the capital for the construction of the cable might be obtained to the best advantage, His Majesty's Government agreed with the colonies that they should raise the whole of the money, and lend it to the cable board. He would ask the Committee to support His Majesty's Government in the action they had taken in that respect. The agreement with the different colonial Governments was that they should not only pay thirteen-eighteenths of any loss in the working of the cable, over and above the revenue, but that they should bear thirteen-eighteenths of all the charges in connection with the raising of the money and the construction of the cable, as well as with its maintenance and repair. It was quite true therefore that in the first instance the liability for the £2,000,000 rested with this country, because the Treasury had undertaken to raise the whole of the money, and would give their guarantee to those from whom it was borrowed. But the colonial Governments had accepted their full share as to thirteen-eighteenths of that liability, and he did not think that anyone would suggest that the colonial Governments would be either unable or unwilling to discharge an obligation freely entered into by themselves for an object which they considered of great importance. He hoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Amendment.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he could not understand why in regard to the whole matter the Government should have changed their mind since 1899. Two years was not very long in which to reverse a whole policy of that kind. The policy which was laid down in 1899 was that the Government considered that the responsibility for the construction and working of the cable should be home by the colonial Governments. That position had now been abandoned. The matter had been under consideration for six years, and at the time the Committee took evidence the general understanding was that the colonies were to find the capital for the construction of the cable and to maintain it in proper
  630
  order. The correspondence showed that pressure had been brought to bear upon the Colonial Secretary to abandon that position, and now the whole responsibility, in the first instance at any rate, would fall on the mother country, and the Treasury was dragged by the Colonial Office into that hazardous undertaking. It was acknowledged that the cable was to be primarily constructed for the benefit of Canada and Australia, and that only a very indirect share of the advantage would accrue to this country. He did not follow the figures of his hon. friend with regard to five-eighteenths. He would propose that the Treasury should find £1,000,000, and that the liability for the other £1,000,000 should devolve on the colonies. If the colonies were anxious to have increased cable facilities they ought to pay a half or third of the expense of raising the capital. There was absolutely no mention of the colonies in the clause, and undoubtedly responsibility in the first instance rested with the Treasury. Were the talismanic words "Imperial unity" responsible for the change in the policy of the Government? Could the colonies themselves raise the money in open market at three per cent.?
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Yes.
  MR. FLYNN: Then they ought to be responsible for raising at least £1,000,000 of the capital required. It should be remembered that the Eastern Company was laying a cable from the Cape to Australia, and he had it on very good authority that it was extremely doubtful whether three cables would ever pay. If the Pacific cable did not pay the Treasury would be liable for five-eighteenths of the loss, besides the advance in the first instance. He thought that the capital should be raised on the joint guarantee of the colonies and the mother country.
  MR. FIELDsaid that as an Irish Member he could not understand why it was proposed to raise a loan of £2,000,000 for the cable. That was not the proper way to carry out an enterprise of this nature. The majority of hon. Members appeared to have a disposition to leave everything of a financial character to the occupants

  631
  of the Treasury Bench. The result was that the House of Commons hardly exercised any jurisdiction at all over money matters. There was a great principle at stake in the matter, and that was that Englishmen, Irishmen, and Scotchmen were about to inaugurate a new principle, which in his opinion was most dangerous. What had the colonies done for England, Ireland, and Scotland? They paid hardly anything towards the defences of the Empire, and now they wanted those three countries, already overtaxed and overburdened, to finance their commercial undertakings. That was a new principle which required a great deal of consideration from hon. Members. The water companies of London and the railway companies of Ireland were in exactly the same position towards public utility, and it was a novel and extraordinary proposition that money was to be available for colonial purposes of that kind when it was not available for home purposes. He had taken the trouble to read the correspondence, and he found that the policy which had been laid down originally had been absolutely reversed. The fact was that hon. Members did not know where they were with Ministers at the present time. He held very strongly that the Bill was a departure from a principle which had hitherto been observed in the House. The House was entering on a commercial undertaking and sanctioning the expenditure of money in order to convenience the colonies in a manner which would not be undertaken with reference to any home enterprise, and he hoped that a strong minority of the Committee would protest against that principle unless it were also extended to the inhabitants of the three kingdoms.
  MR. DILLONsaid the object of the colonies was that these lines should be run at a loss in order that they might have cheap cable rates. They naturally objected to a subsidy of £20,000. The home Government was to get a share of the profits, but as a matter of fact there would be no profits to share, and it would therefore be more profitable to the colonies for the home Government to undertake the whole expenditure of the line, which would be run at a loss. The position of the Secretary to the
  632
  Treasury was entirely inconsistent with the understanding come to in the earlier stages of these negotiations. The hon. Gentleman had said there was not likely to to be any profit for the first few years, and there might be a loss. This cable was to be built with money borrowed from the public, which would have to be repaid, together with the cost of upkeep of the cable from the rates.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: When I said there might be a loss, I meant that there might be a loss on the working after allowing for the sinking fund.
  MR. DILLONsaid in that case his observations would not apply so strongly, but what he wished to point out was that the result would be very likely worse than the hon. Gentleman anticipated, because under this Bill the British Treasury lost all control as to fixing the rates. The object of the cable was to get reduced rates—to get them reduced to a very low figure indeed—and the rates were to be fixed by the board, and the colonies being in a majority on the board the tendency to cut down the rates would be very great, and there would be a great loss, and the Treasury would lose all control; yet the burden of this expenditure was to be put on the taxpayers of this country. The declaration contained in the letter written by Lord Selborne to the Great Eastern Telegraph Company two years ago contained the most revolutionary statement of principle ever laid before the House. It amounted to a solemn declaration that the Colonial Secretary saw no difference between competition by a private firm and competition by the State. What would vested interests have to say if such a principle were introduced throughout the country? In paragraph 23 of the letter of the Colonial Office to the companies, of the 10th July, 1899, there is this statement:—
  "Mr. Chamberlain is unable to see why, so long as the project is conducted on commercial principles, fair competition by the State should give rise to a claim for compensation, which would not be suggested for a moment if the competitor were a private person or company, however wealthy or influential."
  That was what the Treasury now admitted they had no intention of doing.

  633
  The hon. Gentleman anticipated that for some years there would be a loss. When had anybody ever heard of a great public company spending £2,000,000 for the purpose of having a loss on administration? That was not the principle of a commercial people. The whole idea of this being conducted as a commercial enterprise was a sham. He admitted that there was some incongruity in the Irish representatives posing as the champions of private interests, but it was not so much because he objected to the principle that he raised his voice against the Bill, as because of the curious way in which it had been introduced. Millions of money ought not to be spent on a thing of this kind for the Australian colonies when there were dozens of things infinitely more deserving of the money being spent on them. He supported the Amendment because it tended to lessen to some extent the responsibilities which the Government proposed to impose upon the taxpayers.
  *MR. TULLYalso supported the Amendment. He thought they were entitled to have some limit placed upon the expenditure, especially as to that portion which would fall upon Ireland. He believed in time of peace no such project as this would ever have been put forward. There had been many projects started to bring the colonies into communication with this country, and the hon. Member for Canterbury, who had done so much for postal reform, was naturally as anxious to effect telegraphic reform. If this scheme was for the benefit of this country, he would give it his support, but his experience had been such as to make him view with suspicion any proposal put forward in this way. If the hon. Member for Canterbury said it was really to the interest of the public, he would be willing to consider it in a reasonable way, because at present, owing to the high cable rates, they could get more news from France than from the colonies. He thought it would be better if the rates were not reduced.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the Amendment.
  *MR. TULLYbowed to the ruling of the Chair. He pointed out that the hon. Member for East Mayo had shown that the result would be a considerable loss—£2,000,000 for a cable, when, according to the report of the Cable Committee, £1,500,000 would be amply sufficient for the purpose; and he thought that five-eighteenths of that amount was quite enough for this country to be responsible for. He quite agreed that there should be competition with the Great Eastern Telegraph Company, and that they should not have a monopoly, but there was nothing in the Bill to safeguard them in getting the competition they wanted. If cables could be got at a penny per word, it would be a very good thing, but he could not see why the representatives of Ireland should be asked to vote money for this cable. They were told that this cable was to touch all British territory, but in time of war, if Britain lost command of the sea, this cable would be of no possible advantage, because the enemy's ships would fish it up and stop the communication. He would join his friends in opposing the measure at every stage until they had some pledge from the Government that if there was to be competition with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company it would be genuine competition, and that it would not be mismanaged in the way the Post Office mismanaged the competition with the telephone companies. He believed the cable would be managed in such a way that for the first few years it would involve a loss, and the result would be that a syndicate of speculators would come in to take it off the hands of the Government at a very low price, and thus acquire the property the taxpayers were now asked to pay for.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 64; Noes, 218. (Division List No. 467).

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lun on, W.

  O'Dowd, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacDonnell. Dr. Mark A.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Cullinan, J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  O'Malley, William

  Daly, James

  M'Fadden, Edward

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Delany, William

  M'Govern, T.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Murnaghan, George

  Reddy, M.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murphy, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Duffy, William J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Field, William

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Roche, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Sullivan, Donal

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

  Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n, N.

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tully, Jasper

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  O'Doherty, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. O'Mara and Mr. Dillon.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hoult, Joseph

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Arnold-Forster. Hugh O.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

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

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

  Keswick, William

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bell, Richard

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Bignold, Arthur

  Foster. Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gardner, Ernest

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Brassey, Albert

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Bull, William James

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Burns, John

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lough, Thomas

  Caine, William Sproston

  Grant, Corrie

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Caldwell, James

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Groves, James Grimble

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hain, Edward

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Harris, Frederick Loverton

  Mitchell, William

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Harwood, George

  Montagu, D. (Huntingdon)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Colville, John

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Crombie, John William

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Moss, Samuel

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Holland, William Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sadler. Col. Samuel Alexander

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Murray, Co). Wyndham (Bath)

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Ed. J.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Ure, Alexander

  Norman, Henry

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Valentia, Viscount

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Parker, Gilbert

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  White, Luke (Yorks., E. R.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Whiteley, George (Yorks. W. R.

  Penn, John

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyn'side

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Spear, John Ward

  Williams, Rt. Hn J Powell- (Birm.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northnt's

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Purvis, Robert

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormsk'k

  Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks., E. R.

  Randles, John S.

  Stanley, Edwd. Jas. (Somerset

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Wilson, Hon. J. (Yorks. W. R.

  Renshaw, Charles Pine

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Strachey, Edward

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

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

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Tennant. Harold John

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Thomas, J. A. (Glamour., Gower

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Thomas, F. W. (Yorks. W. R.)

  Rutherford, John

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edwd. Murray

  MR. O'MARAmoved that the loan to be raised for the purposes of the cable should be reduced from £2,000,000 to £1,500,000. He described this as an Indemnity Bill, and his purpose in moving the Amendment was to test whether the House approved of the thoroughly illegal practice of spending public money without the sanction of Parliament being first obtained. When the resolution empowering the Government to bring forward the Bill was before the House, it was stated that contracts had already been entered into, and that part of the money had already been spent. He contended that this was a gross abuse of the privileges of Ministers, for which, so far as he knew, there was almost no precedent. Such a course should only be taken in the case of emergency and public danger. It was a pernicious practice, and he should like the Secretary to the Treasury to state by what law it had been done. If public money could be spent in this way, what was the use of bringing in a Bill at all? It could all be done by a stroke of the pen in the Treasury.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 27, to leave out the words 'two million,' and insert the words 'one million five hundred thousand.'"—(Mr. O'Mara.)
  Question proposed, "That the words' two millions' stand part of the clause."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it had not been possible to pass the Bill
  638
  through the House so early as they had hoped. They had not been able to get the Bill in time for the money provided for under the Bill being available to meet the first sums becoming due to the contractors who were engaged in the construction of this cable. It would have been possible to delay making any contract for the construction of the cable until this Bill had been sanctioned by the House, but he did not think that would have been an economical procedure. Certainly the best contract would not have remained open indefinitely for that purpose; the Government might have lost by not accepting it, and this work, which the Government and the colonies were equally anxious to see carried through very rapidly, would have been very much delayed. The Government, therefore, thought it right to set the contractors to work at once. Under the terms of the contract, the Pacific Cable Board had had to pay one instalment of the contract price to the contractors. In order to meet that instalment the Pacific Cable Board had borrowed money from the Bank of England, and the money was lent by the Bank on the suggestion of the Treasury. These words were necessary to enable that money to be paid by the Pacific Cable Board, and he hoped the House would show by an overwhelming majority that they approved of the arrangement.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that not alone had the contract been entered into by the

  639
  Pacific Cable Boards which it was the purpose of the Bill to create, but money had been spent; and now the Government came forward with what was practically a Bill of Indemnity. That ought not to be allowed to go on. Was this House to exist merely for the purpose of recording and registering what had been done in the Cabinet? It was a most unprecedented thing that money should be spent and the Board appointed before the Bill authorising both had been introduced. He should be very sorry to charge the Secretary of the Treasury with being uncandid, but his advisers had certainly been most uncandid. The first knowledge which the House had of this matter was when a resolution was brought forward late at night a fortnight ago, and no one but a high-handed Minister would have ventured to indulge in such a course of procedure. The hon. Gentleman had said that the Bill could not be brought in earlier, but what was to prevent it? If this was a matter of public policy, why not have brought the Bill in at the opening of Parliament? He meant to protest against this Bill at every stage the forms of the House would allow him; and he wanted to enter his solemn protest, not only as an Irish Member, but as an ordinary Member, interested in the procedure of the House and the fiscal affairs of the country, against the irregular, unconstitutional, and tyrannical manner in which the Colonial Office and its advisers had acted towards the House in this matter.
  MR. FIELDsaid he did not wish to prolong the debate, but at the same time he thought the House ought to take note of the extraordinary circumstances under which the Bill had been brought before them. He did not pose as a constitutionalist, but hon. Gentlemen opposite did, and he was therefore surprised that they supported a Bill of this nature. The Treasury, in conjunction with a certain number of colonies, absolutely mortgaged the resources of this country to carry out a scheme which had not been discussed by the House. No more dangerous principle could be introduced, for it amounted to this: that a strong Minister, with the assistance of his permanent officials, might enter into a secret
  640
  agreement for certain undertakings, which, in their opinion might be of use to a portion of the empire. They took from Parliament that which was really the basis of the power of Parliament, that was the power of the purse; and then they came to Parliament with a Bill of indemnity. Of course, the Government had a vast majority in this House, and could press the Bill through; but what would happen if a majority of the House agreed with the Irish Members in their constitutional view, and refused to ratify the proceedings of the Treasury? The Cable Board was to be constituted by a majority of representatives from the colonies. This House advanced two millions of money, which was entrusted to gentlemen who had a direct interest in arranging such rates as would enable them to get better conditions from the existing company. They need not care whether the scheme paid or not. If that principle was to be adopted the country would be landed in bankruptcy.
  MR. POWERsaid it appeared to him that this was one of the most extraordinary documents ever submitted to Parliament, He had listened to the defence put forward on behalf of the Government by the Secretary to the Treasury, but he thought it no defence at all. The Government were absolutely wrong in anticipating the decision of Parliament in regard to this important undertaking. He had always understood that the main object of Parliament was to vote money, but in this matter Parliament had been quite anticipated, and if the system was to be carried on they might just as well abolish Parliament altogether. It was a most unconstitutional proceeding, and he hoped his hon. friend would press his Amendment to a division.
  *MR. TULLYsaid he supported the Amendment. The Member for South Kilkenny deserved a great deal of credit for the acumen he had shown on this question. He had found a flaw in the Bill, and that the two millions were to be paid not only for the construction of the cable, but to repay any temporary loan contracted for the purposes of the cable. One of the reasons which the hon. Gentleman gave for

  641
  spending the money was that the contract they had before them was a favourable one; but everybody knew that prices of materials for the construction of cables were not going up, but going down. If the Government had waited to take the ordinary legal and constitutional course they would have saved money instead of lost it. This cable was promoted in the interests of the colonies. England was now so much alone in the world that it had to look up friends at the other ends of the Empire, and it was in the interests of these people that this extraordinary Bill was being thrust on the House. The payment of promotion expenses was an entirely unheard of proceeding, and created a most dangerous precedent. Nothing was ever done by President Kruger equal to what had been done in this case. If it had been done by President Kruger the press of England would have rung with cries of the jobbery of such a transaction.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clauses 2, 3, 4, and 5, agreed to.
  Clause 6:—
  MR. O'MARAsaid he had not moved the Amendments on the four previous clauses which he had on the Paper, because the Committee had apparently made up their minds to give this indemnity to the Colonial Secretary and the Treasury for the illegal proceedings they had taken, and he also recognised the fact that certain contracts had been entered into. It was only from a sense of public duty that he had taken the position which he had done in regard to this Bill. He intended, however, to move his Amendment on Clause 6 as follows—
  "Clause 6, page 3, line 7, leave out from 'of,' to end of Clause, and insert 'the Treasury.'"
  By this clause it was proposed to create the Pacific Cable Board, which they knew from the Secretary of the Treasury had already been created. He proposed that, instead of handing over the cable built by two millions of English money to be managed by the Pacific Cable Board the Treasury ought to take the step of
  642
  appointing managers to manage the cable themselves. According to the constitution of the board there would be only three British members, two representing Canada, two representing the Australian colonies, and one representing New Zealand. The colonial representatives, therefore, would always be in a majority, and would be able to decide what the rates were to be. It would be to the interest of the Colonies that the rates should be as low as possible, while the comparative benefit to this country would be very small. He earnestly hoped that the Secretary to the Treasury would induce the Treasury to reconsider the constitution of the board, and give the whole control of the cable to the Treasury. The members of the board were prominent colonial politicians who had no knowledge of cable construction, maintenance, or management.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 7, to leave out from the word 'of' to end of clause, and insert the words 'the Treasury.'"—(Mr. O'Mara.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid of course he could not possibly accept the Amendment which had just been moved. The hon. Member, he understood, moved it as a protest against what he thought was the laxity of the Treasury with regard to their control of the British contribution to the cable and their too great disposition to consult the feelings and wishes of the colonies. He must remind the Committee that for the cable, in which of course they were very greatly interested, the colonies had guaranteed thirteen-eighteenths as to sinking fund, interest, expense of maintenance, and other charges. What the hon. Gentleman proposed was that, that being the position and the liability, the Treasury should have sole and complete control over the construction of the cable, and over its management after construction, and that the colonies should have no voice in the matter whatever. If the hon. Member would consider that from the point of view of the colonies he would see that it would be most unfair to them,

  643
  and that it would be a gross breach of faith on the part of the Government if they gave any countenance to it. The hon. Gentleman complained that the representatives of the Government on the Board would be in a minority. That was perfectly true, but then the Government paid a minority of the cost, and he did not think under those circumstances that they had any right to insist on having a majority of the members on the Hoard. They had three representatives, one of whom would be the chairman, and if there was any difference of opinion on any important question, it was only necessary that a single colonial representative should vote with the representatives of the Treasury in order to give the Treasury a controlling vote, because of the casting vote of the chairman. But he altogether demurred to the idea that the interests of the colonies and of the Government were likely to be in conflict. The hon. Gentleman spoke as if it would be in the interest of the colonies to reduce rates to a figure which would not pay in order that they might procure five-eighteenths of the deficit from the Government. But the colonies themselves would have to pay thirteen-eighteenths, and therefore they were very interested in making the cable pay.
  MR. O'MARAsaid the colonies would get the whole benefit of the reduced rate.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked if the hon. Member assumed that no business from this country would pass over the cable. If the hon. Member did assume that, he did not agree with him. As far as rates were reduced, the advantage of that reduction would be shared by all traders and others using the cable in the colonies as well as in this country, and it was very possible that they would get even a greater advantage than the colonies themselves. If the rates were to be unduly reduced, then the greater proportion of the loss that would follow would fall on the colonies, but he did not think that there was any reason to suppose that the colonies desired that the cable should be worked on lines which would bring permanent financial loss on themselves. No doubt there might be some loss in the earlier years, and the hon. Member for East Mayo thought he was contradicting his right
  644
  hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he stated that it was the intention of the Government to work the cable on commercial fines. In great commercial undertakings, whether they were public or private, it was sometimes necessary to face a loss for a year or two in order to make a great commercial success, and if they had not found private firms and public bodies in the country ready to do that, many of the enterprises of which they now had such good reason to be proud would not be in existence. The Government had agreed with the colonial Governments as to the proportion of representation each should have on the Board, and he asked the Committee to support the decision which had been arrived at. The Government could not go back on the pledges they had given.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he thought it would be quite possible to arrive at a compromise between the Secretary to the Treasury and his hon. friend the Member for South Kilkenny. They all recognised that the colonies should have some voice in the control of the cable, but it was a very different matter that their representation should be as five to three. He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to remember that in their fiscal policy the colonies had never hesitated, whether by preferential duties or otherwise, to secure an advantage for themselves as against British trade; and it was therefore possible that they would not hesitate to pay thirteen-eighteenths of the loss on the working of the cable if thereby they could get a cheaper service, and very possibly it would be a very good bargain for them. He thought that if the Secretary to the Treasury would accept the Amendment standing in his name increasing the number of British representatives to six his hon. friend would withdraw his Amendment. They could not overlook the fact that the colonial representatives had pressed the matter on a somewhat reluctant Colonial Office, and that the Colonial Office, only at the last moment, abandoned certain fixed principles on which public business had hitherto been conducted. If the hon. Gentleman would accept his Amendment he was sure his hon. friend would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he could not accept that for the reasons he had already stated. His Majesty's Government had accepted the proportion of representation set out in the schedule as fair, and the Government could not depart from that arrangement.
  *MR. TULLYsaid that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman did not carry conviction. They ought to bear in mind that £2,000,000 of money was to be furnished by the Imperial Treasury, and the very least they ought to insist on was that the majority of the members of the Board, who would have the spending of that money, should be appointed by this Government. At present, although £1,000 per day was expended in cablegrams to Australia, most of them referred to business matters, and there were very few personal cablegrams. Australian newspapers got very favourable terms through a syndicate which they had formed, but there was no reciprocity about that, as no favourable terms were given to English newspapers for telegrams from Australia. That state of things would continue, and Australians would be able to benefit themselves at the expense of the taxpayers of this country. Victoria and some of the other colonies had protection as against this country, and if they had adopted a system of protection might it not be expected that, with a majority on the board, they would go in for running the new cable solely in their own interests, without any regard for the interests of this country? His hon. friend proposed that the cable should be under the management of the Treasury. He could hardly agree with him in that proposition. He was not in favour of putting large enterprises of that kind under Treasury control. He would be quite willing, however, if some gentleman like the predecessor of the hon. gentleman the present President of the Board of Agriculture were appointed Chairman of the Board. The public would have some confidence then that the cable would be run on lines of wise economy. Experience did not warrant them in having any great confidence in what the Government proposed. In the case of the telegraphs in these countries, the Government proposed to buy them for a million or two, but
  646
  they ultimately had to pay seventeen millions. The same thing occurred in the case of the telephones, in which the Government made a most foolish bargain. The telephone company captured all the patents and captured all the smaller companies, and then captured the Postmaster General, with the result that London had the worst telephone system in Europe. He thought, therefore, that hon. members were justified in assuming that what had occurred before would occur again. The cable would be run at a loss, and ultimately the Government might be asked, in order to save continual loss, to hand it over to some private firm. The Telegraph Department at present was being run at a very considerable loss, and what guarantee had they that the cable would not be run at a perpetual loss also? He did not know what special qualifications the members of the Board had. All they knew about Lord Strathcona was that he raised a troop of horse.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of considering the items in the schedule a little later. He must not anticipate that discussion.
  *MR. TULLYsaid he would not proceed with that argument. He could not agree, however, to substitute the Treasury for the Board. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture was at the head of it, he would have some confidence in it. He was an able and honest man, and strove to do his work honestly, with the result that he had been shifted from the Treasury Department.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The character of the President of the Board of Agriculture is really not relevant.
  *MR. TULLYsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman had remained at the Treasury that proposal would never have been brought before the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clauses 6, 7, and 8 agreed to.
  MR. O'MARAsaid he wished to move a new clause, namely, that the rates charge

  647
  charged either intermediate or through should be approved by the Treasury. He thought that it was most important that the Treasury should have some control over the rates.
  New Clause (Rates)—(Mr. O'Mara)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

  AYES.

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

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Dowd, John

  Boland, John

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Boyle, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

  Lough, Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Lundon W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Caldwell, James

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Reddy, M.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacNeill, John Cordon Swift

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  M'Govern, T.

  Rigg, Richard

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Roche, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cremer, William Randal

  Moss, Samuel

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Cullinan, J.

  Murnaghan, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Murphy, John

  Thompson, Dr. E. G. (M'n'gh'n, N.

  Delany, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Nolan, Col. John P Galway, N.)

  Tully, Jasper

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Ure, Alexander

  Duffy, William J.

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Field, William

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. O'Mara and Mr. Dillon.

  Hammond, John

  O'Doherty, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bull, William James

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gust, Henry John C.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Burns, John

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud

  Caine, William Sproston

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm)

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

  Chapman, Edward

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

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (CJristch.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bell, Richard

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Bignold, Arthur

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.)

  Bigwood, James

  Colville, John

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Gardner, Ernest

  Brassey, Albert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Crombie, John William

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the clause raised practically the question they had already discussed once or twice. He had already stated his views to the Committee, and could not accept the proposed clause.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 74; Noes, 220. (Division List No. 468.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter) Bristol, S.)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Grant, Corrie

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rutherford, John

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Gretton, John

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Styles

  Groves, James Grimble

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Gurdon. Sir W. Brampton

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Hain, Edward

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G. (Midd'x

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

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

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyn'sde

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Harwood, George

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Spear, John Ward

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Heath. James (Staffords., N. W.

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

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

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Hobhouse, C. E. H (Bristol, E.)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Holland, William Henry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Thomson, F. W. (Yorks., W. R.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hoult, Joseph

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Parker, Gilbert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Howard, John (Kent, F'versh'm

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Valentia, Viscount

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Warner, Thomas Conrtenay T.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Penn, John

  White, Luke (Yorks., E. R.)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Whiteley, George (Yorks., W. R.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Keswick, William

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Williams, Rt. Hn J Powell- (Birm.

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Purvis, Robert

  Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks., E. R.)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Randles, John S.

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Ridley, Hon. M W. (Stalybridge)

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

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bill reported, without amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS AMENDMENT AND CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): The clause which I am about to move the omission of is not precisely the same clause as it was in the Bill originally before the House. It differs in two respects. In the first place, it differs in the mode in
  650
  which the law will operate, and in the second place there is a sub-section which was not in the original Bill. With regard to the former clause, there is no doubt that the clause as it stands now is a distinct improvement upon the clause originally before the House, especially in regard to one particular point where it lays down definite rules and hours, instead of leaving the matter to the Secretary of State. The other change in the clause refers to the exclusion of religious and charitable institutions. Now the clause as it stands is not so much an alteration in the law as that it makes the law plainer and more easily enforceable, and therefore I am hound to say

  651
  it is regrettable that it should be omitted; but I am bound to consider the whole subject-matter of the Bill itself, and having regard to the numerous classes of persons who are going to derive great advantage from the general provisions of the Bill, I certainly regard with the greatest dissatisfaction any circumstances likely to imperil the chances of the Bill by reason of a clause dealing with a particular point in the Bill. What is the position of matters with regard to this clause? There was great opposition to it. As it stood in Grand Committee there was a subsection of the clause dealing with religious and charitable institutions bringing them to a certain extent within the four corners of the Bill, but making a special provision with regard to inspection altogether different to the inspection to which other laundries have to be subjected. But as it frequently happens in many proposals for a compromise, these proposals of mine pleased neither one side or the other. It is commonly understood that the opposition to my original proposal came entirely from hon. Members representing Ireland, but that is not the case by any means. I received many more representations upon this matter from religious institutions in this country, who alleged that the proposals of the Bill if carried into effect would destroy the discipline which is absolutely necessary, having regard to the class of persons usually found in these institutions. So that the objection taken to the clause in Committee made it perfectly plain to me that the only course to pursue if I wished to secure the Bill was to leave the law as I found it with regard to these religious and charitable institutions, and the conclusion which I came to was practically the same conclusion which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife came to when he had to deal with the same matter.
  The right hon. Gentleman in his Bill of 1895 proposed that these institutions should be subject to the same conditions as ordinary laundries, but he was driven out of his position by the same considerations which ultimately drove me out of the position I took up, namely, that to sacrifice the great advantages of the proposed alteration in the law made
  652
  by the remainder of the Bill because of this particular point was not a course which commended itself to him; and so I felt I was driven to take this course for the same consideration precisely as that which actuated the right hon. Member for East Fife when he was dealing with the same question. Therefore I accepted the same sub-section as he not only accepted, but I believe moved in the 1895 Bill. I was driven to accept the same words: they are the words of the existing law. The position by my acceptance of this Amendment was not satisfactory to many members of the Committee, and in the result the omission of this clause was moved by an hon. Gentleman, one of the Members for Glasgow, and advocated and supported by voice and by vote by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean, by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, by the hon. Member for Leicester, by the hon. Member for Battersea, and by all those who have been most prominent in their desire to see a reform in the law with regard to laundries. The Amendment was not carried at the time, because I desired to take advantage of the time between then and now to see if it was not possible by consultation to arrive at some form of words which, although they would not give everything desired, would give some satisfaction, and enable us to retain the clause in the Bill. Now I have failed in my attempt. It has been said by some that if I had tried to find some form of words, I should have probably succeeded. All I can say is that no one has tried harder than I have to find a form of words, and I have been unable to find one, and I am face to face with this situation. We are within, I hope, a few days of the prorogation of Parliament, and I find the Notice Paper full of Amendments upon this particular clause. I need hardly point out to the House the practical impossibility of carrying this Bill if we have to deal with and dispose of all those Amendments.
  Now what would be the effect of the acceptance of this motion for the omission of this clause? It will leave, with another Amendment I shall have to propose subsequently in the schedule, the whole of the laundries in precisely the

  653
  same position as they are now. It is true that the law will retain the exemption to which I have referred, but it is said that this will be tolerable if the law remains as it is, but intolerable if the law is strengthened and tightened and if its operation makes the position of outside laundries more difficult than at present while retaining the present immunity for religious and charitable laundries. Well, it must not be supposed that, if the House accepts the Amendment which I propose, this matter is going to be lost sight of. I hope at no distant period we may be able to propose Amendments in the laundry section of the Act, and that we may arrive by inquiry and consultation, when time is permitted, at some agreement which, though it does not give all which some of my friends desire, will meet some of the objections raised on the one side and on the other, and by which possibly a solution may be found.
  It is said that under the existing provisions of the law there are many bogus institutions, and it has been suggested that something might have been put into the Bill which would have least have enabled the Home Office to deal effectively with those who claim exemption under the existing law but who do not deserve and have no proper pretention to claim such exemption. I have thought of and tried to devise some words which might be inserted in the Bill which would give the Home Office further power to deal with these objectionable institutions, but I can find no form of words which would not have the effect of limiting the power of the Home Secretary rather than extending it. There is no doubt that the power of the Home Secretary in this matter is practically unlimited, because, if there is any reason to suppose that the institutions claiming this exemption are not bona fide institutions, there is nothing to prevent the inspector demanding admission to any of these institutions, and if it is not what it pretends to be, and admission is refused, to take it before a court of law and make it prove it is entitled to the exemption claimed. No effort on my part will be wanting to see that the protection of this special exemption is not taken advantage of by these special institutions who have
  654
  no right to avail themselves of it. I can assure the House I am as anxious as they to deal with this matter in a proper way. Generally, with regard to the provisions of the Act of 1895, although they are not open to such adverse criticisms as hon. Members have directed against them—and the provisions themselves are good—I quite recognise the difficulties of enforcing them, and those I shall endeavour to overcome, and the House must not assume that this matter is going to remain altogether undealt with. I hope it may be possible to deal with it in a manner to give satisfaction without undue delay. The House will see that I have no other course, if I desire to secure the benefit of this Bill the vast number of people who will come under it, than the course I now take in asking the House to support this Amendment. I beg to move the omission of Clause 103.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 55, to leave out Clause 103."—(Mr. Secretary Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 103 to the word 'Act,' in page 56, line 40, inclusive, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. ASQUITH: I have listened with great surprise and disappointment to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. This Bill professes to be, and I gladly recognise that it is, a Bill for the amendment and consolidation of the law. If the right hon. Gentleman's motion to omit the clause is carried, having regard to this very important branch of factory administration, the Bill will neither amend the law nor will it consolidate it, because you will have the provisions of the existing law retained in force, subject to a very vague undertaking that at some indefinite time it may receive further consideration, and from the point of view of codifying and consolidating the law you will have as ridiculous a position as can be conceived. You will have the all-important section dealing with laundries not even put in the Consolidation Act at all, but only in the Act of 1895.
  *MR. RITCHIE: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I forgot to

  655
  say that, if the Amendment is carried, an Amendment will be proposed in another place to insert in this Bill the clause as it appeared in the original Consolidation Bill.
  MR. ASQUITH: If it is inserted in another place, what is going to happen then? Is it to be cut out in the shape of Lords' Amendments, while other Amendments in respect of laundries are to be put in? I do not see, from the point of view of saving time, that much is to be gained by that course. But the matter is very much more serious. When I introduced the Bill in 1895 it contained a clause dealing with laundries which, although not the same in form, was similar in substance to the clause in the present Bill; but owing to the strenuous opposition I encountered, and to the fact that I had not the advantage of a great and permanent majority like the present Government, I was obliged, very much against my will, to whittle it down to the form in which it appears in the statute. The right hon. Gentleman, as I acknowledged at the time when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill, proposed to strengthen the law from the comparatively weak and inoperative form in which I had been compelled to leave it, and his proposal, coupled with the Amendments introduced in Committee upstairs, has produced in the first three sub-sections a code dealing with the regulation of laundries, apart from conventual laundries, which, although perhaps not ideal, is perhaps as strong as public opinion will allow.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: And were agreed to unanimously.
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes, because the employers were quite prepared to accept them. Why are all the substantial improvements which this Bill makes to be abandoned? Why are we to abandon all these improvements, which even the laundry owners themselves do not object to, and in which the laundry operatives are directly and vitally interested? Why are we to omit what almost everyone agrees is a desirable and necessary amendment of the law at this stage
  656
  of the proceedings? The right hon. Gentleman has given one reason only—that unless these beneficial provisions, which did not apply to the excepted laundries, are omitted it would raise the whole hubbub about the conventual laundries. I say it would be a monstrous confession of weakness, and even of humiliation, on the part of the House of Commons if it threw all these improvements over for fear of the hostility of the excepted laundries. There is no other ground. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is totally inadequate to justify his proposal. The other matter, which was really the only solid ground, was as to the continuance of this class of excepted laundry. I acknowledge that I was the first to agree to it, and why? Because, as the right hon. Gentleman has truly said, it was the lowest price I could pay for carrying the Bill of 1895. But the right hon. Gentleman is not in the position I was. I had no majority independent of my hon. friends below the gangway, and if I had insisted on refusing the demand to have this class of laundries excepted, they had it in their power at once to kill my Bill and destroy the manifold improvements in every class of factory law which that Bill was designed to meet. But the right hon. Gentleman is not in that position. He has got a large majority, which is quite capable of overcoming all the forces arrayed against it, though that majority is not always in perfect working order, especially at this stage of the session. But I do protest that the Government having—for reasons of their own—delayed consideration of the Report stage until the last week of the session, should adopt this kind of coercion to the deliberations of the House, and say that unless we agree to a demand which is not reasonable, and which the Government have the power of resisting, the House must take the responsibility of sacrificing the whole of a valuable piece of legislation. As regards the merits of the case, I say what I said in 1895, that no case has been made out for the exemption of these privileged laundries. I observe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University has an Amendment which, if carried, would, I believe practically

  657
  meet the demands of all the religious charities except those connected with one religious community. The proposal is a very reasonable one, and could be perfectly well adapted to those conventual institutions which fall within the category of reformatory institutions. It would give the Home Secretary power to modify the requirements of the Act in their application to institutions of a reformatory character. One of the great objections to the inspection of those laundries had been removed by the appointment of lady inspectors. I cannot help thinking that, under these circumstances, the Government would have found that they had a preponderating body of opinion on both sides of the House if they had adopted such an Amendment. The Government do not dispute any of the propositions I have laid down; but because the Government are afraid that, if at this stage of the session they insist upon doing what they think to be right, they will lose the Bill, the House is asked to omit the clause altogether. I do not think that is a course consistent with the dignity either of the Government or of the House. For my part, I shall offer, and I hope the House will offer, its opposition to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
  *MR. TALBOT: I rise with the greatest regret to express my great disappointment with the speech of the Home Secretary. I fear that what has happened this evening, at the end of a long controversy, will be known as the history of a great surrender; and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that there is no justification for it. The motion of the hon. Member for East Clare in Committee was carried by twenty-nine to twenty-four. I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that if this matter was put to the House on its merits, without reference to passing the Bill or the time of the session, then these twenty-four members of the Committee who voted against the motion of the hon. Member for Clare would have been multiplied certainly ten-fold. Why is it we are called upon this evening to adopt the views of a small minority of the House? The only reason, of course, is the time of the session at which we
  658
  have arrived. I believe that if we were speaking in May instead of August the proposal would never have been made. It is only because we are a few days before the close of the session that we are called upon to make this very great surrender. I should like to state my position in this matter. I wish to speak not only for myself, but also for a great number of people outside who have favoured me with communications on this very important matter. I have always said, and I say it again, I go with hon. Members from Ireland some way in their objection to the inspection originally proposed. Ordinary inspection of laundries is inappropriate to institutions which are of a reformatory character. It would be impossible, I think, to admit an inspector in the ordinary way into laundries which are connected with institutions chiefly designed for the reformation of persons who have lived dissolute and immoral lives. That is absolutely true, but it is a long step to say that because you object to a particular form of inspection then you must object to all inspection. I cannot adopt that principle, nor do those for whom I speak. They say, and I agree with them, that with regard to a certain number of institutions inspection, and especially inspection by a woman inspector, is desirable—to see whether these institutions are in a proper sanitary condition, and whether the machinery employed is properly protected, and to see that the inmates are not over-worked and under-fed; and the institutions for which I speak welcome such inspection. Why is it hon. Members from Ireland take this non possumus line and say that unless inspectors were excluded altogether they would have nothing to do with the Bill? I think that is an unreasonable attitude, and so far as I am concerned I can be no party to the principle implied. I the more object to it because if there are any abuses the genuine institutions would be glad to see them stopped. But the practical question is: What are we to do? I am afraid that time is against us. If we like to insist—as I should personally desire to do—upon the retention of this clause, we are assured on the highest authority it would involve the sacrifice of the whole of this important Bill. I should be sorry to be responsible for the

  659
  loss of so important a measure, which affects the welfare of large classes, and especially those classes who are least able to protect themselves. Therefore I think we ought to hesitate very long before we imperil the Bill. I for one cannot take responsibility for its loss, and therefore I must vote for the Amendment of the Home Secretary.
  *MR. TENNANTsaid he rose to support the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife upon this important question. As the right hon. Gentleman was aware, he had gone to a deal of trouble and taken a great deal of time in attempting to arrive at a compromise. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated that he regretted having to propose the omission of the clause. In introducing the Bill he had pointed out that the present state of the law was confused and unsatisfactory. Now he claimed that the provisions of the Act of 1895 were good in themselves, but difficult to administer. But what was the use of a good law if it could not be administered? The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he proposed to apply to Institution laundries the provisions of the Factory Acts. He said the exemption of these laundries from inspection was indefensible, but it was exactly what the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to do—to exempt these laundries from inspection. He would not labour the point that the law as it stood was in an unsatisfactory condition, but as the right hon. Gentleman might say that he had voted in Committee against the clause he now wished retained, he would read to the House a letter which he had received from the National Laundry Trade Protection Association, Limited. That letter would explain and justify his position—
  "I gather from the Amendment Paper under the Factory and Workshops Consolidation Bill that the feeling of the House is such that in all probability Clause 103 will not go through, and may be withdrawn by the Home Secretary. I sincerely trust you will he enabled to see your way to vote against its withdrawal. When this Association made the request to you, when the Hill was before the Grand Committee, to propose its withdrawal there was a very strong feeling existing as to the non-acceptance of the Institution Clause and the Cottage Laundry Clause, but on consideration the amended clause as it
  660
  stands has proved so acceptable to the laundry trade throughout the country that they feel they can safely accept it. I have received from all parts of the country information that the clause as amended meets with the entire approval of the trade, as it undoubtedly provides better regulations both from the employers' and the employees' point of view, and although it is some restriction of the hours as they at present exist, yet it is felt that the result will be a great improvement in the class of workers secured for the trade. The opinion therefore, generally, is that the trade would rather have Clause 103 as at present printed in the Bill than the law as it at present stands, which, as you very well know, as a protection for the workers is practically useless, and such that even the Home Office officials feel very great difficulty in effectually administering. I sincerely trust that, on behalf of the laundry trade of the kingdom, you will not fail to strongly represent these views when the Bill is before the House of Commons."
  The laundry trade objected to the action of the right hon. Gentleman. He had supported the omission of the clause in the past because of this request, but now that the demand and the desire for the omission of the clause had been removed he was justified in adhering to the wishes of those who advised him upon this matter. He wished to know why this clause was to be omitted. It was clear it was not for the benefit of the trade, because the trade dissented from it. The real reason was to avoid the opportunity of discussing the very large question of the exemption of the religious institutions. The statement by the hon. Member for East Clare in the press was a temperate statement from the point of view of Ireland in this matter. It might be urged that nothing could be said against the convent laundries of Ireland, but a great deal of fault had justly been found with the convent laundries in France. Great scandals had been brought to light in connection with these laundries owing to an application to them of the law; and he desired to know what guarantee the House had that like institutions in this country were not being carried on in an equally disadvantageous way as were those in France. There was no guarantee, and if there was any great eagerness to avoid inspection, such keenness to avoid inspection must inevitably give rise to the suspicion that there was something to conceal. The greater the keenness the greater the suspicion that

  661
  must arise. What happened in France? He would quote from the report of M. Laporte, the divisional inspector of the first district for the year 1886. That gentleman said—
  "To-day I will cite particularly the orphanage of the Good Shepherd, where children from seven to eight years old work from 5 a.m. till 4 p.m., having only one hour of instruction after the day's labour."
  He further said—
  "There has been brought to my notice a convent where little girls of four years old have to hem with the greatest care half a dozen house-cloths each, i.e., to make about nine or ten yards."
  In his report for the year 1887, M. Giroud, divisional inspector, expressed himself in the following terms on the subject of the establishment entitled "The Good Shepherd," at Cholet—
  "This establishment, which I have twice visited…with its staff of seventy sisters and novices, living on the proceeds of the work done there, unites all the characteristics of an industrial enterprise….. They receive at the Good Shepherd little girls from the age of four years; they make these miserable children work the same number of hours as young girls of sixteen to twenty-one."
  The same inspector expresses himself also on the subject of "The Good Shepherd" of Poitiers—
  "The staff employed in this establishment is composed of forty-six children from four to twelve years old, thirty-three from twelve to fifteen, and thirty from sixteen to twenty-one: that is, seventy-nine children from four to sixteen years old, and thirty young girls. The length of the work is the same for the children of four as for the young girls. Three of the sisters, not certificated, hold a class for the youngest children for three-quarters of an hour a day."
  When he read that report he thought it his duty to make inquiries as to whether such practices were still going on. He ascertained from the annual Reports on the application during 1899 of the laws regulating work that 4,429 breaches of the law had taken place in industrial religious establishments. Of these 924 related to the duration of work. They had no knowledge or guarantee that similar abuses were not now going on in similar institutions here, and that great hardships were not being suffered by young children. It would be to the advantage of those institutions themselves that they should
  662
  be placed under inspection. The convents of the Good Shepherd may be subject to precisely the same abuses in England as in Franco. He would point out to the House what happened in Sheffield only four years ago. He wished to quote this instance in reply to the hon. Member for East Clare, who had stated that it was quite easy for the girls to come and go in these institutions—
  "Two girls, named Maggie Gaffey, aged fifteen, and Minnie Hober, aged sixteen, made their escape from the convent of the Good Shepherd at midnight last night. They dropped twenty feet from a window on the fourth storey to the roof of another building, and then scaled the convent walls, from which they descended to the street. Hober sprained both her ankles, and the girls, being unable to run away, were arrested. The girls tell stories of starvation, hard work, and cruel treatment, and threaten to kill themselves if they are sent back."
  MR. DILLONasked for the authority for this statement.
  *MR. TENNANTreplied that it appeared in a paragraph in the Sheffield Independent.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Slandering a religious community on the authority of a newspaper paragraph!
  MR. DILLONsaid the hon. Member for Berwickshire had brought a very terrible charge, which was not in the official reports. He was very sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Member, but this was a very horrible charge with which they had been called upon to deal, and he wished to know what authority this charge was based upon.
  *MR. TENNANTsaid he did not think he could be accused of slandering anybody. The statements in the paragraph had, he understood, never been disputed.
  MR. DILLONsaid this was a very horrible charge, and it was important they should know who was the author of it.
  *MR. TENNANTrepeated that the paragraph appeared in the Sheffield Independent, and it was circulated by a society of which Mr. Abbott, of Gray's Inn Place, was the secretary.
  MR. DILLONasked if the hon. Gentleman could say, of his own knowledge, that this was a genuine paragraph, or was it only a leaflet sent round broadcast.
  *MR. TENNANTsaid his point was that, even if the case were untrue, it was surely one for inquiry. There was grave suspicion that such a case did take place, and it was of immense importance, as well from the point of view of the public generally as of the inmates of such homes, that that suspicion should be arrested. The other cases which he had quoted were all official, and if he had read something which he ought not to have read he offered his apologies to the House. The managers of similar homes in connection with the Church of England had expressed, not only their willingness, but their desire for inspection under the Home Office, and he saw no reason why other homes of a religious character should not come under the same inspection. He had received many influential letters supporting his view upon this question. The Archbishop of Canterbury was strongly in favour of inspection. He had received a letter from Miss Ella Pease in regard to the Morpeth Home of Industry in which she says—
  "I have heard from three members of the 'Morpeth Home of Industry' Committee, and they are all strongly in favour of homes and institutions such as this being put under the Factory Acts. The other member who is in Norway at the present moment agrees with us, I know. So I can say all the managers of the home are unanimous on the subject. We have all felt how difficult it is to prevent matrons from overpressing girls, even when their committees do all they can to prevent it, and when, as with us, there is plenty of money. I know, however, one or two institutions where there is not much money, and where the committees are at fault as well as the matrons, and a terrible lot of overwork goes on, and until there are women inspectors nothing will stop this continuing."
  He had received amongst other letters from Mrs. Creighton, and from the wives of the Bishops of Chichester, Carlisle, York, Winchester, Exeter, Southwell, and Salisbury, all approving of the employment of a Government lady inspector, and expressing themselves strongly in favour of the inspection of these laundries.
  With regard to competition with other laundries, surely that was an
  664
  important point to consider. It was absurd to say that there was no competition in the face of the large income which some of these institutions derived from, their laundries. Even if the public had to subscribe to these charitable institutions the competition was equally unfair. He could not understand all this opposition to inspection, and if there was anything to conceal they wished to know what it was. If there was nothing to conceal, then he contended that these institutions would not suffer, but gain, by inspection. He asked the House not to agree to the motion, because on the one hand we should be doing a grave economic injustice, and on the other we should be abandoning one of our most solemn responsibilities.
  *MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he had been asked hundreds of questions on all sorts of matters in the course of the two elections he had fought in Sheffield, and had there been anything in the story quoted by the hon. Member who had just spoken he felt sure he must have heard of it. On the general question, however, the position was very unsatisfactory. He was afraid that an impression would be created that those institutions had something to conceal, whereas, as a matter of of fact, they had not. It would be impossible to apply to those institutions the identical clauses of the Factory Acts which applied to ordinary business establishments, but difficulties such as that would have been fully met by the Amendment of his right hon. friend the Member for Oxford University, and he could not help hoping that his Amendment would yet be accepted, and that in all cases there would be a special lady visitor enjoying the confidence of the managers of such institutions.
  MR. LEAMYsaid he frankly admitted at the outset the right of those hon. Gentlemen who were against the exclusion of convent laundries from the Bill to challenge those who said they should be excluded to give their reasons for so thinking. He desired to approach this question as fairly and moderately as he could. He did not regard it as a Catholic or an Irish question. He regarded it from a different

  665
  point of view altogether. Before coming to the reasons for excluding these laundries from the Bill, he desired to meet one or two statements which had been made against convents and nuns. One of these was that the nuns shirked inquiry because they had something to conceal. This was a subject on which the Irish Members were competent to speak. They knew all about the working of these institutions in Ireland, and the nuns, so far from being desirous to conceal, only welcomed visitors to the convent to see it and everything connected with it. There was not a day passed when ladies did not visit the convents and see the girls who were under the charge of the nuns. Not a Sunday or a holiday passed when ladies with their daughters did not visit the institutions and gave concerts to the inmates. There was hardly one of the Nationalist Members who had not a relative a nun, and they would be the most dishonest men in the world if they allowed their friends to remain in these institutions if there was anything wrong. The idea of secrecy, or that there was anything to conceal, was utterly absurd. The objection of the nuns to inspection was that they believed, rightly or wrongly, that the interference of an inspector between them and the girls under their charge would weaken the authority which it was necessary for them to exercise if they were to succeed with the great work they had in hand. It was said that the nuns might treat the girls badly. It was said that in some cases such girls had been treated badly. He would point out that it was the aim and object of the nuns to induce the girls to come into the convent. These girls came from a life in which they had been absolutely unrestrained. Their life was completely revolutionised, they were subjected to discipline, and they had prayer and work. The nuns had learned from sad experience that if the girls went out after being a short time in the convent they descended to the abyss from which they had been taken. The nuns believed that they were actually responsible to Christ for the care of the girls, and they did their utmost to prevent them straying again. If the girls were underfed or overworked they would be discontented, and they would
  666
  go out of the convents. There was no limit to the solicitude, devotion, and affection of the nuns. It was esteemed a miracle if a fallen woman turned round and altered her life, but that work of reform was being carried out week after week in the Irish convents. He asked the House not to weaken the hands of those by whom this miracle was being wrought. When the Member for East Fife was speaking he remembered the time when the Irish Members kept him in office. During that period there was some beneficent work done for the English working classes with the help of the Irish Members, and it was not fair to bring the charge against them that they were desirous of injuring this Bill. What was the object of this legislation? Was it to ensure that these girls were contented? Had ever any complaints been made by these girls in the convents? The nuns had no control over them except the consciousness of the girls in the devotion and affection of the nuns and their desire to make them happy. He did not wish to push this too far, but one of the difficulties was that the nuns had no desire to be exposed to the public. They wished to work quietly, but not secretly. It should be remembered that the convents in Dublin were inspected yearly by Archbishop Walsh; then there were the hospital inspectors, and ladies were constantly going in to visit them. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that if he were in Dublin to-morrow and went into one of these convents he would be welcomed, and the mother would have pleasure in showing him the institution, provided that he did not go as an inspector but as a private gentleman. They were not afraid of inspection; the nuns were not afraid of inspection so far as their work was concerned; but he did ask that the Legislature would not interfere with the work of the nuns who, day after day and night after night, bestowed constant care, anxiety, and affection on these miserable creatures. He knew that some of these poor girls Were the victims of men's passions, and some of their own folly; but could there be any more beautiful or touching sight than that of these women, who had been in the convent since they were only ten or eleven years of age, taking to their hearts

  667
  women from the streets who came to them for help. He could not conceive of anyone not respecting a beautiful and holy charity like that. He appealed to the House not to make this a Catholic or Irish question. He was not pleading for the nuns, but for the poor girls under their charge.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he did not wish to say a word which would offend the feelings of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken under a sense of very deep religious conviction. He was one of those representatives, who, he believed, were a great majority of the House, that were in favour of no clause at all rather than the clause as it stood in the Bill. But he would prefer still more a clause containing requirements for inspection all round. He believed there was no class of work which more demanded sanitary inspection than laundry work, and he, for one, was at a loss to understand the extraordinary opposition to what seemed to him a fair proposal that all laundries should be inspected. If laundries under the control of the different convents carried on their work in a proper sanitary way, without overworking the inmates by long, illegal hours, then in the name of common sense why should they object to fair inspection? How could it be possible to interfere with the proper discipline of the convents if women inspectors were to go round from time to time and inspect them? If there was nothing to conceal, as the hon. Gentleman opposite asserted, why, in the name of common sense, should they try to conceal it? [Laughter from the Irish benches.] He saw that an Irish way of stating a case appealed to hon. Members opposite. He was afraid that this was a concession made to members of the Committee who were members of the Roman Catholic Church; but it was time that the Government came to realise that there were other susceptibilities, quite as sincere as those of the members of the Roman Catholic Church, to be considered.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: said, as an agricultural Member, he did not pretend to know anything of convents, but he did know a great deal about charitable institutions. He had been glad to hear the firm and
  668
  straightforward tone which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had taken in Committee upstairs in regard to the exemption of religious institutions, and he had been more than disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman had hauled down the Union Jack that evening. The great majority of charitable institutions were well managed, and invited inspection to show to the world how they were carried on; in fact, they asked that the black sheep among them should be dropped out. They knew from parallel cases that abuses existed. The Metropolitan Association for Befriending Young Women had a large number of laundries, and they asked for inspection, and they should like that the clause about exemption should be dropped out. He could not conceive why other institutions should not hold the same views. He could not help thinking that, if institutions were afraid of being inspected, there must be something wrong. The mere fact that exemption for certain institutions had been so strongly sustained created a certain amount of suspicion in his own mind that there must be something wrong. It was the right of all the working women of this country to be put in exactly the same position, and he hoped the Home Secretary would reconsider his decision in regard to the Amendment. Nobody was more anxious to get away for a holiday than he was, but what about these poor women who never got any holidays at all? Why could they not give up a few days holidays in order to do good to these poor women? He earnestly hoped that the House would get rid of the exemption.
  MR. RENSHAWsaid that the objections he felt to the clause which the Home Secretary proposed to omit from the Bill were grounded on the changes which had been made in the clause since it was originally introduced by the Government. When first introduced it contained two proposals. In the first place it provided that the Secretary of State should have power to regulate the hours in which work could be carried on in the trade laundries; and, in the second place, provision was made by which the Secretary of State was to have power to inspect at times the conventual, the

  669
  charitable, institutions in which laundry work was carried on. Both these proposals had been changed during the progress of the Bill through Grand Committee. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, who had made what he considered a somewhat unfair speech with reference to the conventual side of the question, introduced in the early part of the clause a new provision doing away with the Secretary of State's power to regulate the hours, and establishing a system of fixed hours. At the instance of the hon. Member for Clare there was reinstated in the clause the precise words which had been enacted, with the assent of the right hon. Member for East Fife, in 1895. The right hon. Gentleman when he accepted that said that he did so under circumstances of great pressure. All those who were affected by factory legislation regretted that this measure had been introduced so late in the session; but they recognised that if the Home Secretary was to save his Bill it was necessary for him to make concessions where concessions were demanded. The Home Secretary proposed to take out the clause under discussion and re-enact the clause of 1895. That clause was only passed six years ago, and having regard to the enormous changes effected—some of them good and some of them not very admirable—in the provisions of this great Bill, that clause of 1895 might be allowed a little longer trial. He would remind the House that this Bill was intended to codify and simplify the whole of the Factory Laws in one measure, and as a manufacturer, expressing the views and opinions of many other manufacturers, he said that their opinion was not particularly strong in regard to the inspection of conventual institutions. What they were anxious about was to have the whole of the Factory Laws embraced in one statute, so that they could see at a glance, as it were, how their business was to be carried on. He hoped that the motion of the right hon. Gentleman would be accepted by the House. He did not plead for the conventual or charitable institutions, but what he wanted to press on the House was that, whether they accepted this clause or went back to the clause of 1895, it was perfectly clear that they
  670
  had to exempt the conventual and charitable institutions because no fresh conditions could be imposed. Following on what had been said by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, he might say that he had received a letter from a very large trade laundry firm in the neighbourhood of Paisley. It was dated 31st July, and was from A. Bell and Sons, Limited, and he would read the exact words in order that the House might realise the strong view held in regard to this matter—
  "As to charitable institutions, we cannot understand why the Irish Members should be allowed to sway the decision of a strong Government. Institution laundries, with buildings and plant provided by private or public benefaction, and often subsidised by public subscriptions, compete with other laundries on an unjust footing; and when allowed to work any number of hours and under no restrictions the injustice is intensified."
  Having regard to the position of this Bill, its importance, and the impossibility of everybody getting his own way, he thought they should take the line of least resistance, and strike out the amended clause, and re-insert in the schedule the clause in the Act of 1895.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid the question which the House would have to decide was whether they should take an amendment of the law embodied in Sub-clauses 1, 2, and 3, which the Home Secretary had declared to be valuable, and against which hon. Members had not a single word to say.
  MR. SPEAKER: It would not be in order to reserve the Amendment on Sub-section 4. If the House decide in favour of the Amendment now before it, the whole clause must go.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid that the only argument used by the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Renfrewshire was that Sub-clauses 1, 2, and 3 would impose further restrictions on the laundries which would increase the cost of labour and production. He thought that was a wholly wrong view, as was shown by the experience of the Factories Acts. These sub-clauses did not impose any new restrictions on employers. What they would do would be to put the employment by bad employers in

  671
  the same position us employment by good employers; and there would be no increase of cost of labour and production. It was the opinion of many laundry employers that these sub-clauses would be good for the laundries themselves. The letter which the hon. Member for Renfrewshire read raised no objection to the sub-clauses; the objection was to the exemption of the conventual laundries, which would apply fully as much to the Act of 1895 as it would do in the clause under discussion. The organised employers had declared themselve; in favour of these restrictions, and in face of that they could not believe that they would increase the cost of production. No reason had been shown why what was admitted to be a valuable improvement of the law should not be accepted. The Home Secretary proposed to drop the three first sub-sections of the clause, because he was afraid that on the 4th he might be driven by the compact which he had made with the Irish Members—
  *MR. RITCHIE: I absolutely deny that there has been any compact.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid he was extremely sorry to have used a word that was in any sense offensive, and he frankly withdrew the observation. Although there was no compact, or anything in the nature of a compact, the hon. Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies had expressed their feelings as to Sub-section 4 with such great strength that the Home Secretary no doubt understood that unless he acceded to their views his measure would meet with considerable opposition.
  *MR. RITCHIE: What I mean, and said, was that if this clause, as it stands, remains in the Bill, I feel perfectly certain that it will be utterly impossible to pass the measure at all. This clause would not therefore come into operation at all. So the hon. Gentleman's argument falls entirely to the ground.
  MR. M'KENNA: What an extraordinary statement to come from the Home Secretary, who is a member of the Government which has forced measure after measure through the House without Amendment by the use of the closure!
  *MR. RITCHIE: Not a Bill with 163 clauses.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid that they had already reached the 103rd clause, and there was such a thing as the block closure, to which the Government could have resorted, and which would have enabled the right hon. Gentleman to carry through the Bill if he had pleased. As a matter of fact, the Amendments on the Paper were so few that he would have had no difficulty in so doing. The right hon. Gentleman was taking ground which was wholly inconsistent with the past experience of the Government. As they knew only too well, the Government had used their powers as a relentless Juggernaut to override the forms and privileges of the House, and now, forsooth, when they had the chance of passing a measure—not to grant doles, or to secure the dominance of the clerical party in the schools—they found themselves reluctant to use those methods they had invariably employed on previous occasions! The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman did not mend his case in the least. He had an opportunity of making a valuable Amendment of the law, which he rejected at the bidding of the smallest of the three sections of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had wasted his opportunity and sacrificed his immense majority, and an almost unparalleled opportunity for doing something to settle a vexed question, because, forsooth, it would take from his holidays half a day or a day. He deeply regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have moved this Amendment.
  SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELL: said that in his belief, notwithstanding the lecture to the Home Secretary given by the hon. Gentleman opposite, the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman to omit the clause altogether was the only way to escape at this stage out of the difficulty. Suppose that the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Monmouth had been taken to keep the clause as it stood, the first thing the hon. Members from Ireland would have done would have been to crowd the Order Paper with Amendments, and no advance could possibly

  673
  have been made, so that a Bill of the greatest value would have been destroyed. He was not prepared to run that risk. The Bill as it stood was a monument of surrender of the Government where surrender was not necessary. He was very much surprised when the hon. Member spoke of the compact made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill with the Irish Members. The compact which he made was the compact which gentleman crossing Blackheath made with the gentlemen of the road who demanded their money or their life. In all seriousness, although he thought the course proposed by the Government was the wisest in all the circumstances, he maintained that what had happened in the Standing Committee was unworthy of the House of Commons, and hardly to be described by a word less strong than cowardly on the part of a strong Government.
  MR. DILLON: I do not think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has been just to the Irish party in regard to this Bill. We could have killed this Bill at any moment if we had wished. It is a very complicated measure, and nobody knows better than the Home Secretary that what I say is true. But throughout we abstained, and not only that, but during the proceedings in Committee upstairs we consistently assisted him in carrying this Bill, and assisted the Radical party in improving the Bill, and I am not quite sure that the tone adopted by some of the Radical party, after all these days during which we steadily voted for the improvement of the Bill, is either fair or generous. The hon. Member for North Monmouthshire tried to induce inexperienced Members of the House to imagine that we were voting on the question whether the whole clause should stand part of the Bill or not. That is only a technical point. The question now is whether the clause stand part of the Bill or not, and it is on that issue that the opinion of the House is going to be taken. I pass on without commenting upon the observation of the hon. Member as to the power of the Government to override the will of the smallest section of the House. It is rather new to us to hear from the Radical party that we are such a contemptible section of the House.
  674
  It is certainly a somewhat surprising experience to hear a Member of the Radical party inviting the Government to put in force closure by compartments in order to shut up the Irish party. But I pass from these observations, which are difficult to take seriously, and I come to the serious speech of an hon. Member opposite who has taken an active part in connection with this Bill. He expressed some doubt as to the value of the changes, and at all events stated that he would prefer to omit the whole clause, as it stands, rather than accept it with the exemption of the charitable institutions.
  MR. RENSHAW: What I conveyed was that the clause is now so changed that I would prefer it should be omitted, because I disapprove of the advantage which it would give in competition.
  MR. DILLON: I understand the hon. Member's position. It is that inasmuch as the restrictions by this Bill have been largely increased in stringency, that the severity of competition would be greatly increased by the exemptions. Well, the hon. Member below the gangway demolished that by saying that the restrictions did not in the slightest interfere with competition. Where, therefore, is the doctrine which is one of the main arguments, and the very argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite—the argument, namely, of undue competition? Why, then, is the communication from the Associated Laundries brought forward by the hon. Member for Berwickshire?
  MR. TENNANT: Does the hon. Member deny that there is competition?
  MR. DILLON: No; but the hon. Member for North Monmouthshire does.
  MR. M'KENNA: I deny that the increased restrictions under the Factory laws cause any additional expense.
  MR. DILLON: So that it makes no difference. Where then, if there is no increased cost, does the undue competition come in? The whole thing is ridiculous. I dwell on this argument of unfair competition suggested by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, because I consider it to be the only serious argument that has been put forward against our

  675
  views. I could not help contrasting the tone of his argument with that of other hon. Members opposite. He abstained from a single insulting reference to the Irish conventual institutions which do laundry work. The same remark may be made of the Home Secretary, who conducted the Bill upstairs with extraordinary skill and patience. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that these institutions subject the trade laundries to unfair competition because the plant is supplied by public subscription. I admit that there is some slight weight in the argument from that point of view, but what can be done with these poor homeless, houseless creatures to whom these institutions offer a refuge when all others are closed against them? Are you prepared to turn these people away and let them become the hopeless victims of the evils of society? Are you going to deny them the right to work in these institutions and obtain there a refuge from the cruelty and the awful lives to which they are exposed? Surely no man in this House is prepared to stand up and say that he would shut the doors of hope and mercy on these poor outcasts. What remedy then remains in the way of competition? You must only trust to the good sense of those who conduct these institutions, whether Catholic nuns or Protestant sisters; and as regards the Catholic institutions I may say that the nuns charge higher prices for the work done in order to avoid as far as possible competing unfairly with ordinary laundries.
  I will try to be as moderate as I can in dealing with the statements of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, though I must admit that his speech was such as should make the Irish blood boil in my veins. I remember that, many years ago, I travelled all the way from here to Berwickshire to assist the hon. Member in his election; but in all my experience I never listened to a more cruel, a more wounding, or a more unjustifiable charge than that which was levelled by the hon. Member against comparatively defenceless ladies, or a charge that was based on so utterly flimsy a foundation. What did the hon. Member say? Without mentioning his authority, he charged, in the basest possible way, that five or six years ago two unfortunate girls
  676
  escaped from one of these institutions by jumping from the window of a fourth storey, I think he said, on to the roof of another house, and that when they were picked up by the police they said they would commit suicide rather than go back. I asked him on what ground he based that charge. He comes before the House of Commons to endanger a great Bill, and he selects as the ground for the charge a suspicion of horrible ill-treatment of these girls, and, knowing the gravity of the charge and the feelings of passion to which it would give rise, yet he bases that charge on a cutting from a newspaper referring to some incident alleged to have taken place years ago in Sheffield. He gave no details or particulars in support of the charge, and when challenged on the point he could not verify what he said, and did not even know whether the newspaper cutting was a genuine one or not. I now ask with confidence—I ask our friends and our political opponents—is that the conduct an English gentleman and a Member of this House ought to stoop to? I know something, and my friends around me know something, of the lives led by these convent ladies—women who have turned their backs on all that makes life dear to the ordinary human being, and who devote their whole lives, without hope of reward, to one of the most painful, most difficult, and distressing occupations anyone in this world could undertake, whose convents in Ireland are the objects of admiration and sympathy of everyone acquainted with their work and record, no matter what his religious belief may be, and I have known thousands with no religious beliefs at all who have admired them just as much. Against the ladies in charge of these institutions a breath of calumny was never uttered, and no charge was ever made against their fair name and fame for the last twenty years since I entered public life in this country. But now it remains for a Liberal Member of Parliament to make the charge in this House, and on what grounds? On the contemptible basis of a cutting from the Sheffield Independent he makes a charge which is practically an indictment of all the Catholic convents in the country. What is the work these ladies are engaged in? I say that in the whole annals of

  677
  the Christian Church there is no greater or more difficult work of charity than that in which these ladies are engaged. The doors of their convents are thrown Open to the wreckage of human society, and to my knowledge the poor girls, the victims of the conditions of society, who enter these doors, are welcomed, not as hired servants, but as members of one and the same family. And when the hon. Member talks about girls escaping from these convents he does not understand what he is saying, because there is no need for them to escape. The doors are open to them to come or go. The nuns have no legal right to detain them if they do not choose to stay. They come in from the streets when all the world has shut them out and denied them both refuge and sympathy. When they tire of the convent they leave, sometimes to return to their evil courses, but when they again return are they denied forgiveness by the nuns? No; they come again and again, and every time they come they are welcomed. These are the ladies who the hon. Member insinuates are selfish and capable of sweating and ill-treating the poor creatures who seek their aid. I will not deal with what the hon. Member said about the French convents. The shameful charges made against them by some newspapers in this country I believe to be base, contemptible, and lying charges. The hon. Member was ashamed to give the whole catalogue of the charges. I will mention one of them. In the scandalous circulars sent round I find it stated that the French nuns kept these girls working hard and sold their work to the rich prostitutes of Paris.
  *MR. TENNANT: I was not in the least ashamed of stating what I believed to be a fact. All I said was that certain things had occurred which were proved to have occurred in the official reports, and that we had no knowledge that similar things might not occur again. That was my argument.
  MR. DILLON: The hon. Member did not give a single particular or detail in support of his charge against the French convents. But that is not the question with which we have to deal. I do not attach any weight to these
  678
  charges, and as uttered against the convents of France I do not believe them. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University gives the weight of his authority to the misconception that we are asking for the exemption of Catholic institutions because they are Catholic. Nothing was further from the truth or more at variance with the facts. I have heard repeated charges that we are striving to shelter establishments where young children are employed. What are the facts? All the convents in Ireland to which children are sent under the Industrial Schools Acts are inspected by Government inspectors. In my own constituency in East Mayo there are two large convents, and in connection with one of them an important woollen factory is carried on. Both are inspected by Government inspectors, and the nuns never dream of objecting. As a matter of fact, half the convents in Ireland are thus inspected, and therefore I will ask hon. Members to dismiss from their minds the idea—which I believe has been deliberately circulated by people who know it to be false—that we are asking for the exemption of Catholic convents as such. We are asking exemption for a certain class of institutions in which, on account of the character of the inmates, inspection would interfere with discipline. We are assured by those experienced in the working of these institutions that the intrusion of the inspector—and I say it frankly, I think the female inspector is the worst—would be detrimental to the discipline of these institutions. It was said that the whole thing could be remedied by substituting the female for the male inspector. Well, I had a letter the other day from the superioress of one of these institutions, in which she said, "For God's sake save us from inspection if you can, but if we are to be inspected at all, let us have a male Government inspector." We are assured that the enormous difficulty of maintaining discipline in these institutions would be vastly increased by a system of hard and fast inspection, and for that reason alone we claim this exemption. I hold in my hand a communication I received some time ago from the Association of Reformatory and Refuge Unions of the United Kingdom in which laundry work is

  679
  carried on. It is signed by no less than 150 representatives of these institutions, of which I believe not more than twenty are Catholic, and in that communication they say that if the factory rules were introduced, the object for which these homes were founded would be entirely defeated. These Protestant institutions most of them appeal to us for help, and I myself have received many letters begging me to persevere and save them from the intrusion of inspection. That is the first ground on which we claim the exemption of these institutions. The inmates of these institutions are as free to leave them if they wish as any Member of this House is to leave this Chamber to-night. The discipline which is maintained is the discipline of a private family—that is, by affection and influence and not by fear of punishment or fear of restraint. Everybody knows that the girls, owing to the unfortunate circumstances of their lives, are extremely unwilling to subject themselves to outside inspection. It is cruel to force it upon them. The whole conditions of life are entirely different to what prevail in outside places. When they are sick they are not dismissed. Many of them are unwell coming into the convents, and have to be subjected to a long course of medical treatment. They have no home to go to, and they are all treated as members of the one family, and if they are at any time invalided they are attended to and treated within the convent. The work they perform, although no doubt it is an assistance towards maintaining the institution, is mainly intended as a means of distracting the minds and occupying the time of the inmates. These are the grounds, and the only grounds, upon which we claim this exemption.
  Now let me turn for a moment to what happened. Hon. Members of the Liberal party to-night protest in the loudest possible manner against the action of the Home Secretary in sacrificing this valuable clause. Hon. Members came forward and declared that the conduct of the Government in throwing over this clause was nothing short of an outrage. I think these gentlemen are guilty of most extraordinary consistency. We are told by some of the Members behind
  680
  the Home Secretary that his action is cowardly, and some said, "It is a contract with the Irish Members." I should like to put before hon. Members opposite for their consideration some facts that will induce them to withdraw that statement. In the first place, there is no compromise. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary acted perfectly straight. He, of course, as any right hon. Member in charge of a Bill would, inquired and negotiated with a view to adjust matters and bring about an understanding. Having failed to bring about an understanding to which everybody could assent, he put the motion on the Paper which he has moved to-night, the course he now took, but when Liberal Members are so indignant with the right hon. Gentleman for this "base surrender," as they describe it, to Irish Members, I beg of them to remember the action of their own party in 1895. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife declared that he agreed to accept the Amendment excepting conventual and charitable Protestant laundries in 1895 because he had not a majority to carry his original proposition. Hon. Members on the Conservative side were in opposition in those days, and here is the record of the division by which these identical words in reference to convent laundries inserted in the Grand Committee in the present Bill were carried in 1895. The motion was made to insert the words exempting the conventual laundries from inspection by Mr. Secretary Asquith, and it was carried by thirty-eight votes to ten. Let me read the names of some of those who voted in the majority for the same words which are denounced as a base and cowardly surrender to the Irish party—Mr Allinson, Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Jesse Collings, Sir James Fergusson, Mr. Hayes Fisher, Sir John Gorst, Mr. Heneage, Sir William Houldsworth—all members of the Tory party—
  SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELL: They are all now members of the Government.
  MR. DILLON: That is a very stupid point, and it is not a fact. Sir James Fergusson is not a member of the Government. I do not know whether Sir John Gorst would be considered a member of

  681
  the Government. Sir William Houldsworth is not a member of the Government. Conservatives in 1895 joined in forcing this view upon the Government, and I am astonished to hear the views of some of the Tory party to-night. The Government to-day have nothing to be ashamed of in this matter. Their action is not a "base surrender." It is a reasonable concession to a body of people who have been of enormous service to humanity, and whose feelings and opinions are entitled to a due and fair consideration. Whatever the future prospect may be—and I may say the Home Secretary was most anxious to meet everybody—so long as the discipline of those institutions is not broken or interfered with, I venture to say that the Home Secretary and the present Tory Government have nothing to be ashamed of in this transaction. There has been no surrender. There has been a fair exchange of opinion, a square fight upon the merits of the case, and, for my part, I thank the Home Secretary for the action he has taken to-night, although I regret that the whole clause will be lost to the Bill. That is not due to the action of the Irish party. It is the fault of some men—I cast no blame, nor make any question of their sincerity—who are so narrow-minded or misled in their opinion that they are prepared to lose the clause and wreck the whole Bill rather than let these conventual and charitable institutions conduct their own work. Sir, in dealing with great measures like this, in which the interests of millions of the working classes are concerned, it is a narrow, bigoted, and stupid policy to risk a fight on so great and beneficent a measure for the sake of breaking in the doors of a few convents, against which no man, except the hon. Member for Berwickshire, dared to utter a word, and against which I challenge any Member of this House to bring a well-founded Complaint.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: The hon. Member who has just spoken attacked my hon. friend on apparently no stronger foundation than a circular letter sent by unknown people to every Member of the House through this morning's post. Many of us listened with interest to the powerful and eloquent speech of the
  682
  hon. Member for some justification of the position which he and his colleagues have taken up, and which they have forced on the Government. The root of the matter is that laundries attached to religious institutions claim that they should not be subject to the inspection of the Government factory inspector. All the time that this matter was being discussed in the Standing Committee upstairs, and during the whole of the debate this evening, I listened with attention for a single logical argument which would show that there was any substantial reason against inspection by a Government inspector of institutions of this kind. In my opinion the logic undoubtedly lies in the direction of showing that institutions of an industrial character, whether attached to religious denominations or not, if they carry on trade processes, may be, in certain circumstances, used unfairly towards their employees, and should therefore be subject to inspection. That is the view which many hon. Members who intend, as I intend, to support the Government to-night, take on this question. The history of the question is very short. The Bill originally provided for the inspection of all laundries. Then an hon. Gentleman opposite moved to exempt laundries attached to religious institutions, and the Government accepted that proposal. Then the laundry trade outside the religious institutions were up in arms, and claimed that they were justified in fearing that competition would press unduly upon them if one class of laundries was subject to Government inspection and another class was not. The last and final stage in the history of this clause is that the House is now asked to leave out not only laundries attached to religious institutions, but laundries of an ordinary character. The question which the House has to determine on this, one of the last nights of the session, is whether all laundries shall go free or whether we shall lose this Bill altogether. That, and that alone, is the question. It seems to be a matter of expediency which, in all the circumstances, justifies the action of the Government. I was sorry to hear my hon. friend apply such an epithet as "cowardly" to the Government, and in particular to the right hon. Gentleman,

  683
  who has conducted this Bill both in the Grand Committee upstairs and in this House with consummate skill. It is not cowardly to give way when one cannot avoid giving way for the purpose of securing benefit to the people generally. The contrast between the proceedings upstairs and the debate to-night—especially on the part of hon. Members opposite representing English constituencies—is that, while in Committee no party feeling or prejudice was shown, I regret to find to-night that the difficult circumstances of the case have been made the instrument of party warfare. ["Oh, oh!"] That is the view which many on this side hold, if it is not held by the hon. Gentleman who interrupts. I do not know if he heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, but never did he or anyone attempt more thoroughly to make party capital out of a subject which all parties in the House recognise is for the welfare of the workers. The omission of this clause is a most regrettable circumstance, but it is less regrettable than the loss of the whole Bill. It is better to lose the clause than the Bill, because the loss of the Bill would be a loss to all workers throughout the country. It is a Bill consolidating and codifying the whole of the laws relating to factories, a Bill which gives sanitary conditions and prevents overcrowding, and gives fences to dangerous machinery, and many other matters, including the bringing of the dangers of railway sidings within the purview of the House. I should hope that no hon. Gentleman, for the sake of party capital, or for the sake of a religious prejudice, would stop the progress of such a Bill as this.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: thought it was to be regretted that the House had been compelled to listen to such a speech as had been delivered this evening by the hon. Member for Berwickshire. He had followed the debates in 1895 and 1901 upon this subject through nearly all the stages, and he had never known a question discussed more fairly and freely, or a question where so much consideration had been given one to another as upon this question, both in the debate in 1895 and
  684
  this evening, with the exception, of the speech he referred to. He knew of no question which had been discussed more free from religious feelings, and he thought the speech to which he had referred was a mistake. It was not intended to be offensive, but it was offensive owing to the allegation made against a particular convent in Sheffield, which he trusted, if inquiry were made, would prove to be utterly unfounded. Hon. Members on the Irish benches would admit that he had consistently and persistently taken a contrary view to that which they held upon this particular point. He had taken a view free from religious bigotry, and had discussed the question from the point of view of citizenship and the protection of the State to everybody, whether Jews or Roman Catholics, Protestants or Freethinkers. He took the simple ground that, as the greater embraced the less, so every institution charitable, industrial, competitive, or religious, ought to comply with the common sense of most, and accept such sanitary and medical inspection as the law said should be carried out. He thought, considering the increase of these religious and philanthropic institutions, the time had come when these people should no longer be exempted from those standards of inspection that other people would have to conform to if they were in the free air of competitive private enterprises. It was upon broad political, industrial, and social grounds that he took this view. He desired to remind the Irish representatives that the exigencies of political warfare and party strife frequently gave one of the parties in the House a parliamentary advantage which some people envied, but which carried with it great responsibilities. The position of the Irish party to-night was similar to that which they occupied in 1895, when they held the balance of power. He differed from the hon. Member for East Mayo upon the history of this question. He knew, and the hon. Member for East Mayo ought to know, if he did not, and would be, he believed, the first to admit, that when in 1895 the Factory Act was before the Grand Committee on

  685
  Trade, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife was absolutely in the hands of the Irish Members. He was so anxious to get his Bill through that he was absolutely dependent on the Irish party, and that was the true reason why the words of the clause then adopted were accepted. Then they came to 1901. The Government had a nominal majority of 140, and were confronted with a mere nominal Opposition of less than 140, the Irish Members holding the balance of power on this Factory Bill as much as in 1891. He would ask Irish Members whether, on an industrial point of great magnitude, affecting millions of people in their own country, as well as in England, Scotland, and Wales, it was wise, in their own permanent interest, to play the rôle of Shylock, and to exact the entire pound of flesh, and in so doing perhaps permanently damage their own cause. They might win the exemption of conventual laundries, but that victory might lead, when political circumstances were less favourable to them than at present, to a demand for an amendment of the Laundry Acts altogether, under circumstances which they would be unable to resist, and they would have to submit to conditions perhaps worse than if they now adopted the view of the right hon. Member for Oxford University, or accepted the omission of Sub-clause 4. This Bill considerably improved the condition of scores of thousands of men, women, and young persons in private laundries apart from religious institutions. The motion of the Home Secretary meant that for an indefinite period, owing to the peculiar circumstances of the exemption of religious institutions, laundry workers, than whom there was not a more over-worked, more underpaid, more badly treated, and worse organised body of people in this country—these people were to be put outside the operation of those excellent reforms in the Laundry Act simply because a few religious laundries were to be exempt. In this case the Home Secretary had gone further than the Irish Members wanted. There ought to be some means by which the Magdalen Homes might be excluded without excluding hundreds of other institutions which might not be so well-managed as these homes. The Home Secretary had been negligent, or
  686
  he might have found words to meet the difficulty. The "God's own Garden" case was an instance of how an impostor had imposed upon public charity for an apparently good object. He did not believe the Magdalen Homes or the Church of England Refuge Homes were capable of such things, but the factory reports showed that irregularities took place in some of these laundries, where the inmates worked under insanitary conditions, and the managers of these institutions were not looked after in the same way as those employers who came under the Factory Act. If the Amendment were carried it would simply leave the inspection of laundries alone for years to come, and would perpetuate suspicion of good laundries, and place the best of them under a ban of religious bigotry and prejudice which they might at once escape from by submitting to that reasonable inspection which many of the lady superiors did not object to. Competition did not do anyone any harm, but if one section of laundries was to be exempted from the clause, those laundries would have the advantage of those not exempted, to the damage of the outside laundries. Private enterprise would be handicapped, and girls would have to be kept for longer hours on low wages and under insanitary conditions because the conventual and other laundries had been exempted. Parliament had no right to subject these girls to worse conditions than at present, but the exemption of these religious laundries would undoubtedly have that effect. In many cases it was poverty that led to prostitution, and, anxious as he was to rescue the fallen, he was not willing to grease the path down which virtuous women would fall. He had not a word to say against the way in which many of the religious institutions were carried on, and he did not impugn the motives of Irish Members to whom he was grateful for their assistance on labour questions, but he appealed to Irish Members not to persist in the course they had adopted on the present occasion. If they persisted they would win, but victory under such circumstances would be worse than defeat, and he believed that before two years were over abuses and irregularities would spring up in other institutions besides those now exempted, so that public opinion

  687
  would be compelled to place every laundry, whether religious or not, under a common standard of sanitary law, factory inspection, and medical regulation. Because he appreciated what the Irish Members had done for labour—and he had tried to reciprocate their action in that respect—he regretted their attitude on the present occasion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I do not wish to say a word against the earnestness or genuineness of the speech to which we have just listened, but I really must say in regard to the hon. Member who made it, and also in regard to the hon. Member for Berwickshire and the late Home Secretary, that they have all spoken to-night, and intend to vote, precisely in the opposite direction from that in which they spoke and voted, not merely in 1895, but a few days ago in the Grand Committee. The hon. Member who has just sat down and the hon. Member for Berwickshire both voted for the Grand Committee on the exact Amendment which is now before the House, although I except the late Home Secretary in that respect.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that on the Second Reading of the Bill of 1895 and in the Grand Committee he had expressed the same views as he had that night.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the records of the Grand Committee, I think he will see that this actual question was put and that he voted for it. I do not wish to press that point, but I do think that the recollection of these very recent utterances and decisions on the part of hon. Gentlemen should moderate the fervour of their advocacy on this occasion. I do not, in the very few remarks I intend to make, propose to deal with the necessity of inspection in these philanthropic institutions. My own instincts and inclinations are on the whole in favour of that publicity which comes from inspection. But, speaking of a great many very excellent institutions which are outside this debate altogether, I know that very good people sometimes do very bad things. I certainly do not mean to lay down the proposition that
  688
  in the case of an institution which is genuinely conducted, upon philanthropic principles, by self-denying persons who have no selfish aim, and whose whole object is to benefit their fellow-creatures, those high motives are always or even necessarily a sufficient protection against abuses. Abuses sometimes creep into any institution, whatever its character and motive, from which all publicity is excluded. But I do not think that is the question before us. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, the late Home Secretary, have given us a version of what occurred in 1895 and compared it with what we propose to do in 1901. They have drawn the comparison in such a way as to be very much to their advantage and very much to our disadvantage. For the life of me I cannot understand in what the distinction consists. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, when he was at the Home Office in 1895, brought in a much shorter Bill than this, in which he dealt with factory legislation. In that Bill he introduced a clause dealing with laundries. When he came face to face with the parliamentary situation he found that he had to choose between his clause and his Bill. Having to make that choice, he, in my opinion, behaved with common sense. He gave up his clause and he kept his Bill. We have practically the same choice before us, and, that being so, I think we shall follow the same course. How does the right hon. Gentleman try to draw a distinction between the case of 1895 and 1901? He says: "In 1895 I was bound hand and foot to the Irish Members. We could not command a majority in the Committee or the House without the help of the Irish Members. I gave way. What else could you expect me to do? I had to do it." [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Or go out.] I admit there was that difference. I think it is a new doctrine that office was so very important, and everybody knows that it is not a case of office with the present Government. We could drop our Bill without the question of office being affected in the smallest degree. The injury would not be to Government or the Government majority, but to the working classes of this country.
  MR. ASQUITH: It is not a question of office at all. It is a question of the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not suggest for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman has any unwholesome craving for office, and, that being so, where is the choice between us? If we choose the clause we must drop the Bill. I presume the argument is this. In 1895, if the Government had had to keep the clause, they would have dropped the Bill. That is exactly the position here. It is a delusion to suppose that because there is no chance of a Government defeat on the Third Reading of this Bill that conclusively shows that if the Government perseveres, as it is called, with the Bill, the Bill would not be lost. The Bill is not merely a great amending Bill, but a great consolidation Bill. It is a Bill of 160 clauses, and de let us as men of common sense remember that Bills of 160 clauses cannot be passed through this House under our present rules, or under any rules at all resembling them, except by something in the nature of general consent. I remember an interesting experience of my own connected with a Bill which was, I think, even longer than the present Bill—a Bill dealing with local government in Scotland. I think the original measure had over 200 clauses. Two gentlemen alone on the opposite side of the House concerned themselves with that measure. The Bill was passed, but in the process we dropped at least 100 clauses. It is only by that kind of mutual concession which brings unanimity that Bills on this scale can be passed. It would have been very desirable in some respects, I think, if the Government could have introduced the Bill without touching upon this controversial point, but I think it would have been impossible. At all events, it would not have been right, because there might have been a chance of arriving at a compromise. At one time I thought there was a good chance of a compromise, but that chance has been dissipated, and we find ourselves face to face with a Bill on 99–100ths of which there is general agreement, but on the 1–100th of which there is profound, bitter, implacable dissent. A Government which under those circumstances, dealing with a consolidation Bill, did not
  690
  try to arrive at some general agreement, would be absolutely unworthy of the responsibility thrown upon them.
  My hon. friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow, who made an able and interesting speech just now, introduced in the closing sentences of his remarks the epithet "cowardly," which he applied, I think, to my right hon. friend, and, I suppose, to the Government of which my right hon. friend is a member. Epithets like "cowardly" should be used, I venture to say, in the most sparing manner even of those from whom you profoundly dissent. They should never be used of those with whom you habitually agree. That is a canon of parliamentary manners which we who have reached middle life have no difficulty in maintaining, and which my hon. friend, with his enviable youth will, I am sure, easily be able to acquire. But really, in this matter, there is no case of courage or cowardice. The position is perfectly plain to every man with the smallest knowledge in this House. If you try to pass this Bill by agreement, a great measure of consolidation and amendment will be embodied in the law of the land. If you do not try to pass this Bill by agreement, you will not pass it at all. That is plain common sense. I absolutely refuse to admit the argument that we are bound to vote for every clause and every sub-clause, and that, rather than give way on a single point, the whole great measure should perish. It would be the height of imprudence on the part of any Government to try to push through a measure of this character on such a principle. It may be that there should be a separate Bill, after proper investigation, dealing with this particular industry. But if you try to embody in a consolidation Bill subjects upon which no agreement is possible, upon which the profoundest feelings are stirred, you will never pass a consolidation Bill at all—you will never be able to deal with a measure on this scale, and legislation will suffer accordingly. I venture to say that of all the many difficulties which we have to contend with in this House in carrying out the legislative work entrusted to us, the greatest difficulty is to know how to deal with Bills involving an immense number of provisions. The mere work of consolidation

  691
  has been stopped for four or five years by the action of one of my friends on this side of the House. There is no difficulty whatever on the part of any Member to stop that work if he chooses. The result is that we are bound in introducing a measure of this kind to have regard to the inevitable conditions which we cannot stamp upon or overcome by a mere effort of the will, conditions which must regulate our conduct. There is, therefore, no concession of principle in the course we have adopted, and no cause for bringing against us the odious charge of cowardice. We may not have embraced the whole subject within the ambit of our measure, but that cannot be a sufficient reason for accusing the Government of weakness or cowardice, or any other of the charges which have been urged against us this afternoon.

  AYES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Grant, Corrie

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bell, Richard

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Rigg, Richard

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Sinclair, John (Farfarshire)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Burns, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Strachey, Edward

  Caine, William Sproston

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Thomas, J. A. (Glamorgan, G'wr

  Caldwell, James

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Thomson, F. W. (Yorks. W. R.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Ure, Alexander

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Holland, William Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  White, Luke (Yorks. E. R.)

  Colville, John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Whiteley, George (York. W. R.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Crombie, John William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

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

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Tennant and Colonel Sandys.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

  Moss, Samuel.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Norman, Henry

  NOES.

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

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Big wood, James

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Boland, John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Boyle, James

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brassey, Albert

  Chapman, Edward

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

  Bull, William James

  Charrington, Spencer

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir E. H.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  MR. MACARTNEYsaid he did not rise to continue the debate upon the merits of this question, but simply to ask the Home Secretary for some explanation of the course the Government were going to pursue after this motion had been carried. He understood that this motion was only the preliminary to other motions which would be made at a future stage of the Bill in this House. He desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman if on the schedules he would introduce into the Bill the clause from the Act of 1895.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I intend to propose an Amendment in one of the schedules which will set up the existing law.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 65; Noes, 237. (Division List No. 469.)

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Keswick, William

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Penn, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Crean, Eugene

  Lawson, John Grant

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Leamy, Edmund

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cullinan, J.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Purvis, Robert

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Randles, John S.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Reddy, M.

  Delany, William

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Dillon, John

  Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cumb Penr

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lundon, W.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Duffy, William J.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Roche, John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rutherford, John

  Elibank, Master of

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Field, William

  M'Cann, James

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Govern, T.

  Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Foster, Philip S. (War wick, S. W.)

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside

  Gilhooly, James

  Morgan, David J. (W'lthamstow

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

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

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Spear, John Ward

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Murnaghan, George

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)

  Murphy, John

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n N.

  Hain, Edward

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd'x

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hammond, John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tully, Jasper

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Doherty, William

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Heath, J. (Staffordsh., N. W.)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Henderson, Alexander

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (Birm.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  O'Dowd, John

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks. E. R.)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Hoult, Joseph

  O'Malley, William

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  O'Mara, James

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Parker, Gilbert

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Remaining words added.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEmoved to leave out Clause 104, in order to call attention to its wording. He said the
  694
  object of those who obtained the insertion of this clause was to bring compensation into operation in places from which it" was excluded at the present time, but the words in the clause would not be

  695
  held to bring in compensation, and if the words could be made clearer it ought to be done In the interests of the industrial classes their position in regard to compensation should be clearly defined.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out Clause 104."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  Question proposed, "That the words from the word 'the,' to the word 'machines,' in line 14, inclusive, stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid the hon. Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool was the author of the clause, and that hon. Member deserved great credit for the negotiations carried on with the shipping industry, which had secured for those working in the docks the great advantage which they would receive in consequence of the insertion of this clause. He knew the clause was drawn with the idea that it would include them in the Compensation Act, and they were advised that it would have that effect. He did not believe it would be possible to go further in that direction, and he should be disappointed and astonished to find that the eminent gentleman whose advice had been acted upon were wrong and that the right hon. Baronet was right.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he assumed that the question would be carefully considered. He was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the observations he had made.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHURsaid that where particular industries, such as docks and railways, were partly drawn within the provisions of the Bill there should be a statement in the Bill indicating what sections did and did not apply to them.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid he entirely agreed with his hon. friend. The numbers of the clauses must be put in at the very end, when all the Amendments had been disposed of. He would take care that that should be done in another place.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHURsaid he was quite satisfied with that assurance.
  Other Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 57, line 30, after the word 'factory' to insert the words 'if, in pursuance of the provisions of this Act with reference to regulations for dangerous trades, regulations are made with regard to the process of painting with inflammable paint, such regulations may apply to that process as carried on on board any ship in any dock, harbour, or canal as if the ship were a factory.'"—(Mr. Tennant.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid it would be impossible for him to embody this addition to the clause in the Bill, for the simple reason that it would be converting a ship into a factory for the purpose of the Bill. It would be quite impossible for the Home Office to inspect the ships. The limiting words of the hon. Member were extraordinarily wide. What he proposed to do, if it would satisfy the hon. Member, was to communicate with the shipping companies on the subject, and to endeavour by some suggestion which he thought the Home Office might usefully make to do away with undue risk in the painting of ships with inflammable paint.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he was sorry that the Home Secretary had not accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, because it frequently happened that men were burned in the most serious way by the use of inflammable paint on board ships. He trusted that, failing the acceptance of the Amendment, the Home Secretary would at once, and before going on holidays, direct the attention of the shipping companies to this particular form of accident and ask them to take what steps they could to prevent their recurrence.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR FRANCIS EVANS: moved an Amendment to make the words "any gangway or ladder used by any person employed to load or unload or coal a ship" in Sub-section 2 of Clause

  697
  104 apply to any gangway or ladder on either side of the ship. Did the words apply to either side in the section as it now stood?
  *MR. RITCHIE: Yes, certainly.
  SIR FRANCIS EVANSsaid he was satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEmoved the omission in page 58, line 15, of the words "which exceeds thirty feet in height." He said the House ought not to re-enact these words, because they had led to enormous difficulty in cases where there had been litigation.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 58, line 15, to leave out the words which exceeds thirty feet in height.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Colston, Charles Edw. H. (Athole

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Henderson, Alexander

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Bagot, Capt. J. Fitzroy

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hoult, Joseph

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Keswick, William

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Bigwood, James

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawson, John Grant

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Brassey, Albert

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gardner, Ernest

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Line)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Chapman, Edward

  Gretton, John

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Groves, James Gribble

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hain, Edward

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

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Malcolm, Ian

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Middlemore, John T.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. JOHN BURNS,in supporting the Amendment, said they ought to get rid of this ridiculous measurement. It had been universally condemned by the authors of the Bill, the judges, and the Court of Appeal.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid it was not for him to endeavour in this Bill to deal with matters arising out of the Compensation Acts. He did not think it would be wise to alter the clause so hastily. It would have no effect on the Compensation Act.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether the Secretary of State was right in saying that the alteration would have no effect on the Compensation Act. If so, his argument on Clause 144 was wrong.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 175; Noes, 124. (Division List No. 470).

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Spear, John Ward

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Rutherford, John

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Valentia, Viscount

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col Edw. J.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Parker, Gilbert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Williams, Rt. Hn. J. Powell (Birm

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wills. Sir Frederick

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks., E. R.)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyn'sde

  Purvis, Robert

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Randles, John S.

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hammond, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Bell, Richard

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Boland, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Boyle, James

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Mara, James

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hobhouse, C. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Reddy, M.

  Caine, William Sproston

  Holland, William Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Caldwell, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rigg Richard

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roche, John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leamy, Edmund

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Colville, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lough, Thomas

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants

  Crean, Eugene

  Lundon, W.

  Strachey, Edward

  Crombie, John William

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cullinan, J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Delany, William

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan Gower)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Govern, T.

  Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n N.

  Dillon, John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomson, F. W. (York. W. R.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Tully, Jasper

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport

  Ure, Alexander

  Duffy, William J.

  Moss, Samuel

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Murnaghan, George

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  Murphy, John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Field, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norman, Henry

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

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. John Burns and Mr. Warner.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  O'Doherty, William

  MR. RENSHAWmoved to leave out the word "March" and insert the word
  700
  "June" in page 59, line 15. Why had this date, and also 1st September, in

  701
  each year been selected as those on or before which the lists should be sent to the inspector?
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 59, line 15, to leave out the word 'March,' and insert the word 'June.'"—(Mr. Renshaw.)
  Question proposed, "That the word March' stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid he could not accept the Amendment. He could not say why these dates were chosen, but he had no doubt they were chosen carefully by the gentlemen who had the framing of the Bill.
  MR. RENSHAWaccepted that statement, and asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RENSHAWmoved an Amendment the effect of which was to secure that the lists should be sent to the district council in which the workmen or contractors were employed instead of to the district council in which the factory or workshop is situate, as provided in the Bill. If that was carried, it would be unnecessary to have Sub-sections 2 and 3.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "In page 59, line 19, to leave out the words 'the factory or workshop is situated,' in order to insert the words 'such workmen or contractors are employed.'"—(Mr. Renshaw.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether there was to be no such thing as freedom or liberty to any man in regard to this matter. Why should district councils be burdened with all this labour?
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid this was only a question of detail. This Bill would throw a great deal of work on the district councils which used to be done by the Government inspectors, but it was too late now to raise an objection to that.
  *MR. RITCHIEpointed to the conditions imposed by the Bill with respect
  702
  to sanitary arrangements, and stated that the modus operandi proposed in the clause was the only way in which the Act could be properly administered.
  *MR. TULLYsaid the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman did not convey conviction to his mind. He thought the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire was justified in moving the Amendment. He was not in favour of this proposal, which would have the effect of crippling home industries in Ireland. In his opinion those very small industries would be very injuriously affected. If they wished to improve the status of the people of Ireland they could only do it by establishing small industries. One line along which they sought to improve the condition of the people of Ireland was by combining small industries with agricultural pursuits. The object of this clause was to divorce small industrial pursuits from agriculture. One hon. Member who supported this clause said that he wished to wipe out the small industries—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is discussing the whole clause, and that is not in order.
  *MR. TULLYsaid he was only endeavouring to show—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not discuss my ruling, and he cannot go on arguing my decision.
  *MR. TULLYsaid that this proposal was expanding the law altogether too far.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid that what the hon. Member was now proposing was a far more difficult piece of legal machinery than that which was contained in the Bill. The employer had to send a list of those he employed to the district council. It was extremely difficult to settle what the boundaries of some district councils were, and he thought this proposal would lead to a good deal of confusion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the right hon. Gentleman to give the House

  703
  some reason for the extraordinary method of book-keeping which it was now proposed should be attached to their district councils. He objected to this additional burden being thrown upon Ireland. For the purpose of enabling the right hon. Gentleman to give some reason he begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 59, line 30, after the word 'council,' to insert the words 'in Great Britain.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. NANNETTIsaid he hoped the Home Secretary would not accept this Amendment. He had had some practical experience of the way in which this work had been carried on. It was the wish of the working men of Dublin that some such clause as this should be carried. He would much sooner have a state of things under which employers had proper workshops, but so long as they had these out-workers they ought not to exempt Ireland from this clause.
  MR. MURNAGHANsaid he supported the Amendment of his hon. friend. The case referred to by one hon. Member for the City of Dublin did not apply, because Dublin was under a corporation, and the object desired by the hon. Member would be obtained by inserting the words "urban councils." He thought they had every reason to press this Amendment upon the Home Secretary. There was no reason why local bodies should have this impost placed upon them, and he hoped that the Home Secretary would yield to this reasonable Amendment.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I do not think it is desirable in the general interests of the community that Ireland should be exempted from this clause. I am inclined to think that hon. Members who have spoken upon this point have greatly exaggerated any expense which will be incurred by this system.
  *MR. TULLYsaid the right hon. Gentleman evidently did not know what was
  704
  going on in Ireland. He spoke on behalf of the small employer, and he did not see why they should be harassed in Ireland by regulations which were not required. In Ireland, if one of their clerks used his pen a certain number of times more than he had been accustomed to, he at once applied for an increase in his salary.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot go into the question of salaries upon this subject.
  *MR. TULLYsaid he was only mentioning this as an illustration—
  MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to conform to my ruling.
  *MR. TULLYsaid that one of the reasons why they wished to exempt Ireland was that in the rural districts they did not wish to increase their expenses. Great Britain was a manufacturing country, and Ireland was not, and—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member's remarks are not relevant, and I must request him to resume his seat.
  *MR. TULLY: I was only—
  MR. SPEAKER: I call upon the hon. Member, under the Standing Order, to resume his seat.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he desired to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHURsaid the object of this Amendment was to avoid a multiplicity of registers where one was sufficient. This applied more particularly in the case of dock undertakings. He moved this Amendment on behalf of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. They had under their charge large numbers of docks, wharves, quays, and boiler sheds. Hitherto it had been the custom of this Board to keep one register, but, according to the provisions of this

  705
  Bill, every dock, wharf, quay, warehouse, or engine shed was a separate factory, and a separate register had to be kept. The result was that over fifty separate registers would have to be kept by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The object of this Amendment was to enable such boards to keep one register, as hitherto.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 72, line 36, after the word 'observed,' to insert the words 'with the consent of the inspector one general register may he kept for the factories and workshops on one estate within the jurisdiction of such inspector.'"—(Mr. Charles M'Arthur.)
  *MR. RITCHIE: I can assure the hon. Member that the present practice of keeping one register may be followed in the future in regard to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board even under this Bill. I agree that that course will be much more convenient.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: Then I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 72, line 30, to leave out the word 'an,' and insert the word 'the.'"—(Mr. Coghill.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'an' stand part of the Bill."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  COLONIST, LEGGEsaid the object of his Amendment was to obtain some, recognition in this clause of the City of Westminster. Reference was made, in the clause to the City of London, the Common Council, the Metropolitan Boroughs and Borough Councils, and the City of Westminster was not mentioned.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 83, line 27, after the word 'city,' to insert the words 'as regards the city of

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Westminster as references to the council of the city and the city.'"—(Colonel Legge.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. RITCHIE: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, although I am desirous of recognising to the fullest extent the dignity of the City of Westminster. I could not think of making an exception amongst all the councils in London. The City of London is a very special locality and has always been separately described in Acts of Parliament.
  COLONEL LEGGEsaid he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 83, line 35, after the word 'possess,' to insert the words 'under any general or local Act or any Provisional Order confirmed by Act or otherwise.'"—(Mr. Renshaw.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. RITCHIEagreed to accept this Amendment.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he was very much surprised at the Home Secretary accepting this Amendment.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I agree that the words are unnecessary.
  MR. CALDWELL: Then why agree to put in those words at all?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I have accepted them in order to oblige my hon. friend who represents Glasgow, and I understand that the Corporation of Glasgow desire to have this Amendment inserted. I agree with the hon. Member opposite that the words are quite unnecessary.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 134; Noes, 143. (Division List, No. 471.)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Homsey)

  Greene, Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

  Gretton, John

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Groves, James Grimble

  Parker, Gilbert

  Bignold, Arthur

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Hain, Edward

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hanbury, Rt Hon. Robert Wm.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Henderson, Alexander

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Purvis, Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Randles, John S.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Chapman, Edward

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Charrington, Spencer

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Keswick, William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Rutherford, John

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lawson, John Grant

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Spear, John Ward

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S.)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmo'th

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Williams, Rt. Hn. J. P. (Birm.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks. E. R.)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  TELLERS FOR THE AYKS—Mr. Renshaw and Mr. Banbury.

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Mount, William Arthur

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Allen, C. P. (Gloucester, Stroud)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Ambrose, Robert

  Delany, William

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Balfour. Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Dillon, John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Bell, Richard

  Doogan, P. C.

  Holland, William Henry

  Big wood, James

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Boland, John

  Duffy, William J.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Boyle, James

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Elibank, Master of

  J ones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Field, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Burns, John

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Joyce, Michael

  Caine, William Sproston

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Un.

  Leamy, Edmund

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

  Gilhooly, James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Grant, Corrie

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Lough, Thomas

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Haldane, Richard Bunion

  Lowther, Rt Hn J W. (Cum. Penr.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hammond, John

  Lundon, W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  MacDonnell. Dr. Mark A.

  Crombie, John William

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  O'Dowd, John

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  M'Govern, T.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.

  Strachey, Edward

  Malcolm, Ian

  O'Malley, William

  Sullivan, Donald

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  O'Mara, James

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tennant. Harold John

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Moss, Samuel

  Reddy, M.

  Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N.

  Murnaghan, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Tully, Jasper

  Murphy, John

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Roche, John

  Whittaker. Thomas Palmer

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Norman, Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, M.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Broad burst.

  O'Doherty, William

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Other Amendments made.
  MR. RENSHAWsaid his reason for proposing the next Amendment was that whilst in England the position of the medical officer was definitely laid down by statute, that had never been defined in the same way in Scotland. The duty of defining the relative duties of the medical officer and the sanitary inspector was devolved upon the local authority subject to the approval of the Local Government Board.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 85, line 32, after '1897' to insert the words, "Provided that the report referred to in section one hundred and thirty-two of this Act shall be made by either the medical officer of health or the sanitary inspector, as the local authority, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board for Scotland, may direct."—(Mr. Renshaw.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR MICHAEL FOSTERurged his hon. friend not to press the Amendment. Medical officers of health were specially trained medical men. They were trained in preventive medicine and it was required of each that he should be well acquainted with sanitary matters. On the other baud, sanitary inspectors were a very mixed lot. Some were very good, many were indifferent, and some were bad, and in many cases they were subject to outside influences from which medical officers
  710
  were free. He ventured to think that even in Scotland the medical officer of health was a better person than the sanitary inspector. The medical officer was able to make himself acquainted with all that was necessary to form the report for the Secretary of State. He bad to make that report not to the local authority, but to the Secretary of State for the United Kingdom.
  MR. CALDWELLexpressed the hope that the Government would not accept this Amendment. The local authority bad not got jurisdiction with regard to the carrying out of the Factory Acts, and therefore it was desirable that the medical officer should make the report, he alone having the necessary qualifications.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid the local authority should have the power to decide who should make the report.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid it was better that the medical officer should make the report. The duty of making the report to the Home Office should not be devolved on a subordinate officer.
  MR. HALDANEsaid they should have an indication what view the Government took of the matter.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid he had not paid very much attention to the Scotch

  711
  clauses. The intricacies of Scotch law procedure were so great that he confessed he preferred to rely on other people in this matter. He appreciated the motives which had prompted his hon. friend to move the Amendment, but he could not accept it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  MR. T. M. HEALYmoved an Amendment having for its object to make the provisions of Part VI. of the Bill with reference to home work applicable only to the urban districts so far as Ireland was concerned. He asked the Home Secretary whether any member for an agricultural constituency had sought to have these provisions applied to the home industries of Ireland. There had been nothing of the kind, but for the sake of an idiotic infatuation for uniformity it was proposed to apply the Act all over the kingdom. He would respectfully say that there were a number of small industries in Ireland which were quite unsuited to have the provisions of the Bill applied to them. He thought these small industries might be carried on in their humble way without interference by this Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 88, line 33, after the word 'same,' to insert the words 'the provisions of Part 6 shall apply to urban districts only.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. RITCHIE: I am afraid I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member. Where there are no instances of this kind the Act will not apply, but where there are I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would say that they ought to be conducted under proper sanitary conditions, and that is the whole thing.
  MR. O'DOHERTYsupported the views expressed by the lion, and learned Member for North Louth. He said he was afraid that the Home Secretary knew very little of the conditions of life among the small industries of Ireland if he
  712
  insisted that cottage industries should be carried on under the same conditions as factories and workshops in England. In the debate upon the Address at the beginning of this session he suggested that in any legislation with regard to factories and workshops the carrying out of this Act should be left to the Congested Districts Board. The right hon. Gentleman must know that the Factory Act of 1895 did a great deal towards wiping out small industries in Ireland. A deputation waited upon Sir Matthew White Ridley in the year 1895, requesting him to exempt the shirt-making industry, and they obtained an exemption because it was proved to the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman that it would imply an enormous hardship not only upon small industries, but upon the labouring and farming classes. Would the right hon. Gentleman assert that a woman living in a one-roomed cottage in Ireland was to carry on the making of a dozen stockings under the same conditions as a factory in England? He urged the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, and not place cottage industries in Ireland under another ban.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that upon this point he should certainly support the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. and learned Member opposite in the interests of the handloom weavers in Ireland.
  MR. LOUGHthought a little more consideration should be given to the argument submitted by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. There did not seem to have been any knowledge of the Irish case displayed in the debate, and legislation intended for other places was not always applicable to the small industries in Ireland. At the present time all classes in Ireland were very heavily rated, and if it was enacted that every district should have an inspector, the expense in some of the poorer districts would be grotesque. The entire value of some of the small industries was very trifling, and he thought the House ought to give a little more consideration to this question. If the Home Secretary would express his willingness to look into this matter, perhaps his hon. and learned friend would be satisfied with such a promise.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid that twenty-five years ago he was Chairman of the Royal Commission on Factories, and there was nothing impressed him more than the great importance of not pressing hardly upon petty industries. There were many small districts in Ireland where village industries, such as glove-making, and other trades, were carried on, and where the people engaged in these small trades were engaged in a perfectly healthy occupation. He remembered that plenty of evidence was placed before the Commission to which he had alluded proving that these small industries in Ireland were not suited to the Factory Acts, and he believed that to bring them under the Factory Acts would do more harm than good.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the case for inspection of these small industries in Ireland had been clearly shown by the factory inspector's report.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that it was the dishonest report of a dishonest inspector.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that he was sorry to hear the hon. and learned Member speak in that way, because the inspector in question was one of the best and ablest in His Majesty's service.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid that the inspection of small industries which had been suggested would crush out many of the petty industries in Ireland, the effect of which would be to drive more of the Irish people to America and to the English towns.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I understand that there is some fear on the part of Irish Members that certain small industries in some remote parts of the country are likely to be seriously affected by this provision. I do not see how it is possible to put in words which will exclude those particular industries, which we all desire not to interfere with, and yet will include those industries which we all agree ought to be supervised. The hon. and learned Gentleman has sprung this matter upon me without notice, but, although I cannot make any definite promise, I will certainly consult with my advisers in the course of to-morrow to see whether anything
  714
  can be done to relieve some hard cases referred to by the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he would be the last person to delay the proceedings after such an offer had been made.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the hon. and learned Member for North Louth had been allowed to make a very serious accusation against one of the very best inspectors they had got in the service, and he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not considered it to be his duty to defend this inspector.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I did not hear the name of the inspector mentioned, but I am sure that we have no more straightforward, honest, and able official than the inspector who has been alluded to.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 1:—
  An Amendment made.
  Schedule 2:—
  CAPTAIN BALFOUR, in moving the Amendment standing in his name, explained that ornamental fittings in jewellers' windows were those fittings on which watches were hung, and they were made by the same trade which made jewel cases. The makers of these articles worked side by side. Up to November last year the makers of both classes of goods were allowed to work overtime, but at that date the trade was warned that, while they might work overtime at jewel cases, they might not do so at ornamental window fittings. The trade maintained that they were just as much subject to pressure of work at Christmas time with respect to window fittings as fancy boxes and jewel cases. The whole pressure on the trade came ten weeks before Christmas. The manufacturers complained that if their workers were not allowed overtime in making window fittings there would be serious inconvenience to the trade. The women in the trade, about 300 altogether, were perfectly contented as they were. They

  715
  worked from eight in the morning to eight at night. They had no grievance as to overtime. He appealed to the Home Secretary to reconsider the request of the jewel case makers.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 93, line 29, after the words 'box making,' to insert the words 'and covering jewellers' ornamental window fittings; or."—(Captain Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid it could not be contended by any stretch of imagination that the manufacture of "jewellers' ornamental window fittings" was a business liable to a sudden press of orders. He really could not see, in any case, how the Amendment could be inserted under this particular sub-section, but be deprecated the addition by Parliament of this industry to those mentioned. In fact, the Secretary of State always had the power, where it was shown that it was required, to allow overtime. He believed that representations had been made with regard to this particular branch of the jewel trade to his predecessor, and he would undertake to look into it, further, but he could not assent to the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 6:—
  MR. BANBURYsaid the effect of the schedule was that, where there was an electrical installation in a private residence for the purpose of luxury, the place was not a factory within the meaning of this Act, but if such an installation took place in a bank, counting-house, or insurance office, for the comfort and convenience of the clerks, those premises would come under the Act.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 101, line 26, after the word, 'business,' to insert the words 'where the number of persons employed in generating or transforming such electrical energy exceeds four.'"—(Mr. Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid he could not accept the Amendment. It seemed to him perfectly clear that if regulations of this kind were required for operations such as were dealt with in the schedule, the fact that the number of persons employed did not exceed four was not a reason for exemption from the provisions of the Bill, which were meant to secure safety to those working in connection with electrical plant. His hon. friend had stated that under the sub-section as it now stood banks in the City could be regarded as factories. That was not the case at all. He assured the hon. Member that no premises such as he had referred to would be inconvenienced by the Bill, but he would introduce words to meet the views of the hon. Member. He had not had the smallest representation made to him that this provision was regarded as an onerous one at all. There might perhaps be a slight amendment made in it, so as to make it quite clear that it would come under the provisions of the Act. He would suggest the addition of the words "or such part of any premises."
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he wished to know why the National Telephone Company was to be exempted, and why its premises should not be treated as a factory. They had an enormous number of batteries at some of their establishments, and there must be considerable danger to the young ladies employed there, especially during thunderstorms.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: asked why this should not apply to every private house which had an electric installation. He understood that the intention was to limit the application of this provision to buildings regarded as factories and productive works. He understood that the purpose of the Bill was to safeguard every place where there was an electric installation. They must have either one thing or the other. The provision must either apply to every place where there was an electric installation or else it must only apply to ordinary factories.
  *MR. TULLYsaid that this was a most important question affecting the small industries in Ireland. Ireland was a

  717
  country of water power, while England used largely coal and steam. He thought that by this definition they would cripple the starting of small industries along the rivers of Ireland, because they would have to submit themselves to harassing restrictions in regard to sanitation and ventilation. For instance, in these small electric lighting works they would not be allowed to employ young persons after four o'clock on Saturday. The right hon. Gentleman had given them a very favourable answer with, regard to small home industries, and he hoped he would grant an exemption with regard to small electric works.
  MR. CRIPPS: said he feared that such places as surgeries and dentists' establishments would be factories if this definition was allowed to stand.
  MR. TENNANTsaid the real question was that they wished to make the special rules apply all along the line.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would carefully consider the suggestion which had been made.
  MR. BANBURYsaid that if the words which had been mentioned were left out of the clause he would agree to withdraw his Amendment. He wished to know, however, in taking that course, if he would be allowed an opportunity of moving his Amendment again in case the alteration did not meet with his approval.
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
  MR. BANBURY: Then I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  Schedule 7:—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 102, line 30, after the word twelve,' to insert the words 'section twenty-two.'"—(Mr. Secretary Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'section twenty-two,' be there inserted."
  MR. MACARTNEY: moved as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to add after the word "twenty-two" the words "except paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (3)." He said his object was to omit a certain portion of a clause in the 1895 Act which the Home Secretary proposed to read into this Bill.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To add after the word 'twenty-two,' the words 'except paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3).'"—(Mr. Macartney.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in order in again raising the question in regard to laundries which had been decided that evening.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We should have the Amendment read to us, and we would be able to judge.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have not had an opportunity of comparing the two, to see whether they are in exactly the same terms.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The words are identical.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid he did not propose to repeat now what had been stated on the question, whether or not laundries in connection with philanthropic, charitable, and religious societies ought to be brought under the provisions of the Bill, as he himself believed they ought. On the ground that they came into competition with laundries which were run commercially he thought the House should have an opportunity of voting on the distinct issue whether laundries which were run for philanthropic purposes should be excluded from the provisions of the Bill.
  *MR. RITCHIE: My hon. friend is really asking the House to reconsider the decision which it arrived at a few hours ago. The whole question was then debated, and the House, by an overwhelming majority, decided that they would not make any alteration in the existing law.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid that before they took the division alluded to he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether or not this Amendment was going to be moved, and it was largely on account of the reply given that many hon. Members voted as they did.
  *MR. RITCHIE: That does not interfere with my argument in the least. What I maintain is that he is asking the House to reverse the decision it arrived at an hour or two ago. The decision of the House must be given effect to—namely, that the law should remain as it is. It is necessary to make provision in the schedule for the revival of the clause in the existing Act of Parliament. I think it would be most unfortunate if we were now to begin again to discuss a question which has been discussed at such great length. I make no complaint about the hon. Member moving his Amendment, but I do hope that the House as a whole will consider that the decision which was arrived at a few hours ago was a decision upon the whole question, and I hope hon. Members will support the Government in their effort to give effect to what was then decided by the House.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he was well aware that this was a very disagreeable subject to the Home Secretary. He knew that the only argument that can possibly be adduced in favour of carrying out this special arrangement with regard to laundries was that, if he did not carry it out, they would lose the rest of the Bill. Had it not been for laundries conducted by certain religious orders in Ireland they would never have heard one single objection to this proposal. The Bill as it was passed in the
  720
  Grand Committee included all those laundries, and when this question was reached then the difficulty of his right hon. friend at once commenced. He found himself at once confronted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who objected to any kind of inspection or supervision of any institution over which a Roman Catholic presided. He did not blame them in the least for doing this, because hon. Gentlemen opposite below the gangway rode in a political chariot with a priest on the box seat, who held the reins, and they had to go where they were driven. His right hon. friend, knowing the capacity for opposition on those benches, realised that unless he gave way he might lose his Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had a tremendous power in this House, which they used to flatten out his right hon. friend the Home Secretary. They said to him, "If you do not consent to exclude these laundries which are conducted in Ireland by the nuns from the operation of this Bill we have got a power now to prevent you carrying this Bill which we never had before. We have got a power which we can turn upon you if you do not consent to our terms. If you do not consent we will give you a dose of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny; and if we do that, what will happen to your Bill? Why, it will be swept out of the House by a muddy cataract of oratorical blather." The hon. Member for South Kilkenny had "bored" his way to a very distinguished position in this House.
  Over every institution over which Roman Catholic priests or nuns had authority the word "taboo" was written up, and hon. Gentlemen opposite were bound to oppose any effort made by the lay authorities to inspect any such institution. He ventured to say that the great majority of hon. Members, whether on this side or the opposite side, would agree with him that all institutions of this kind ought to be inspected. With regard to these laundries, the inspection would be carried out by a female inspector, and the work of the institution would not be interfered with. [An HON. MEMBER: Why had you not the courage of your convictions two hours ago?] This inspection would not bring the inspector in contact with the nuns. As far as interfering with the nuns was

  721
  concerned, an inspection of the laundries could not cause the slightest inconvenience. It was because hon. Gentlemen opposite were bound to oppose any effort made by any lay authority to inspect institutions which were guided and governed by Roman Catholics that they had offered this fierce opposition and had flattened out his right hon. friend. He was quite aware that the Home Secretary was carrying out a bond he had made with hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had fulfilled their part of the bargain, and it was only the authority of the Leader of the Nationalist party which prevented the Member for South Kilkenny rushing after every legislative hare that was started. When they divided the House upon this question he claimed that every hon. Member who believed in the necessity of equal treatment

  AYES.

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Bell, Richard

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Moss, Samuel

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Holland, William Henry

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Caldwell, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Colville, John Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Thomas, J. A. (Glamorgan, G'wer

  Crombie, John William

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  White, Luke (Yorks. E. R.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Duffy, William J.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES-Colonel Saunderson and Mr. Macartney.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

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

  Gretton, John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  NOES.

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

  Boland, John

  Colston, Chas. E. W. Athole

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Boyle, James

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Brassey, Albert

  Crean, Eugene

  Ambrose. Robert

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cavendish, Y. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Delany, William

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Balcarres. Lord

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dillon, John

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

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

  Doogan, P. C.

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Charrington, Spencer

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Elibank, Master of

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  of institutions, whether presided over by a Protestant or a Catholic priest, would go into the lobby with him and make a protest against the direction in which the Government seemed inclined to go. They were going to have a Catholic university in Ireland in order to satisfy the demands of the Nationalist party, and now they were asked to make this distinction between societies presided over by Roman Catholic nuns, and for what reason? Simply because those who presided over these institutions would not tolerate any interference from any outside authority.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 51; Noes. 180. (Division List No. 472.)

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Field, William

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Purvis, Robert

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Randles, John S.

  Finlay, Sir Robert, Bannatyne

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macdona, John dimming

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Covern, T.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

  Gilhooly, James

  Malcolm, Ian

  Robertson, Herbt. (Hackney)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Middlemore, J. Throgmort'n

  Rutherford, John

  Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Line)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

  Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

  Morris, Hon. Martin H. F.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morton, A. H. A. (Ueptford)

  Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East

  Hain, Edward

  Murnagban, Ceorge

  Smith, H C (N'rth'mb., T'neside

  Hambro, Charles Erie

  Murphy, John

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

  Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G (Midd'x

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Spear, John Ward

  Hammond, John

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sullivan, Donal

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxfd Univ.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

  Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hoult, Joseph

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Tully, Jasper

  Howard, John (Kent, Eaversh'm

  O'Doherty, William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Keswick, William

  O'Dowd, John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Larnbton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Williams, Rt. Hn. J. P. (Birm.

  Lawson, John Grant

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, A. S. (Yorks. E. R.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Mara, James

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Lowther, Rt Hn J W. (Cum., Pen.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Question, "That the words 'section twenty-two' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS [SALARY].
  Resolution reported.
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a Salary not exceeding £1,000 a year to another of the Commissioners appointed under the provisions of the Light Railways Act, 1896."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL.
  "To provide for the payment of another of the Light Railway Commissioners," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time this day, and to be printed. [Bill 294.]
  EAST INDIA LOAN (GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY DEBENTURES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; to be read the third time this day.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  MARRIAGES LEGALISATION BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  MR. CALDWELLsaid this was a Bill to legalise marriages which had taken place in places of worship which had not been consecrated. It was no use for the Government to go on with Bills of this kind. It would be seen from the schedule that marriages had been celebrated in some places which were not consecrated over seventy years ago, and according to this Bill all those marriages would be invalidated. What was the position of those parties? Many of those people were dead, and therefore they could not legalise their marriages at all. It was a common thing to go back thirty years, and even the Home Secretary himself had discovered two cases of this kind since the Bill was brought into the House. That was not a fair way to deal with the statutes of marriages; therefore he should oppose this Bill, because it did not meet the difficulty at all. He hoped they would have some promise from the Government that this matter would be dealt with on proper lines, for there might be hundreds of people whose marriages were illegal by the law of England, and some steps ought to be taken to deal effectively with this question.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)assured the hon. Member that there was no foundation for the objections he had raised, and he hoped they would allow the Bill to pass.
  Clauses 5 agreed to.
  Schedule:—
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that no one could tell when the date of the consecration was, and there was nothing in the Bill to determine what the period should be. He would move to leave out of line 35 the words "between the date of consecration of the Church and the passing of this Act."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I presume that the date of the consecration is not known in this case.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he was surprised that they were asked to pass an Act to legalise a certain thing done between certain dates and yet the Attorney General could not tell them the date, and they had no knowledge of it whatever. They had the dates in all the other cases except this particular one, and he moved that progress be reported until the Attorney General had got the information required in regard to this date.
  Committee report progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BIL.
  Read a second time and committed for to-morrow.

  LUNACY (IRELAND) [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported.
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all the Expenses incurred in relation to Criminal Lunatics under any Act of the present session to amend the Law relating to Lunatics in Ireland."
  Resolution agreed to.

  LUNACY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee.
  An Amendment made.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTONEsaid he was not sure whether the question would be in order, but he would like to know from the Chief Secretary what was being done in regard to the establishment of a pathological school in Ireland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover)said he had promised to introduce a permissive clause on this subject. He would put down the terms of the resolution for to-morrow, in order that hon. Members for Ireland might see the words.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the site of this new pathological school be situated in Belfast?
  MR. WYNDHAM: When the hon. and learned Member reads the words of the resolution on the Paper he will see whether the subject is controversial or not.
  Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered; Bill read the third time, and passed.
  PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  BURGH SEWERAGE, DRAINAGE AND WATER SUPPLY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered:—
  A Clause (Commencement of Act)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
  Amendments made.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS' BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered; Amendments made; Bill read the third time, and passed.
  CUSTOMS DUTIES (ISLE OF MAN) BILLS.
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  SOUTH AFRICAN TELEGRAPHS.
  Resolved, That the Agreement made the 27th day of July, 1901, between His Majesty's Government, the Governments of Cape Colony and Natal, the British South Africa Company, and the Eastern, and the Eastern and South African Telegraph Companies, for the transmission of telegraph traffic to and from South Africa, be approved.—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH CONTRACT (ASCENSION AND SIERRA LEONE).
  Resolved, That the Agreement made the 22nd day of June, 1901, between His Majesty's Government and the Eastern Telegraph Company. Limited, for the construction, maintenance, and working of a Submarine Cable between Sierra Leone and Ascension, be approved.—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)

  COLONIAL ACTS CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 22nd day of July last, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at a quarter after Three of the clock, a.m.