Commons Sitting of 22 July 1901

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE, ETC.
Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures,
1108
have leave to sit this day till Four of the clock, notwithstanding the Sitting of the House.—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No: 1) Bill [Lords].
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords].
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.

  TORRINGTON AND OKEHAMPTON RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    CHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
      MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
      Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
      ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL BILL [Lords].
      Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
      WIGAN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, ETC., BILL [Lords].
      Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
      ELLAND GAS BILL [Lords].
      As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
      FRESHWATER, YARMOUTH, AND NEWPORT RAILWAY BILL [Lords]. [NOT AMENDED.]
      Considered; to be read the third time.
  LEEDS CHURCHES BILL [Lords].
    WORCESTER TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
    Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

    GLASGOW CORPORATION (POLICE) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
    [UNDER THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.]
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].
    WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
    Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to: Long Eaton Gas Bill; South Metropolitan Gas Bill, with Amendments.
    That they have agreed to Amendments to Faversham Water Bill [Lords]; Wisbech Water Bill [Lords], without amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to revive and extend the powers for the compulsory purchase of lands by the Llanelly Harbour and Burry Navigation Commissioners; for the execution of works authorised by The Llanelly Harbour Act, 1896; for the improvement of the Port and Harbour of Llanelly; and to empower the said Commissioners to borrow moneys with the consent of the Urban District Council of Llanelly; and for other purposes." Llanelly Harbour Bill [Lords].

    LLANELLY HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
  Petition from Rochdale, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Dumbarton, and North Kensington (six); to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Canonbie, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
  Petitions against, from Edinburgh, and Stepney; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Fortieth Annual Report of the Inspectors of Fisheries (England and Wales), for 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SEA FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Fifteenth Annual Report of the Inspectors, for 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 19th July, Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 272.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 19th July, Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 273.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 19th July, Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 274.]
  LIGHTHOUSES, ETC. (LOCAL INSPECTIONS).
  Copies presented, of Reports to the Board of Trade by the Trinity House of Deptford Strond and the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses of their Inspection of Local Lighthouses, Buoys, and Beacons (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 16, of Session 1900) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 275.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Sixth Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Sixty-seventh Report of the Commissioners, being for the year 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Forty-fifth Report of the Commissioners, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Statement showing (1) Schools in receipt of Parliamentary Grants; (2) Grants paid to School Boards under Section 97, Elementary Education Act, 1870; and (3) School Board Accounts and List of Loans for the year 1900–1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2663 to 2667 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Public Records (Admiralty).—Copy of Ninth Schedule, containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents which have been removed from the Office of the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and deposited in the Public Record Office, but are not considered of sufficient public value
  1112
  to justify their preservation therein [by Act].

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—WANTON DESTRUCTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY BY BOERS.
  ME. PLATT-HIGGINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any official information as to wanton destruction of private property in the Cape Colony by the Boers under Commandant Scheepers.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I am informed by Governor that on 6th July Scheepers, accompanied by Lieutenant Luyt and twenty-two men, rode into Murraysburg and stated that he intended to burn down public offices. He allowed acting magistrate to remove contents of safes and some papers and books, and warned him to leave by noon on 7th July. He also warned Sharwood, storekeeper, and Innes, secretary of divisional council, that he intended to burn their houses, and gave them one hour to remove goods. They removed nearly all their furniture, but time did not permit of removing Sharwood's stock. Both houses, as well as public offices and their contents, and some carts and wagons, were then burnt by Scheepers' orders. Scheepers left on 7th July, saying that he was going to burn down Herholdt's farmhouse. He carried out his threat, but I have received no particulars as yet. I have seen telegram from Commandant of Richmond saying that farmer from Murraysburg reports Scheepers stated that his next bonfire would be in Richmond, and threatens that any farmer who reports to authorities would get his farmhouse burnt, and would have to leave with his stock to nearest military station. I understand that Mr. Herholdt was the well-known Dutch member of the Cape Legislative Council. He has taken no part in the war, and his only offence was, I believe, the moderate attitude adopted by him in the Cape Parliament. The proceedings of Scheepers appear to be mere acts of brigandage.

  CONCENTRATION CAMPS†COMMITTEE OF ENGLISH LADY VISITORS.
  COLONEL LEGGE (St. George,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to publish the names of the committee of ladies who are to go out and visit the Boer refugee camps, and report on their condition.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The committee of ladies whom it is proposed to appoint to visit the Boer concentration camps and co-operate with the local committees will be composed as follows:—Lady Knox, who has considerable experience of South Africa before and during the war, and whose ministrations to the sick and wounded in Ladysmith did much to alleviate their sufferings; Mrs. Fawcett, LL. D., who has taken a leading position in all movements for the improvement of the condition of working women; Miss Lucy Deane, His Majesty's inspector of factories, who has very large experience in special investigation and in inquiries into matters relating to women and children; Miss Scarlett and Dr. Jane Watherston, who are both medical graduates, with considerable practical experience of work abroad—both are now in South Africa; Miss Brereton, who has been in charge of the Yeomanry hospital in South Africa, and who has much administrative experience. The appointment of the two last named cannot be completed pending further information as to the time which they can spare from their professional calls. Lady Knox, Mrs. Fawcett, and Miss Deane left for South Africa this morning.

  LORD KITCHENER'S DEMAND FOR MOUNTED TROOPS.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Lord Kitchener has accepted the offer of more mounted troops from Queensland in the last few days.
  † In future issues of The Debates questions relating to camps for the accommodation of disaffected (civilian) refugees will take the heading "Concentration Camps"; questions relating to camps for the accommodation of loyalist refugees will take the heading "Refuge Camps."—[ED.]
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War if Lord Kitchener has telegraphed to Queensland that he would be glad of more mounted troops for South Africa.
  MR. BRODRICK: In reply to these questions, some Queenslanders who have previously served in South Africa are desirous of returning there to fill up the vacancies in the fifth and sixth Queensland contingents. Lord Kitchener has accordingly telegraphed his willingness to accept their services. Lord Kitchener has not asked for any further mounted troops, and I have reason to believe that he is fully satisfied with the number he has got.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the Queensland troopers be paid at the rate of 5s. per day?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.

  SPION KOP.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that eight months after the battle of Spion Kop Mr. G. L. Coventry, a loyalist, who owns the farm on which Spion Kop stands, had to bury the bodies of no fewer than thirty-one soldiers who had fallen in the engagement at Spion Kop and had not received proper sepulture; and has the War Office any, and, if so, what, explanation to offer for the desecration of the bodies of men who lost their lives in that battle.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,: I am not aware of the fact alleged in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to my previous replies on this subject.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the noble Lord allow me to hand him a photograph taken on the spot?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That can be done privately.

  ALLEGED MURDER OF A BOER AT PETERSBURG.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a statement by Corporal Wynne Jones, A. S. C., that on entering Petersburg the troops shot down a young Boer whom they found there, and afterwards finished him with the bayonet, and whether he will institute inquiries with the view of having the men who committed this murder punished.
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. I am not aware of any such statement, nor am I prepared to institute inquiries into a statement unsupported by corroborative testimony.

  THE DORDRECHT EXECUTION.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the leading residents at Dordrecht, in the Middleburg district, were ordered recently to attend the execution of a prisoner in that place, and, if so, whether he can state the reason for this proceeding.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have received the following telegram from General Kitchener—
  "General French reports some twenty disloyal Dutch were ordered to attend. Deval also ordered as being Under-Sheriff. Execution took place in prison yard, which is altogether hidden from public view by high walls. Dutch Reformed Church minister was with prisoner on the scaffold, and for two days previously."

  ROYAL MILITARY SCHOOL FEES.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that an officer who has retired on a pension at the age of forty, after nineteen years service, has to pay the full contribution (as in the case of a civilian) in respect of his sons in the Royal Military Academy and the Royal Military College, whether he will take the case of these officers into consideration; and can he say whether service with embodied Militia counts for all purposes as Army Service.
  LORD STANLEY: No sufficient reasons have been adduced for a reduc-
  1116
  tion of the period of twenty years service required. As regards the Militia, embodied service will be allowed to reckon towards the twenty years service required.

  ARMY REORGANISATION—MOUNTED RIFLEMEN.
  SIR ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether in the Army Reorganisation Scheme any provision has been made for training, an increased number of regular soldiers in the duties of mounted men armed with the rifle; whether it is contemplated that, in the event of war with a first class Power, the Imperial Yeomanry authorised by the new scheme should be invited to volunteer for foreign service; whether it is intended to arm any cavalry regiments with the rifle; and whether any cavalry regiments will in future be trained to rely upon fire effect rather than upon shock tactics.
  MR. BRODRICK: All the questions involved in my hon. friend's question are being carefully considered, but I am not prepared at present to make any statement upon them.

  H.M.S. "SUNFISH" AND "SKATE."
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can say at what date the repairs to H. M. S. "Sunfish" and H. M. S. "Skate" will be completed; and whether any date can be fixed when they will be out of dockyard hands.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): Repairs to "Skate" are complete, and she is out of dockyard hands. Repairs to "Sunfish" dependent on delivery of materials by contractor. The date for completion cannot yet be fixed.

  VENTILATION ON WAR VESSELS.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board of Admiralty contemplate the adoption of an improved system of ventilation on board His Majesty's ships, especially in vessels belonging to the Mediterranean, East Indies, and China Squadrons.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Improvements are being made continuously in ventilation arrangements for His Majesty's ships, so as to fit them for any stations to which they may be sent. No special action is contemplated for vessels attached to the Mediterranean, East Indies and China Squadrons. A new departure has been made in recent battleships and cruisers, based on the extensive use of electro-motors for fans, with special arrangements for air supply and exhaust in each compartment.

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY—ALLEGED OFFER OF SIGNOR MARCONI TO THE ADMIRALTY.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, having regard to the fact that the cost of each installation of wireless telegraphy is £4,000, and that it would have been only one-tenth of that amount if Signor Marconi's invention had been accepted by the Admiralty when it was first offered by the inventor, whether he can explain why this offer was not accepted.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No such price has ever been paid, and no such offer as that suggested in the question can be traced at the Admiralty.

  GUNNERY AND TORPEDO LIEUTENANTS.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the gunnery and torpedo lieutenants of battleships and cruisers will have all night in during the manœuvres; or whether they will take regular turns of watch keeping at night the same as other lieutenants.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The question of what officers will be engaged in watch keeping on the ships taking part in the manœuvres is a matter which must depend entirely upon the captains of the respective ships, who can alone decide on what allocation of duty is necessary in view of the special service on which the ship is employed.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I understand that at other times they do not keep watch. Are they to do so in the coming manœuvres?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is entirely a matter for the discretion of the officer in command.

  CHINESE INDEMNITY—METHOD OF PAYMENT.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Allied Powers have yet agreed on the method of payment of the Chinese indemnity and the means by which the indemnity is to be raised; and if they have, whether he can state them to the House.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): It has been agreed that payment should be made by means of 4 per cent. bonds payable by China to each of the creditor Powers. Considerable progress has recently been made in the negotiations with regard to the sources of revenue to be utilised for the service of the bonds, but I am unable as yet to make any more detailed statement.

  BANISHED CHINESE MINISTERS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has any information as to the whereabouts of Prince Tuan and General Tung-fuh-Siang; and are they able to say whether Prince Tuan is at the head of a considerable force.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: According to latest information Tuan is with his relation the Mongol Prince of Alashan; Tung is in the western part of Kansu. We have no information to the effect suggested in the last sentence of the question.

  FOREIGN TROOPS IN CHINA.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say what are the numbers of foreign troops at Shanghai, specifying numbers and nationalities.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The foreign troops now at Shanghai are:—

  1119
  British, 1,945; French, 750 (6 guns); German, 850 (4 or 6 guns); Japanese, 300.

  CHINA—COST OF MILITARY OPERATIONS.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the estimated total cost of the military operations in China up to the present date; and can he now give an estimate of the total cost of the naval operations in China.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The total estimated cost of the expeditionary force is put at £4,350,000. This does not include any expenses of the Royal Navy, which it is not possible to estimate.

  NATIONAL COAL SUPPLY.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the expressed desire to conserve our coal supplies for future generations, he will consider the expediency of adopting means to prevent or curtail the free letting of mineral areas still undeveloped, tracts of such areas still existing in South Wales and other coal-producing districts.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I hardly know to what the hon. Member refers; perhaps he will be good enough to communicate with me privately. We have under consideration the appointment of a Royal Commission to deal with the coal supply of the United Kingdom.

  INCOME TAX ABATEMENTS.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can say what was the estimated total amount of abatements to which income-tax payers were entitled during the year ending the 31st March, 1900; and what was the total amount actually paid to suck persons during the same period.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is not possible to give the information asked for in the first part of the question, as the Board of Inland Revenue can have
  1120
  no knowledge of any title to abatement unless a claim be made in respect of it. The amount actually paid was £313,656.

  CHEQUE BANK LIQUIDATION.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount of liabilities owing by the Cheque Bank to holders of Cheque Bank cheques at the time of the bank's suspension, and the amount of cash held and capital uncalled; and whether any of this has been paid away; and, if so, how much to the holders of the cheques; and whether he has any further information as to the progress of the liquidation.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I am not in possession of any further information as to the progress of the liquidation, and regret that I cannot furnish the particulars asked for. I have already informed my honourable friend, in reply to previous questions, that the voluntary liquidation is being continued under the supervision of the Court, but that no compulsory order has been made, and that the Board of Trade have consequently no control over the liquidation.

  CORONATION CEREMONY—WESTMINSTER ABBEY.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if any arrangements have been made for preparing Westminster Abbey for the Coronation ceremony, and if the Dean and Chapter and their architect will retain any control over the structure of the Abbey during the progress of the works.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): No arrangements have yet been made for preparing Westminster Abbey for the Coronation. The answer to the second part of my noble friend's question is also in the negative, as, according to precedent, the work would be undertaken by my Department.

  QUEEN VICTORIA MEMORIAL.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he

  1121
  is in a position to make any statement about the National Memorial to Her late Majesty, and if any opportunity can be afforded to the public of seeing a model of the suggested group of statuary which is to form the chief feature of the memorial.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I have nothing at present to add to the answer I gave on Friday last.† My noble friend will recollect that the matter does not rest with me. When the design shall have been selected, I have promised that, if it involves an alteration of the Mall, the plans of any such alteration shall be exhibited in the House.

  SUICIDE OF LONDON ACTRESSES— SALE OF COCAINE.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the death of two actresses, caused by taking poisonous doses of cocaine; and, considering the increase in the practice of taking this drug internally, whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to place some restriction upon the sale of cocaine, except to medical men and others skilled in its legitimate use.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS (for Mr. RITCHIE): I am informed by the Privy Council that a Committee has been appointed to consider the First Schedule of the Poison Act, 1868, and that the matter will be referred to them.

  GREENWICH UNION CEMETERY SCANDAL.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the exhuming of bodies without authority at the Brockley Cemetery, and the action of the superintendent in allowing plates to be removed from coffins and Roman Catholics to be interred in the Protestant part of the cemetery, he will take steps to prevent such action in future by making the officials of the cemetery and mortuary responsible to only one authority.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS (for Mr. RITCHIE): The Secretary of State
  † See page 999.
  1122
  for the Home Department, to whom this question should have been addressed, is informed that in order to carry out the licence to remove the body of one of the paupers referred to in his answer of Monday last† it was found necessary, owing to the confusion which had occurred, to open two coffins. It was only to this extent that there was any exhuming of bodies without authority. The removal of coffin plates was most reprehensible, and the guardians have taken serious notice of the matter. He trusts that the regulations they have laid down will prevent the recurrence of such a scandal in the future; but he does not see how the case would be bettered by making the officials of the cemetery and the workhouse mortuary responsible to only one authority, even if that were practicable.

  CARDIFF HIGHER GRADE SCHOOL.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the published statement of Mr. Lewis Williams, chairman of the Cardiff School Board, that, if the fifteen years age limit is applied to the higher grade school at Cardiff, there will be 273 students excluded and not 160, which is the number in the science school alone, and leaves out of account the numbers in the elementary section, and further that in the Cardiff intermediate schools there are only eight scholarships offered, leaving 265 children, nine-tenths of whom are quite unable to pay the fees of the intermediate school; and whether he has received any communication from the Cardiff School Board on the matter; and, if so, to what purport; and, if not, whether he will inquire into the matter.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): I have seen the statement. My observations applied to the school of science, and the numbers I gave are not disputed. I have received no communication from the Cardiff School Board, and I see no ground for further inquiry.
  † See page 432.

  LONGTON (STAFFS.) SCHOOL BOARD AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the Longton (Staffordshire) School Board on Tuesday last, at which it was stated that the technical classes of the town council had not dwindled in the art classes from 140 to 40, in the shorthand classes from 110 to 7, and in the physiography classes from 70 to 10, because of the competition of the board's free evening continuation school close by, but because the board about a year ago temporarily withdrew its students from the technical classes during a dispute with the town council as to representation on the technical instruction committee, which was satisfactorily settled; whether he has received any communication from the Longton School Board on the subject; and, if so, to what purport; and, if not, whether he will inquire into the matter.
  SIR J. GORST: There seems to be no substantial difference between the statement in the question and that made by me in the House. A resolution of the school board was sent to me traversing my statement in general terms, and I have asked the school board to specify in what particular the statement is incorrect.

  SARK AND GUERNSEY TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION—WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether anything is being done to connect by telegraph the island of Sark with Guernsey; and whether he proposes to continue the policy of his predecessor in refusing an offer of Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company to connect Sark with Guernsey by wireless telegraphy without any expense whatever to the Government.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Postmaster General has not received any fresh application for the connection by
  1124
  telegraph of the island of Sark with Guernsey. He was in correspondence with the Attorney General of Guernsey, who took much trouble to obtain the necessary guarantees, but unfortunately without success. The Postmaster General has no reason to suppose that the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company are prepared to maintain permanent telegraphic communication between Sark and Guernsey without charge; and it is, of course, permanent communication that is required.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Marconi Company offered to do this without charge, either permanently or temporarily?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No; according to information supplied me by the Postmaster General he has no reason to suppose that the company are willing to maintain the communication permanently.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the company put their offer in writing?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question has been answered.

  WEST INDIAN MAIL DELAYS.
  SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can explain why the letters by West Indian mail steamer "Orinoco," which were landed at Plymouth at 9 p.m. on Wednesday last, were not delivered in the city of London before 3.45 on Thursday; and what steps it is proposed to take to avoid such delay in future.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The mails were forwarded from Plymouth by the first available train; and unless a special train had been employed the letters could not have been delivered any earlier. The Postmaster General has for some time had under consideration the question of making special arrangements for forwarding the West India mails from Plymouth on occasions such as that referred to by the hon. Member,

  1125
  but he has not yet been able to arrive at a definite conclusion on the subject.

  BUTTER STANDARD COMMITTEE— IRISH REPRESENTATION.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Clare County Council calling for the appointment of some representatives of the Irish salt butter industry on the Committee appointed to consider the butter trade; and whether the suggestion of the Clare County Council will be favourably considered.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Yes, Sir; but, as I have stated, my right hon. friend the Minister for Agriculture cannot consent to an increase in the number of Irish representatives. He proposes to deal with the difficulty by appointing on the Committee another member who will represent the consumers or the trade in this country.

  DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTH KERRY FISHERIES.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of applications that have been received since April, 1900, by the Congested Districts Board for the construction of piers, slips, and roads, and for loans in connection with the development of the fisheries and other industries in the congested districts of the Parliamentary Division of South Kerry, how many of these applications have been granted, how many have been held over for favourable consideration when grants are next allocated; and whether he will state the amount of money that has been expended by the Board in these districts during the past financial year.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Eleven applications for works in South Kerry were received in the period stated; of these eight were postponed, one was rejected, and in two cases grants were made. The number of applications for loans in connection with fisheries and other industries was forty-six, of which forty-one were granted
  1126
  and five are pending. The amount issued on loans was £779 10s. 2d. In the case of expenditure on agricultural schemes, the accounts of the Board do not distinguish between such expenditure in local areas, and it is not practicable, therefore, to give the information desired at the end of the question.

  MULLINGAR UNION ACCOUNTS.
  MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the officer appointed by the Local Government Board to adjust the balances for and against the several electoral divisions in Mullingar Union took into consideration that at the end of the half-year ending 30th September, 1898, there was £200 due to the division of Killucan from the Board of Public Works, of which the said division only was given credit for £70; and, seeing that the electoral divisions of Killucan, Gloghan, and Clonlost, during the half-year ending 25th March, 1899, expended for purposes under the Labourers Acts, in anticipation of loans for schemes already sanctioned by the Board of Works and the Local Government Board, the sums of £195 4s. 2d., £106 19s. 8d., and £174 7s. 10d., respectively, and as these divisions were caused by this capital expenditure to appear in debt, and were called upon to meet it by increased taxation, and as the adjustment order was made when the late clerk was ill and unable to explain the matter to the adjusting officer, whether he will request the Local Government Board to reconsider the cases of these divisions with a view of having the amount of the extra rate refunded; and will he state whether each of these divisions has been credited with the full amount due to them from the Board of Works for the building of labourers' cottages under the several schemes.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A sum of £70, not £200, was due to the Killucan Division on the 30th September, 1898, out of a loan sanctioned for the erection of cottages in that division. The adjusting officer dealt with the balances certified by the auditor on the final account of the former board of guardians for the half year ended March, 1899. He had no

  1127
  power to deal directly with the balances of the previous half-year to September, 1898, though these were brought forward in the accounts for the following half-year, and consequently were taken into consideration when the adjustment Orders were made. The reply to the last paragraph is in the affirmative. The accounts of these divisions have all been investigated and reinvestigated, and there does not appear to be any necessity for further consideration.

  ATTACKS ON ROMAN CATHOLICS AT BELFAST.
  ME. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Monday, evening last a planned attack was made by a party of roughs upon a number of Roman Catholic cattle drovers engaged in the work of removing cattle from the railway vans of the Great Northern Railway to the English cross-channel steamers at Belfast, and that one of these Roman Catholic workmen while so engaged was beaten and sustained severe injuries; and, seeing that these cattle drovers have been repeatedly threatened and assaulted during the past twelve months, and thereby intimidated from pursuing their avocation, whether he will take measures to put a stop to the congregating of these roughs between 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock in the evening outside the Great Northern Railway works by stationing a sufficient number of police from the railway gate to the Boyne Bridge to protect the workmen therein engaged.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The information before me is to the effect that a Roman Catholic named Black was assaulted on the 15th instant while engaged in this work, but that, so far as the police can ascertain, no planned attack was made on the Roman Catholic drovers. I have not sufficient information to enable me to reply to the remainder of the question, and perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat it to-morrow.

  EXTRA POLICE IN COUNTY SLIGO.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of
  1128
  Ireland, in view of the fact that there are already three permanent police stations within a radius of two and a half miles of Leitrim Farm, in Sligo county, where iron huts are now being erected, and, seeing that these are sufficient to afford protection to one individual, whether he will undertake that unnecessary cost be not inflicted on the ratepayers of that district by the erection of the iron huts referred to.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Protection will be given from the four new police stations in the district of Achonry to any individual who may be threatened or molested in the pursuit of his legitimate occupation. The circumstances leading up to the formation of these stations are well known. No unnecessary cost will be imposed upon the ratepayers by the employment of a force of extra police, but a moiety of the expenses incurred will be levied off the district so long as it may be found requisite to retain this additional force.
  MR. O'DOWD: Is it not the fact that there are already sufficient police there for protection purposes?
  MR. FLYNN: If the county council refuse to pay for the extra police on the ground of their being unnecessary, what course will the Irish Government take in the matter?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I decline to answer so hypothetical and, I trust, so remote a question.
  MR. O'DOWD: Are the huts erected for the protection of more than one person?
  MR. WYNDHAM: They are for the protection of any person who may require it.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of the small amount of duty these police perform they—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  IRISH LAND APPEALS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

  1129
  Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings before the Land Commission Judges at the Four Courts, Dublin, on the 16th instant, when, in many of the cases of appeal upon the question of acreable value, the appeal rent was varied from the rent fixed by the Sub-Commissioners by small sums only, and, in the case of Gaughan v. Knox Gore, the appeal rent was fixed by the court valuer at 7d. per acre more than the rent fixed by the Sub-Commissioners; and Mr. Commissioner O'Brien commented adversely on the reversal of the Sub-Commissioners' decision for trifling differences; and whether, in view of the fact that over 12,000 appeals now stand to be heard, effect will be given to Mr. Commissioner O'Brien's recommendation that costs ought to be imposed upon appellants who are unreasonable in their conduct, as prescribed by Section 9 of the Land Law Act of 1881.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In the case of Gaughan v. Knox Gore the Commissioners differed from the Sub-Commissioners as to the classification and acreable rent of various sections of the land. The court valuer's estimate was not arrived at by taking a deduction of 7d. per acre all round, as apparently suggested. The Commissioners decline to discuss the merits of their judicial decisions. The question of costs is one for determination by the Court itself.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: But one of the judges complained strongly of the number of frivolous appeals.

  FERMOY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL MEETINGS.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the inconvenience caused to members of the Urban District Council of Fermoy by the statutory obligation to hold their meetings at twelve o'clock noon on the first Monday of each month, which being a cattle fair day renders the attendance of members inconvenient and almost impossible, and whether, in view of the fact that under the provisions of the
  1130
  Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898, county and borough councils possess the power of regulating their meetings, the Local Government Board will consider the case of Fermoy and sanction an alteration of the hour and day for meetings of the council to one to be approved of by the members.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The obligation to hold the meetings at the date and hour mentioned is, as stated, a statutory one. Legislation would, therefore, be necessary to effect an alteration. Any representations, however, that may be made indicating a consensus of opinion on the part of urban councils in favour of such an alteration will be considered in connection with further legislation at some future date.

  HORSEWHIPPING A BOY AT CLONMEL —NOONAN'S CASE.
  MR. CONDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the Clonmel petty sessions, held on Wednesday last, a planter named Stephenson was tried and convicted for horsewhipping a fourteen-year-old boy; and, seeing that Stephenson is one of the persons upon whose certificate of character Noonan, the emergency man, was recently released from prison one month before the expiration of his sentence, whether he proposes to take any steps in Noonan's case.
  MR. WYNDHAM: "The fact may be as stated in the first paragraph, but there is not a particle of foundation for the assertion in the second paragraph. In any case, I cannot intervene in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.
  MR. CONDON: But was not Stephenson's name attached to the memorial? Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire.
  MR. WYNDHAM: He had nothing to do with it, and there is no need therefore to inquire?
  MR. CONDON: Is it not the fact that cases of this kind—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CONDONremained standing.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member persists in standing after I have risen I shall have to take severe measures.

  IRISH BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the vacancy on the Board of National Education, due to the resignation of Archbishop Walsh, has yet been filled; and, if so, whether he will state the name of the person appointed.
  ME. WYNDHAM: NO, Sir; the vacancy has not yet been filled

  OUTDOOR RELIEF IN WEXFORD.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Irish Local Government Board by circular addressed to the Wexford Board of Guardians, and dated 2nd July, refused to sanction the granting of outdoor relief to the tenants of labourers' cottages except the medical officer certified their unfitness for removal to the workhouse; and whether he will take steps to amend the Poor Relief Act, so as to provide for their being relieved in their own homes during temporary illness, and thus prevent the breaking up of the labourers' homes.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No such circular has been lately issued by the Local Government Board, but when recently questioned as to the legality of affording outdoor relief to the occupants of labourers' cottages, it pointed out to the guardians the statutory prohibition to give relief to occupiers of more than a quarter of an acre of land. In cases of sudden and urgent necessity the relieving officer has power to temporarily afford relief in food or medical attendance.

  LOUGHREA MALICIOUS BURNING CASES.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if he is aware that a man named John Cooley had an application listed for
  1132
  hearing at the recent quarter sessions in Loughrea for compensation for the malicious burning of heather; and that Cooley withdrew the application from court although applicants of this kind are compelled by statute to enter into recognisances to prosecute their claims before the county court judge; whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the order made by the learned judge; and whether it is intended in this instance to enforce the penalty prescribed by the statute for persons who neglect or fail to prosecute in such malicious injury claims.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): John Cooley entered into the ordinary recognisance in the common printed form to prosecute his information whenever called upon, or required so to do by the constabulary or other lawful authority. In my opinion, this recognisance has no application to a case like the present, where the person or persons who caused the injury are unknown. The answer to the second and third paragraphs is in the negative, but I shall be glad to show the recognisance to the hon. Member if he desires to see it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Why was the ordinary printed form invalid?
  MR. ATKINSON: The difficulty is that you cannot prosecute unknown persons.

  MR. LLOYD, R.M.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the method of taking depositions adopted by Mr. Lloyd, R. M., at a recent investigation at Killarney, and whether he is aware that the prisoner's solicitor had to protest in court against this proceeding, which the resident magistrate admitted he adopted for convenience and in ignorance of the law; and whether the authorities in Dublin Castle will, when giving instructions to this resident magistrate in future, take steps to prevent a repetition of similar proceedings on his part.
  MR. ATKINSON: At my right hon. friend's request I will reply to this ques-

  1133
  tion. My attention has been called to the matter referred to, and I have read the newspaper report of the proceedings. Some controversy occurred between the resident magistrate and the solicitor for the accused as to, whether the ipsissima verba of a rambling witness should be taken down or not. The magistrate appears to have complied substantially with the provisions of the law, of which he was fully cognizant. He did not make the admissions mentioned. Instructions such as are suggested are quite unnecessary, as the resident magistrates are daily in the habit of taking depositions, and are, I believe, fully cognizant of what the law requires.
  MR. MURPHY: Is not this gentleman's only qualification that he was for some years in the Indian Civil Service?
  MR. ATKINSON: He has been a magistrate thirteen years, of which four have been spent in Ireland.
  MR. FLAVIN: Was he not asked to take down a direct answer to a direct question, and did he not refuse to do so?
  MR. ATKINSON: In my opinion he acted quite rightly.
  MR. FLAVIN: And in my opinion he was absolutely wrong.

  CORK AND FERMOY RAILWAY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he has any objection to present to the House any correspondence between the Treasury and the Fish guard Company as to the Fermoy and Cork line, the Lee Bridge, or the debt of £93,000.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think any useful purpose would be served by laying the correspondence on the Table, but I will show it to the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Before the debate to-morrow?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: This is a matter of interest to other Irish Members as well as the hon. Member for North Louth, and I do not think the case
  1134
  is met by simply showing the correspondence to him.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Well, if there is a general desire to have the correspondence, I will consider it.
  MR. FLYNN: Questions have been put by a large number of Members.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If possible we should like to have it circulated by tomorrow.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will see what can be done.

  IRISH SUPPLY.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that only three Irish Votes in Supply have been passed, namely, the Votes for Education, Law Charges, and Supreme Court of Judicature, and that twenty-five Irish Votes for sums amounting to close upon five millions of money still remain to be considered, and will he state what opportunity he intends to provide for their discussion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I cannot hold out any anticipation, of Irish Votes being taken on any of the remaining allotted days for Supply. Perhaps there may be another opportunity for their discussion.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that there will be another opportunity for the discussion of Irish Votes? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that out of a total of 144 Votes ninety-eight still remain to be considered? Does the right hon. Gentleman, in view of that, still seriously say there may be another opportunity of debating Irish Supply?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I may be allowed to hope so. It depends on the use the House makes of the time.

  PEERS' PRIVILEGES.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will give any facilities

  1135
  for the early passage of the Peers (Abolition of Privileges) Bill into law.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.

  MUNICIPAL TRADING.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the interest taken, especially by the mercantile community, in the Inquiry into the subject of municipal trading, which was commenced last year by a Select Committee, he can give any indication as to when the re-appointment of that Committee may be looked for.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In view of the opposition to the Committee, it is not possible to proceed further with the matter this session, and I can give no indication as to what may occur next session.

  EDUCATION—MINUTE OF 3RD JULY.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will now give a sitting, or a portion of a sitting, to the discussion of the Minute of the Board of Education of 3rd July before the resumption of the Committee stage of the Education (No. 2) Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I do not propose to give the opportunity which the hon. Gentleman desires. Perhaps I may take this occasion for informing the House that I have had most reassuring accounts of the health of the Chairman of Committees, and in these circumstances I propose to go on with the Committee stage of the Education Bill to-morrow.
  MR. CHANNING: Then are we to understand that this Minute will be enforced without any discussion being allowed on it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That was not the question. I was asked to give an opportunity for discussing it, and my reply was that I could not pledge myself to find one.

  PACIFIC CABLE [MONEY].
  Committee to consider of making provision, out of the Consolidated Fund and
  1136
  out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, for the construction and working of a Pacific cable (King's recommendation signified), to-morrow.—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)

  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BOARD.
  Report, with Minutes of Evidence from the Joint Committee, brought up and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 276.]

  Ordered, that three additional days be allotted to the Business of Supply.—(Mr. Balfour.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I now propose to make the motion which, for many years past, has been made at this season of the year, with a view to bringing to a close, as rapidly as possible, the remaining business of the session. I need not delay the House as to the particular terms in which the motion is couched, because they follow precisely the formulæ usual on these occasions; and I shall, therefore, come at once to a brief statement of the present position of public business, especially in reference to what has yet to be got through. The first class of Bills to which I have to call the attention of the House are those general Bills as distinct from departmental Bills, which it is necessary we should dispose of before separating for the holidays. All of those are already introduced but two, of which I will say a word directly, and their character is familiar to gentlemen in all parts of the House. The first on my list is the Loans Bill, which has passed the Second Reading, and as in the nature of the case there cannot be much discussion on it in Committee; I hope it will not delay us long from the remaining stage of the Third Reading. The Education Bill and the Rating Bill are the two controversial Bills, in the party sense of the word, which we have to dispose of. I am sorry to have to say that these Bills are controversial in the party sense of the word, but the fact is notorious, and I quite realize that hon. Gentlemen opposite

1137
desire to give them a very bitter opposition. Luckily, the Bills are not very long. They do not embody any very great complexity of detail, and, therefore, I trust, in the interest of hon. Gentlemen themselves, the debates upon them will not be of a very prolonged character. The Military Works Bill and the Naval Works Bill are to be introduced and passed for reasons familiar to the House. At all events, so far as the Naval Bill is concerned, I am not aware of any subject of controversy arising out of it, except that of which we have already had a foretaste in connection with the works at Gibraltar. The Yeomanry Bill is down for to-night, and I need not say anything more about it. The Factory Bill, I am given to understand, is making very satisfactory progress in Grand Committee. It has been discussed there in great detail; but I hope the length of the discussions does not indicate that the Bill is to be debated at any length in this House. Probably we shall find that all the more difficult questions have been dealt with satisfactorily upstairs. The only remaining Bill in this class is one not yet introduced, dealing with an addition to the Royal style and title of His Majesty. I cannot, of course, explain to the House the nature of the Bill. It is an addition called for by the great expansion of the colonial Empire during the reign of the late Queen, and if I am at all a good prophet in the matter, there is nothing in the Bill which need arouse the susceptibilities of any gentlemen in any part of the House, or which may be expected in any degree to provoke hostile or embittered criticism. That completes the list—a not very formidable one—of the general Bills we have to deal with. The departmental Bills which must also be passed are the following:—The Great Indian Peninsula Railway Bill, the Light Railways Bill, the Berwick shire County Town Bill, the Marriages Legalization Bill, the Customs Duties (Isle of Man) Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Pacific Cables Bill, the Public Works Loans Bill, and the Bill dealing with the rating of Belfast. I believe the great majority of these Bills will excite no great discussion or comment at all.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The Belfast Bill will, and so will the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry to hear that. There is, I believe, a general wish to forward the Light Railways Bill. The Marriages Legalization Bill is intended to remove all doubt with regard to the legality of certain specific marriages contracted in all good faith, but about which doubts might arise. Naturally that is not controversial, and the Customs Duties (Isle of Man) Bill is in the same category. I am sorry to hear an hon. Gentleman say that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is controversial, because the Government has been most careful to put the two Rating Bills into a separate measure, in order not to introduce any controversial element into that Bill, and it will be brought before the House in precisely the same form in which it has been produced for many years past. The Pacific Cable Bill must be passed in order to carry out our part of a contract in which this country, Canada, and New Zealand and the Australian Colonies have entered into for the purpose of constructing and managing a cable in the Pacific Ocean, which will give increased facilities of communication, not merely to Australia and New Zealand, but to India also. That, also, I hope, will not require any detailed commentary. There remains only the Public Works Loan Bill, of which I need say nothing, and the Belfast Bill. I gather that the last-named Bill will be regarded as more or less controversial, but I hope there is no settled desire to oppose the Bill. It is absolutely necessary, because at the present moment Belfast can neither make a rate on its old valuation nor on its new valuation. It is precluded altogether from raising a rate to carry on the necessary municipal business of the city, and, of course, the House cannot allow that state of things to continue any longer. So much for the general and departmental Bills which must be passed before we separate. There is a class of Bills in a sort of middle state—Bills which certainly cannot pass if they meet with any serious opposition, but which possibly the House may wish to see passed. They include the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill, the Teachers' Tenure Bill (not yet introduced), and two Irish Bills (one connected with the Bank of Ireland and one connected with the local government). Then there is

1139
also the Prisons (Scotland) Bill. Some of these Bills, at all events, the House will, I think, desire to pass without any sort of discussion; but there are certain Bills which I cannot hold out any prospect of being passed into law in the course of the present session. There is the Justices' Jurisdiction (London) Bill, the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Bill, the Trout Fishing (Scotland) Bill, the Burial Grounds (Scotland) Bill, the Prevention of Corruption (No. 2) Bill, the Drunkards Bill, the Solicitors Bill, and the County Courts (Ireland) Bill. The remaining Bills I hope we may get through very easily, but I should certainly not consider it right to ask the House greatly to prolong its labors in order to see them passed into law. I do not know that I need say anything—indeed I have nothing to say beyond what I have said about the two private Bills still before the Grand Committee—namely, the Sale of Intoxicating Liquor to Children Bill and the Beer Bill. I have already stated to the House that the Government desire to see them passed. There remains, then, only the question of Supply to be considered, and with regard to Supply I may remind the House that we have already had seventeen allotted days, and we have just received the assent of the House to three more days. Therefore there now remain five days for Supply and one for Report of Supply. But in addition to these allotted days there are two Estimates, not of the ordinary kind, one for a grant to Lord Roberts and another for the Estimate towards the cost of civil administration and other purposes in the Transvaal. I do not think it would be in accordance with the spirit of the Supply rule to require the House to dispose of these Estimates within the limit of the twenty-three allotted days, and I shall therefore take care that they are brought forward in a manner which will enable the House to give them adequate discussion without trenching on the number of days fixed.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will there be no supplementary Estimate for the expenses of the Russell trial?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I understand there is no supplementary Estimate for that purpose. I think I
1140
have now sufficiently described to the House what we have got to get through before the happy time of our dispersal to our private avocations. I do not think the programmer I have sketched out need be a very laborious or long one. I am afraid it cannot be finished by the week ending on Saturday, August 10th, but if the House will only second the efforts of the Government, I think there probably will be no difficulty in our rising for the holidays in the week following.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, for the remainder of the session, Government business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed, and that at the conclusion of Government business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I rise for the purpose of opposing this motion root and branch. It has been customary at this period of every session for the House of Commons, in order to close up the work of the session, to grant special facilities to the Government to conclude their business, and I am sure that under ordinary circumstances the House of Commons would not hesitate for a moment in passing the resolution which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman; but I rise for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the fact that the circumstances under which this motion has been moved this afternoon are not ordinary circumstances. I venture to say that never has there been in the memory of the oldest members of the House such an absolute waste of parliamentary time by the Government of the day as there has been this year, and in my view and my experience there never has been a session in which the Government business and the business of the country has been more completely mismanaged. There never has been a session in which there has been such a complete failure on the part of the Government to do any useful legislative work for the country, and I will say such neglect of the work of Supply, which is

1141
Supposed to be the first and most important duty of the House of Commons, as this session has witnessed—what I take leave to call an absolute breakdown of the parliamentary machine, and I say that the House of Commons will be wanting in self respect if it does not refuse the demand which has now been made. The Government has been conducting the affairs of the country this session with an almost unparalleled majority. It has had at its disposal greater power over the time and business of the House than any Government on either side. I know of no Government in the past which has used the closure so remorselessly, and which at the end of it all has had to make the confession of failure that has been made by the First Lord of the Treasury this evening. There never has been, furthermore, a Government which has appropriated so much of the time of private Members and deprived them of so many of their rights and privileges. Notwithstanding all this, I assert again that there never has been a Government in modern times which has done so little.
Let me dwell for one short moment upon these points. Admittedly there never has been for many a long day a Government with so strong a majority numerically as the present one. I say numerically, because one of the extraordinary things which we have witnessed this session is that the Government, fresh from the constituencies with a majority of 150, have found it difficult from time to time to whip up their Members to give them over twelve, twenty, thirty, and forty of a majority in the division lobby. This Government has had greater power over parliamentary business than any Government of modern times. What do I mean? I mean that there have been new rules passed by this House to assist the Government in the conduct of business—new rules never known before in the British Parliament. Not only that, but the Standing Orders have been changed, and one of the most valuable rights of private Members taken away, namely, the raising of discussions on the Speaker leaving the Chair and the House going into Committee of Ways and Means. I asserted that the closure has been more often used. I have taken the trouble to go through the figures, and I find
1142
that this session already the closure has been moved and carried more than twice as often as last year in the whole session. [Conservative cheers.] Yes, but do not let hon. Gentlemen cheer too soon. The moving of the closure does not mean the smooth progress of business. Does anyone deny that? [Hear, hear.] "Hear, hear," says an hon. Member, who forgets the experience in this House of the Finance Bill. Why, the one great measure of the Government this session was the Finance Bill. Around that Bill surged more angry passions and greater dissension than any other measure introduced. It dealt with the Budget of nearly £200,000, 000, and it dealt with the war, in connection with which the fiercest passions were aroused in different sections of the House, and it necessarily lasted a considerable time. But what was the experience of the House? By the exhibition of a little human nature in the management of business—by the exhibition of a little of the spirit of conciliation and of good temper and of consideration for the feelings of those who were opposed to it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer piloted that Bill through the House without ever once using the closure. I was one of those most bitterly opposed to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that he often felt impatient with me during the progress of that Bill, and also with my hon. friends; but now that is all over I am sure he will congratulate himself that he met what, from his point of view, he may have regarded naturally enough as unreasonable opposition in certain quarters of the House, not with the brutal weapon of the closure, but with the fair exercise of toleration and good humor, which enabled him in the end to bring this Bill successfully through the House of Commons without ever using this weapon. That is, in my humble judgment, the best test of party management and the best test of party leadership, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the contrast which his portion of the session shows to the other portions, when matters not half as controversial were dealt with in a totally different spirit, with the result that this brutal weapon of coercion was used time after time, and, as I venture to point out to hon. Members, without

1143
conducing to the smooth progress of business, but rather to the exacerbation of feeling in all parts of the House, and in reality to the slow progress of the business of the Government. Now this Government which comes forward with this request has not only so mismanaged the business of the House, has not only used the closure more often than any Government in the past, has not only taken more of the time of private Members at an earlier portion of the session, but it has produced no legislative progress.
What is the experience of this session? We are told that the Education Bill is to be proceeded with to-morrow. I may be allowed to say that I for one am heartily glad to hear that the Chairman of Committees has recovered from his illness. Although, perhaps, I have been in conflict with the Chair very often, I certainly will not be the least glad to see the right hon. Gentleman back in his place. [An HON. MEMBER: Not the least sorry !] [Laughter.] I will not be the least sorry to see him back in the Chair. [Laughter.] To make it perfectly clear I will say that I will be heartily glad to see him back
This brings me to the question of the Education Bill. What an extraordinary position the House of Commons and the Government have got into! Here is a measure introduced after the great measure of the session had to be withdrawn and abandoned! The measure, we were told, was a comparatively small one, and it was simply to be of a temporary character, but on examination it turned out to contain the very contentious principle which hon. Members above the gangway, especially on this side of the House, objected to. And then the extraordinary spectacle is afforded to the House of Commons where this weapon of the closure is a novelty, where, until the other day, it was the boast of Parliament that while Continental Parliaments had the closure, you had nothing of the kind—we had the spectacle here represented of the Leader of the House standing up and saying that the Government were obliged to suspend the progress of their most important Bill this session because the Chairman of Committees unfortunately was unwell and unable to take
1144
the Chair, and therefore they were unable to move the closure. It amounts to this, that the Government of the day, with their 150, or 135, majority behind them fresh from the constituencies, is not able by their own admission to pass into law the chief measure of the session, although it is a one-clause measure and of a temporary character, without the use of the closure. The House of Commons has been brought to a pretty pass by the kind of party management of the Leader of the House which we have had. [Cheers.] Hon. Members may cheer ironically at that statement. It is not a matter to be treated lightly. You have published the admission by the Leader of the House that the English House of Commons can no longer conduct the simplest part of its business without the use of the closure. That admission would be a fatal one in my opinion for the honor, the prestige, and the power of Parliament were it not that the honor, prestige, and power of this session will be saved and redeemed solely by the experience we have had of the conduct of the Finance Bill.
Now I pass from legislation, and I come to what the Leader of the House said with reference to Supply. I have looked into the figures, and I find that there are 144 Votes to be passed; of these only forty-six have been disposed of up to the 22nd of July, leaving ninety-eight Votes still to be discussed. Last year things were far better. Last year on the 22ndof July out of 150 Votes there were only 49 remaining to be disposed of. Far more days have been allotted to Supply early in the session, and the management of Supply in Committee has been of a different character, and the result is that this year you are more backward with Supply than ever in my experience in the past. The whole of our experience with regard to Supply shows the utter absurdity of this new Supply rule which the right hon. Gentleman invented and put upon the Paper. Consider what has happened. You are now within three or four weeks, according to the sanguine estimate of the First Lord, of the end of this session; you have ninety-eight Votes of the ordinary Supply to obtain, and yet what do you do? When you moved a Vote on Account for

1145
£17,000,000, extending over all the departments of Supply, you closured it after one night's discussion. And that upon the first night of the new rule. That is taking an absolutely unprecedented course. You did that early in the session to help you on with the work, but to-day you come down to the House of Commons worse off than any Government has ever been in the past. Not only that, but you introduced a new precedent in another matter of a serious character. When the Supplementary Civil Service Estimates were before the House, the Government took a step which never had. Been taken before in the whole history of the House of Commons. At a certain stage of the discussion they consolidated all these Votes into one, and forced the House of Commons to accept that situation, and closured them all in one Vote. That is, at an early part of the session this Government took that unprecedented and brutal course to forward the rapid progress of Supply, and the result is, notwithstanding, that on the 22nd of July they come here, as they have come to-day, with this confession of absolute failure.
It must not be supposed that I say the fault is entirely the fault of the Leader of the House. I do not take that view. I have indicated clearly enough, I think, that by other methods and by approaching the work in another spirit the right hon. Gentleman might have been able to do his work far better and more smoothly, but I am not so foolish as to imagine that any mismanagement, any want of the spirit of conciliation and toleration on his part is entirely responsible for what has happened. I am not going to be guilty of the offence of repeating what I said on another occasion in this House. I will pass from the subject in one sentence, by reiterating my conviction that to a great extent what has happened was inevitable, that the whole character of the work which year by year is being thrown on this Assembly has changed, and that the volume of work is naturally increasing, and that what is happening under the new conditions is that the parliamentary machine is over-weighted and is breaking down. My further view is that nothing can save the House of Commons—that no hew rules you can devise to endeavor
1146
to suppress Members here and to silence Members there—no new devices for interfering with the rights and liberties of private Members will be of any avail. The only remedy—and I am convinced there are many men on the other side of the House listening to me who believe in their hearts the truth of what I am saying—the only ultimate and final remedy will be in the devolution of business from this Assembly to local bodies, wherever they may be situated, in various parts of the United Kingdom. But still, making all allowance for that, I yet blame the right hon. Gentleman for the state of confusion into which he has brought the business of the House of Commons this session, and I say that for a Government which has been guilty of this mismanagement, and on the 22nd of July makes the confession of failure that the First Lord has made this afternoon, to request us to give the further time which is asked in this resolution is the height of political impudence.
Having said so much on the general question, the House will not I am sure be impatient with me when I address a few brief observations on this matter looked at from the purely Irish point of view. From the Irish point of view what does this session mean for Ireland? What use has the Government made of its majority and its great power and command over the time of the House? So far as the work of this Parliament this session is concerned, the Government have done absolutely nothing for Ireland. It has done something most injurious to Ireland: it has forced on a poverty-stricken and a dwindling population a system of additional burdens of unjust taxation; and has forced these burdens on Ireland to support a war against which the entire conscience of Ireland revolts as not for the benefit of Ireland. The treatment of Ireland by the Government has indeed been adding insult to injury. What I mean by that is, that we have not been met this session by a denial of our chief grievances. I do not speak just now of our national grievance which goes under the name of Home Rule; but in respect to all other Irish matters brought before the House, we were met by the Chief Secretary with the statement that there was a great

1147
deal in what we said, and if only Parliament had time, the Government would seriously consider the question as to whether these matters could not be dealt with. Now, that was adding insult to injury. By universal admission the Irish land question must be dealt with again. The last speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the subject wound up with the statement that all that had taken place in the debate had convinced him more than ever that another Irish Land Bill was a necessity. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] Yes, and it was admitted in the King's Speech and in every declaration which the Government had made in regard to Ireland. And yet Ireland had to go on, while the Government wasted the session, living without the slightest glimmer of hope that next year or the year after they would be able to deal with this all-important question. It was the same with the necessary Amendments to the Local Government Boards Act; the same with reference to the Congested Districts Board; the same with reference to the Irish Laborers Acts and the Irish Railways. With regard to all of these necessary reforms we have been told in soft and soothing tones by the Chief Secretary that he largely agreed with us; that there was a need for legislation on these matters, but that there was no time. This session from first to last has been a conclusive argument in favor of Home Rule for Ireland. The Government admits they have the power; they have got a great majority, and the House of Lords is on their side. They admit the existence of these grievances, but they say that owing to the multiplicity of work in this House it is impossible to deal with them. Prom the Irish point of view we would be fools and madmen if, in these circumstances, we agreed to give the Government any further facilities. I wish to say a word or two in regard to some phases of the Government programmer. The right hon. Gentleman omitted all mention of one or two Irish Bills which I have been consulted about, and which, while they are not Bills that are so controversial in principle as to necessitate our opposition to their Second Reading, are still Bills which require a certain amount of discussion
1148
in Committee. These Bills are the Congested Districts Bill, the Local Government Bill, the Trawling Bill, and the Lunacy Bill which has come down from the House of Lords. There are one or two other Irish Bills, but these are the chief measures to which I wish to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention. First of all, I wish to enter an emphatic protest against this system of attempting to legislate for Ireland. There is not one of these Bills that ought not to be fully and freely discussed by the House and especially by the Irish representatives. But what have the Government done? They have refused to introduce large measures for the benefit of Ireland owing to the want of time, but they introduce three or four small measures—so small that they wish to get them through without discussion. I have been approached through the ordinary channels with the suggestion that as these Bills contain some little grain of good, some one or two matters that we want to put right in Ireland, I ought to give the Government an undertaking that they will be allowed to go through without discussion, and that if I do not give such an undertaking the Bills will be dropped. Now I protest with all the vehemence at my command against such a system of legislation for Ireland. It reduces the Irish representation to a farce; and it is impossible to imagine a more dangerous or a more improper mode of legislation for Ireland. I have said that these Bills are not controversial in principle, and we do not want a long time for discussion.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood what passed. It is perfectly true that these Bills cannot pass if any great time is occupied in their discussion. But certainly neither my right hon. friend nor I ever intended to convey the idea that they were to pass sub silentio.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am glad to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. But I object to a system of legislation for Ireland which approaches the Irish Members saying to them, "If you promise us you will not prolong discussion we will introduce

1149
certain Bills." The Government have the responsibility for the government of Ireland, and on that responsibility they ought to introduce the Bills necessary to that end, and they ought to subject them to full, free, and open criticism, and circulate them to all the Members of the House. In regard to the four measures—the Congested Districts Board Bill, the Local Government Bill, the Lunacy Bill, and the Fisheries Bill—I shall be delighted if the right hon. Gentleman will afford the Irish Members sufficient time for their discussion. By that I do not mean that we would require a whole sitting for each Bill, but a fair time for the discussion of reasonable Amendments. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will use that time in a business like spirit, for we desire to get the measures passed; but if he attempts to rush these Bills without proper discussion it will be our duty undoubtedly to prevent them passing into law. I now come to the question of Irish Supply. I asked a question of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon as to whether his attention had been called to the fact that out of twenty-eight Irish Votes only three had been passed—the Education Vote, the Criminal Prosecutions Vote, and the Land Judges' Court Vote. I asked the right hon. Gentleman what suggestion he has to make for another opportunity of discussing the remaining Irish Estimates, and he replied to me by what I suppose he intended as a joke. The right hon. Gentleman has a pretty wit when he chooses to exercise it, but I must say that the joke which he made this afternoon was a very sorry one. He said that he could not undertake that Irish Supply should be set down first on any of the remaining allotted days, but he hoped further opportunity would be given for Irish Supply when all the English and Scotch Votes had been carried. The right hon. Gentleman knew that that suggestion was an absurdity.
Now, can anything be more serious than the condition of Irish Supply? Just let me read to the House a few of the great Votes of public money that are now to be closured at the end of this session without a single word of discussion. Public Works, £20,000; Railways, £113,000; Lord Lieutenant's
1150
Household; Department of Agriculture, £148,000. This new Department ought certainly to have been discussed this year—a Department which, whatever view may be taken of the value of its institutions, certainly is a most important Department in the public life of Ireland, and a Department which is no longer answerable to the House of Commons, as it was understood it would be through its vice-president. Yet the Vote for it is to be closured without a single moment's discussion. Then there is the Local Government Board, £500,000. It is only necessary to state these things to show the monstrous injustice from which we are suffering as to the innumerable questions arising from the recent introduction of the local government system in Ireland. Then there is the Land Commissioners' Court Vote. Could anything be more farcical than the position of the right hon. Gentleman in pretending that the Government are fulfilling the duties of the government of Ireland when not a moment's time is given to the discussion of these important Votes? There are the Votes for County Courts of £110,000, and of a million and a half for the Royal Irish Constabulary. I wish it were possible for me to adequately convey to the House the serious view I take of this matter. How can the House of Commons go on before the country seriously maintaining the farce that they are governing Ireland when the House of Commons is not allowed one moment for the discussion of these great Departments, which spend millions of money? The Chief Secretary's Office Vote was only discussed for a couple of hours, and the right hon. Gentleman himself will admit that that was not enough. Under this precious Supply rule Irish had only got three days, and no one could justly say that these days had been wasted or misspent.
I think this state of affairs with regard to the business of the House constitutes, so far as Ireland is concerned, a conclusive argument in favor of Home Rule, and I would suggest to hon. Gentlemen, as this kind of thing cannot go on indefinitely, and as they are casting about for remedies, that there is one remedy, apart from Home Rule (which I will not at present discuss), which would commend itself to their intelligence—I

1151
am sure it has commended itself before now to the acute mind of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. I have read in the newspapers of the intention of the party opposite to diminish Irish representation. I would suggest something far better—abolish Irish representation. I am not now suggesting Home Rule; for the moment I put that on one side. I am suggesting the disfranchisement of Ireland. Put an end once and for all to this dismal and dreary farce of bringing Irish Members to an Imperial Parliament where they are not allowed an opportunity of discussing Irish Supply. [Ministerial laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they reflect for a moment, will do me the justice to believe that I am not stating an absurdity. We have only had three days in which to discuss Irish Votes, and there are twenty-five of them to be discussed; if you have not the time to give for their discussion—and that is what you state yourselves—disfranchise Ireland and convert her into a Crown Colony. I have always held that the only logical alternative to Home Rule is to convert Ireland into a Crown Colony. The present absurd system cannot continue. It has broken down year after year, and this year it has broken down worse than ever before, and you cannot hope to keep on very much longer with solemn faces this farce of pretending that you are governing Ireland by this House when, as a matter of fact, you have not the time to give for the discussion of serious questions.
I oppose this motion. For my part I am in no hurry to end this session, although I suppose we have felt this to be as exhausting a session as other hon. members of the House; for myself I may say I have felt it to be the most exhausting session that I remember, and I am as anxious as anybody to take a holiday. But this is a serious matter, and if we have to choose between sitting here on the one side and abandoning our duty of discussing Irish Supply on the other, I say we ought to sit here. We say we ought to continue the session. Give us, not three extra days for Supply, but ten days for Supply, and give the Irish Members seven, which would be their proper share. Instead of closing your Education Bill, as you are going to try
1152
to do, to-morrow, instead of scamping through your remaining business, and endeavoring to give a new title to the Sovereign on the last day of the session, take pause. Take your time and consider these matters, and let those who consider their own private interests more important than their public duties go away. Surely the overflowing patriotism of a party which came into office upon a war cry will have no difficulty in keeping a majority here. I do not know whether the question of Ireland will be powerful enough to keep hon. Members on this side of the House in their places, so that you will be able to vote us down. Strike if you will, but hear. I protest against this House of Commons abandoning its functions by proroguing when there is so much important business to be discussed, and I sincerely hope the motion of the right hon. Gentleman will be rejected.
MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member for Waterford, with his usual energy, has dealt with this question from the Irish point of view; but there is also something to be said regarding it from the point of view of English and Scotch Members. It is usual, of course, for a Government at this time of the session to make a request for the abrogation of the rules which give us some little respite from our parliamentary efforts, and save our health from the effects of prolonged sittings. But when Government make a request of that kind they are bound to show that they have used their time well, and are going to use well the facilities they ask for. The proposal of the Government is that we should consent to give them the facilities they ask for in order that they may launch the House on a course of business which, if properly dealt with, will enable us to prorogue, not on the 17th August, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but somewhere about the middle of September. I have gone carefully through the list of measures, and I venture to say that, instead of the twenty days which remain between now and the 17th August, they will take twenty-five days without the Appropriation Bill, the minor departmental Bills, and the Irish Bills, which the hon. Member for Waterford says the Government will not be

1153
allowed to rush through, and if we add five or six days for these measures we have ample work for six weeks still lying before us. This is not an extravagant estimate, if these Bills are to be dealt with with anything like the care and attention which Parliament ought to give them. The Government is going to bring in several Bills which we have not heard of before, and we cannot tell how contentious they may be until they are introduced. They are also bringing in two new Estimates, one of which is certain to be highly contentious, and to involve very long discussion. They are going to omit several other Estimates which ought to be fully discussed, and they have made no provision for the discussion of one Estimate of the highest importance which requires very full discussion, namely, the Education Estimate. Moreover, they have not given any reply to the appeal addressed to them from this side of the House—an appeal whose supporters are not at all confined to opponents of the Government—for proper discussion of the new Minute which has been suddenly forced on our attention, and which has introduced a new and dangerous principle, needing thorough investigation, because it brings about what may turn out to be an evasion of the law. It has already been pointed out that Supply is in a very backward state, and that more Votes remain to be discussed now than at this period of the session last year; and when we consider how many contentious questions remain, I am of opinion that the proper course for the Government to adopt is to throw overboard all but the absolutely necessary Bills, and allow us to devote proper care and attention to the discussion of the very important, indispensable matters which have to be disposed of. I want the right hon. Gentleman to throw over all Bills which it is not absolutely essential should be passed in the present session. I can only say we gather that some of them are likely to take time and to be controversial, and Parliament ought not to be asked to sanction measures of importance without adequate discussion.
Just let me contrast for a moment what the result of this session is going to be with the programmer originally laid before us. On the discussion of the King's Speech I said that it was a comparatively
1154
slender programmer. The Government laid before us three large measures, which they looked upon as the principal business of the session—namely, a scheme of military organisation, a scheme for the constitution of the Court of Appeal, and the Education Bill. The Education Bill has been dropped, or rather reduced to an attenuated and miserable fragment, which settles nothing except for the year, and gives rise to controversy out of all proportion to the magnitude of the issue. Of these three Bills two are gone, the Education Bill and the Court of Appeal Bill; and as for the scheme of military reorganisation, if the Government look upon that as an adequate result of the labors of the session, or as a real contribution to the solution of an important problem, they are the only persons in the House who entertain that belief. Then there were the Factory and Workshops Bill, a Bill for the better administration of the law respecting lunatics, a Bill to amend the Public Health Acts, a Bill to prevent drunkenness in licensed houses, and a Bill to amend the law of copyright. Every one of these Bills, except the Factory and Workshops Bill, is gone, and that Bill is still in the Grand Committee, so that the scheme of military reorganisation remains the only fruit of all the promises in the King's Speech. That is a wretched and scanty result for an unusually laborious session; and when we are asked by the Government to give them facilities and to consent to the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule, we are entitled to look at the work of the session and to ask whether the time of Parliament ought not to have been better spent. I would make even at the last moment one more appeal to the Government to shorten our labors by doing what they might have done a week ago, namely, consent to a reasonable compromise on the Education Bill, which will save us from long and exasperating discussion, and which would not settle any principle in the sense the right hon. Gentleman wants, because it would be a mere prolongation of the status quo, but it would save a great deal of the friction, irritation, and trouble which will necessarily arise. If the First Lord of the Treasury would say that he would consent to the prolongation of the status quo

1155
under proper securities, he would save several days debate, and enable us to get rid of the most irritating question now before us. When I regard the state to which the Government has brought us, and the way in which the time of the House has been spent during the session, I feel bound to make my protest against the conduct of the Government, and as the only way in which I can make that protest is to record my vote against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, I am prepared to adopt that course, and to express the opinion that, however necessary it may be in all the circumstances to grant the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule, we ought not to do it for a Government which have shown themselves incapable of conducting the business of the House, and insensible to the obligations under which they are to wind up the business in a proper manner.
MAJOR RASCH: I do not intend to criticise the proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury. I only wish to make a humble suggestion and a small protest, and I do it from perfectly altruistic motives. I was in this House in 1887, when it used to be "sitting when we went to press," as the newspapers said, and when we were discussing what hon. Members opposite then called the Crimes Bill. In 1888 the Government of the day, which was practically the same Government that is sitting on the Treasury Bench this afternoon, told us that that sort of thing was all over, and that we should not have to sit up all night. I myself believed what the Government told us, and many of us fought our elections, and some of us happened to win them, and we managed to keep a Unionist Government in office, including the noble family so well represented on the front bench. Now we are told that we are back again to the bad old times. Fourteen years ago sitting up all night killed many a good man. My predecessor in the representation of Mid Essex died of it, and many another Members found that the game was not worth the candle, and retired from public life. I have no intention of criticizing the motion of the First Lord, but I should like to make a humble suggestion to him. I would like to remind him, as Mr. Gladstone once
1156
said, that the resources of civilization are not absolutely exhausted. A proposal was made by the hon, Member for the City of London, and was supported by an agricultural Member two months ago, which had reference to the waste of the time of the House caused by the duration of speeches. If that motion had been carried, it would not have brought about a millennium, nor would it give us a new heaven and a new earth, but it would tend to economic the time of the House. Of course it is not for a humble agricultural Member like me to make an important suggestion of that kind to the Government. I know perfectly well, as a right hon. Gentleman once said of himself, that I am a mere child in these matters; still the suggestion is worth considering, and perhaps it will be carried out in a future session.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The First Lord of the Treasury has sketched a most ambitious parliamentary programmer. In three, or at the outside four, weeks he proposes to pass thirty Bills, most of which have not yet been introduced, and to bring in a Supplementary Budget involving two immense Votes of a most contentious character. If the First Lord of the Treasury really expects to get through that programmer in three—or, at the most, four—weeks of parliamentary time, he must be really more childlike than the hon. and gallant Member supposes who sits behind me. How long are we to go on with this farce of pretending that the proceedings of this House are regulated by the Standing Order? The Standing Order gives three-fifths of the parliamentary time to the private Member, and two-fifths to the Government—six-tenths to the private Members, and four-tenths to the Government. Since I have been a member of this House the Government has never taken less than eight-tenths, and has more often taken nine-tenths, and the residue only has been left to those unpaid unplaced members who are most properly called the House of Commons. The Standing Orders do not regulate the proceedings of this House. What regulate our proceedings is the convenience and sometimes the caprice of the Ministry. What present occasion is there for the suspension of the

1157
twelve o'clock rule? Let me remind the House that this rule, as has already been stated by an hon. Member, is in the nature of a pact. This House in 1888 agreed to meet at three instead of four, an hour earlier, on the condition that it stopped its sittings at midnight. It would be only fair that, if the right hon. Gentleman desires to upset one part of the arrangement, he should upset the other. I should have expected the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that we should meet an hour later; that we should meet again at four o'clock. But what right have the Government to ask for the indulgence of this House? What indulgence, what consideration have they shown to the House itself? They have taken every Friday; they have taken every Tuesday; they have taken every Wednesday—they have taken all our days, and now they want to take our nights. Sleeping or waking we are to do the work the Government puts before us; we are not to be allowed to initiate anything ourselves, and we are not to be allowed to discuss the measures initiated by the Government, but at a given moment if the health of the Chairman of Ways and Means serves, all discussion is to be closured. Do the Government ever examine their own consciences? First, they shorten the session at both ends, and prolong the holidays in the middle—it is absolutely true that this Government have doubled the holidays as compared with any other previous Government—and as if that were not enough they have deprived the House of its rights and privileges by altering the Standing Order and abolishing the rule which allowed us to raise a discussion upon the motion that you, Sir, leave the chair on going into Committee of Ways and Means. They lumped up the Estimates into one large sum while I was on the seas on my way to Gibraltar; they have deprived us of all opportunity of having a most interesting debate upon the Education Bill by bringing it in under what is called the "ten minute rule," but what should be called "the brief explanatory statement Order." They have deprived the House of a similar privilege with regard to the Agricultural Eating Bill, and, to my mind, by the lateness of the period at which they have introduced these mea-
1158
sures they have deprived themselves of all chance of carrying them through by fair argument and fair debate, and, if they pass at all, they must pass by the most odious use of the most odious method of closure.
I do not know, but I suppose the House will agree to this motion; if it does, it will simply have to carry on its business by hurry and closure. The closure is not a decreasing evil, but an increasing one. In 1898 it was moved twenty-three times; in 1899, thirty-three times; in 1900, twenty-six times; and this year it has been already moved forty-five times, and would have been moved much oftener but for the illness of the Chairman of Ways and Means, an accident which we all regret. To my mind the number of times the closure is moved is the measure of the incapacity of the Minister. A horseman who can ride does not require throwing his horse down every time he mounts it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer managed to pass a very important Finance Bill, involving serious new principles and increased taxation, through this House without using the closure once. Cannot the Government manage to do the same with the Education Bill and the Agricultural Rating Bill? Surely my right hon. friend is not less competent than the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to Supply, the Leader of the Irish party gave an absolutely accurate account of it. You have this year at this day still 98 Votes to get. Last year at this time you had forty nine to get; therefore you have exactly double the number of Votes to get this year that you had last year. Of course I know it does not matter, because there is the guillotine, and these Votes will be got by its use. But suppose you have ninety-six Votes left to get under the guillotine. At the rate of a quarter of an hour for each division, it will take twenty-four hours to get them, and the same with regard to their Report. So that to get the necessary Supplies for the Government will, if divisions are challenged, entail forty-eight hours continuous walking. Sir, the scandal of getting Votes in this way is manifest. It

1159
restricts the power, authority, and importance of this House. This House is being slowly destroyed before our eyes—it is treated with contempt. We ought to have the Prime Minister here, but he is not here; we ought to have the power of practical debate here, but that is not here; we ought to have the power of rectifying grievances before Supply, and that is not here. It has almost all gone, and looking forward, what a prospect rises before us! It seems to me that this House will soon be composed only of two component parts, the Treasury Bench and a registry office. The greatest of our political writers, Bolingbroke, said—
"Corruption alone could not destroy us; we must want spirit as well as virtue to perish. "
I sometimes think that all spirit has gone out of this House; it is only on the Irish Benches that there is any indication of it. Where is the resistance, where the criticism that an opposition would make? Where, indeed, is the opposition? A week or two ago I formed some expectation of an Opposition being created, but since reading the speech of the possible leader, who complains with great bitterness of being left to plough his furrow alone, and who also complains of his own party, my hopes have disappeared, and I am irresistibly reminded of the similar case of Alexander Selkirk, who said:—
"I am out of humanity's reach.
I must finish my journey alone;
Never hear the sweet music of speech,
I start at the sound of my own."
And then, as if turning to his own party, he proceeds:—
"The beasts that roam over the plain
My form with indifference see;
They are so unacquainted with man,
Their tameness is shocking to me."
Yes, Sir, their tameness is shocking—shocking to me too, and serious to this House also. There may be amateur critics of the Government, who do their little best on this side, but no effectual criticism of a Government can come except from a united Opposition, and, if I may venture to say so, the criticism we have had from the sole representative of the Opposition who has spoken to-day has not been highly effectual. Coincidental, as we
1160
know, with the decreasing authority of this House, is the increasing power and authority of the Ministry. They propose an immense standing army; they have very large revenue, now amounting to £109,000,000 a year, for which they need not come annually to the House. If a Tudor had had such a revenue, or a Stuart such a standing army, we should never have retained a House of Commons at all; yet it is this House, and this House alone, which stands between us and arbitrary government, not even the arbitrary government of a permanent monarchy, but that which is far more dangerous, of a casual minister; and I cannot see this House destroyed without anxiety.
These are dangers, and I cannot regard them with equanimity. I would beg the Government to take a wider view of this matter and of their relation to this House than is bounded merely by considerations of their own momentary convenience, a more worthy view than one founded on a desire for holidays, and a more statesmanlike view than that which consists in bringing forth successive strings of expedients the only object of which is to continue to live from day to day. This Government has lasted so long that it begins to think itself eternal. But that is not so. The present Ministers will not always be on this side, and when they are on the benches opposite they will perhaps regret the loss of the liberties which they themselves have put forth their hands to destroy. I know not what sort of Minister, with what plans, aims, or ambitions, may one day sit on that Treasury Bench. He may be a socialist, or a revolutionary, or a cynic, with so great a contempt for the people and the Parliament of this country that, having, perhaps in a moment of national crisis, appealed to the country for, and obtained, a large majority, he may use it for the aggrandizement of his own family, and seek to confirm his position by a free distribution of the public taxes among his own supporters. But, Sir, one word of warning. It is never quite safe to flout the House of Commons. This House has found means to survive and to deal with the menaces of princes, the use of military force—aye, and even the rack, the scaffold and the prison, and I do believe that, some time or

1161
other, sooner or later, parliamentary resources will be found which may overcome even the lassitude of the right hon. Gentleman below me, and convince the Government of which he is a member that the House of Commons is stronger and can show itself more powerful than any ministry that ever existed.
These few remarks I assure the House I have made out of respect for this Assembly—out of the enormous reverence I have learnt to feel for it, for its traditions, for its very forms, and the work it does for the State, and they are made also not without some regard for His Majesty's Ministers and some anxiety to see them take a course in some future session—I suppose this session is past praying for—which shall be more creditable to themselves and to the House. I expect the right hon. Gentleman will sharply rebuke me. ["Hear, hear."] Yes, I thought so. I can foresee what is coming. The hon. Member for West Somerset, the hon. Member for Westminster and I have already experienced the anger that the First Lord of the Treasury showers on those who do not agree with him. I shall probably be told that I am attacking the honor of somebody who is not in the House, or who is at the Table, or in the Chair. Well, Sir, some of us who do not sit in such exalted places have ourselves a rough work-a-day notion of honor. There are certain things that we, too, would not do, that we should think unbecoming. We would not ask a general to re-write his dispatch, or even a Committee its Report; we would not sacrifice our country to our party or our party to our family or so much as the efficiency of a single Department to the urgency of a relative. We have our little notions of honor, even if we cannot rise to the transcendent heights attained by the right hon. Gentleman, who sees in every criticism of the Government an attack on the honor of somebody else.
I do protest that I believe in everybody's honor and especially in the honor of His Majesty's Government; and if I would see them adopt other methods of procedure in this House, and a more generous course of action in regard to it and its rules, it is because of the great
1162
importance I attach to their retaining their present position. I do not doubt their honor. What I doubt is their discretion. They have not shown a vast. Amount of that quality in their conduct of business this session, and, for my own part, I do not think they have made out a case for asking the House to give up the last rag of its time to the prosecution of an amount of work which can not possibly be concluded in the short space of time allotted to it.
MR. POWER: It is usual at this time of the year for the Government to ask that the twelve o'clock rule shall be suspended and certain facilities granted to enable them to carry on their business. But it should be remembered that on previous occasions when that request has been made the Government have had before them a large programmer of interest to all parts of the kingdom. That, however, cannot be said on this occasion. The King's Speech contained very little of interest, and the few parts that were of interest to the vast majority of working men have been either dropped or truncated in such a way as to be unrecognizable. I heartily join in the protest of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford against the manner in which the Government has treated Irish affairs. I have never thought the British Parliament had the will to legislate fairly for Ireland; but even if they had the will, such Orders as we are now discussing would show that they had not the power to give Irish Members an opportunity for debating measures of interest. With regard to the Bills enumerated by the First Lord of the Treasury, in which Ireland takes a certain interest, the right hon. Gentleman hopes the Fisheries Bill and three others may be passed this session. I protest against this habit of coming down at the fag end of the session and saying to the Irish Members, "Here is the Bill, be it good or bad; take it or leave it; we shall not give you time for discussion, and if you attempt to discuss the measure it will be lost. "With regard to the Fisheries Bill, ten years ago Mr. Madden brought forward a Bill dealing with the question, and the late Mr. Biggar expressed the opinion that it was a wretched measure, which ought to be killed unfortunately, we did not take

1163
his advice, but allowed the Bill to pass, with the result that nothing else has been done, and, so far from doing good to the Irish fisheries, the Bill has, in many parts of the coast, destroyed them. The programme of the Government has been small. The time has been taken up by their own incompetency. They have used the closure to a greater extent than any other Government has ever done, and yet there have been more late sittings this session than in any session since the twelve o'clock rule was instituted. The proper use of the closure may sometimes facilitate business, but its improper use certainly impedes progress, and when I remember that the First Lord opened the session by closuring a Vote of £17,000,000 before we had said a single word, and then spent days afterwards in endeavouring to change the forms of the House in order to hit Irish Members, I certainly come to the conclusion that, to use a horseman's term, he has no hands, and that so far from using the snaffle properly, he is always pulling on the curb. That way of doing business is naturally resented.
Another thing which has hindered business is the way in which Supplementary Votes have been brought in. Formerly such Votes were comparatively unknown; now they are particularly frequent. As was pointed out would be the case when this rule as to Supply was brought forward, the system of allotting a number of days to Supply, with the closure to follow, has taught Ministers to scamp their work. They come down with little or no preparation to reply to criticism; they rely on the closure to get the Votes. The other night we had an important debate on Uganda. The noble Lord who represents the Foreign Office delivered a long speech founded on a Report presented to the House three years ago, and yet he confessed that there was at the Foreign Office a Report about ten days old, but he had not taken the trouble to look at it; his chief had not seen it, and the House of Commons had to vote the money without having had an opportunity of reading it. That is merely an example of the state of carelessness and indifference into which Ministers lapse under this system.
One of the measures the Government hope to pass is that for conferring a new
1164
title on the King. I am unaware whether or not it is a controversial Bill, but, as far as Irishmen, and especially Catholics, are concerned, we are not inclined to view very favourably anything connected with the King, as we cannot forget that he opened his reign by insulting us—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must not comment in those terms on the action of the Sovereign.
MR. POWER: I am very sorry to hear that some of the time of the House is to be asked for at the fag end of this session in order to vote a large sum of money to Lord Roberts. Many hon. Members may think that because Lord Roberts is an Irishman hon. Members from Ireland ought to support this proposal; but if there were nobody else in the House prepared to support me, I should oppose it myself. I do not think that anyone who has followed this war can say that Lord Roberts has added to his reputation in South Africa.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss the merits of that proposal now.
MR. POWER: As an Irishman I say that Lord Roberts could not have put his great abilities to a worse cause. I join in the protest made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford against the way the business of the House of Commons is being conducted. This session has been practically wasted, for we have had no Irish legislation, and the taxation of our already impoverished country has been increased by leaps and bounds.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not rise for the purpose of prolonging this debate, but there is just one thing which I should like to say. I am one of the oldest Members of the House of Commons, and I have been very proud to be a Member of this House so long. During that time I have had many opportunities of seeing the House in different phases and under different managements, and I should just like to say what has been the result of my experience. When the excep-

1165
tional system of the closure was introduced, it was intended by those who introduced it that it should be used with moderation, and only under extreme pressure. What was intended as a powerful drug is now treated as the daily bread of the House of Commons. The figures given by the hon. Member for King's Lynn show how this power has been abused, and it has only had an irritating effect upon the House—and perhaps I may be permitted to say without offence that I think it has had a demoralising effect upon the Government. I only desire to say that, according to my experience and observation, the extreme use of the closure is the most futile and the most fatal form of obstruction that can be adopted.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I rise for the purpose of asking my right hon. friend two questions. I wish to know in the first place if there are any private Members' Bills which he intends to "star." I wish to know in the second place exactly where we are. I want to know whether the Government intend to go on with the Bill introduced in the House of Lords with regard to the King's Declaration. Do the Government intend to press that Bill through this session? I also desire to say a word or two with regard to Irish Supply. Criticism is cheap, and therefore easy; but, after all, a parliamentary day is only nine hours, and it is impossible to get everything into it. I am not going to make any attack upon the Leader of the House, but I wish to direct his attention to Irish Supply. Where do we stand in regard to the matter? Unquestionably the business of Supply is the most important work of the House of Commons, for it is the only constitutional way we have of discussing the Estimates of the great spending Departments of England, Scotland, and Ireland. As a matter of fact, no institution has less control over those great State Departments than the House of Commons under present arrangements. Only three days out of twenty-four are allotted to Irish Supply, although I did my best at the beginning of the session to get four days. It may be that Members do talk too much upon one given subject. [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear."] I
1166
do not plead guilty to that charge myself, and I do not think that the Chief Secretary himself will make that charge against me. What Irish Members have got to look at is the fact that only three out of twenty-eight Votes have been passed relating to Ireland, and those already passed are by no means the most important. There is the Vote for the Irish Land Commission. By extraordinary pressure the Chief Secretary has managed to get the Report on the subject laid upon the Table of the House. That Commission employed a great staff, which costs the country £150,000 a year. That staff has only dealt with some 13,000 rents, while some 33,000 still remain to be fixed. According to present arrangements we are not to be allowed to say a word as to how those rents have been fixed or about the slow progress made. We cannot even refer to a single scandal connected with that Department. Agriculture is the chief industry of Ireland, and yet the representatives of Irish agricultural constituencies are muzzled and closured when they wish to deal with the machinery for fixing those rents. The Leader of the House ought to see that this is a thing which will not bear repeating another year. Then there is the Irish Local Government Board Vote. A great scheme of local government has just been successfully brought into operation, but everybody who knows anything about local government in England knows that after the Act of 1888 was passed a great many questions arose which had to be settled afterwards. That has also proved to be the case in Ireland. There is an enormous Vote of £500,000 connected with this Act, and many mistakes have been made, for the difficulties have been enormous. For the House of Commons and the Government to say that that great Department and its work is to go unchallenged and undiscussed is little short of an outrage. Take the Constabulary Vote—I have known that Vote take nearly a week, in the days when the Leader of the House and myself were in Opposition. The constabulary has been breaking up meetings in Ireland, and I ask the House to recollect what they have done in regard to myself. I thought that I should have been regarded as the most harmless man alive.

1167
I held a large number of meetings during the last recess, and what did the Chief Secretary do?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing these matters now, although he may discuss them upon the Constabulary Vote.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: This furnishes us with the object lesson of the whole business. The Constabulary Vote will have to be passed sub silentio, and it will be closured in a night or two without anybody being allowed to say a word upon it. [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear."] My hon. friends on the Government side do not like me rising from this side of the House—["Hear, hear."]—but I do not represent them upon this question. I represent a loyalist and an agricultural constituency in Ireland which is profoundly interested in land, in local government, and in everything Irish, and I am not going to consult the taste of hon. Gentlemen from Belfast in dealing with this question. What is the position of hon. Members opposite? The Government blame them for wasting time, but the Nationalist Members do not want to come to the House of Commons at all. England has taken the government of Ireland upon its own shoulders. She took over the government of Ireland unbidden and unasked, and are we to be told after she has taken that great burden over deliberately that Irish Supply is to be closured, and that the Irish Members will not be able to discuss their methods of government in Ireland? That is what it amounted to. ["No, no."] The supporters of the Government know perfectly well that I have been trying my best to get an opportunity to say a few words upon the Land Commission Vote. If the Government are going to continue the present system of government in Ireland, they must provide means for discussing their methods fairly. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford says he does not care how long the system goes on, because it is a grand object lesson for Home Rule. That is the Member for Waterford's position, and that is his compensation. O'Connell and Gladstone both tried to end this controversy during the last century and both failed. We have got neither a Gladstone nor an O'Connell now.
MR. RENTOUL: But we have got you.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Therefore my position is that time, at all events, need not be wasted upon that issue at the present moment. The constituents of East Down who have the honour of being represented by the hon. and learned Member are exceedingly anxious to get rid of him.
MR. RENTOUL: At the instigation of the hon. Member a meeting was called by advertisement. [Cries of "Order."] As a personal explanation I desire to say that in reply twenty-eight individuals—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
MR. RENTOUL: The hon. Member for South Tyrone made a remark about my constituency and myself. I simply desire to explain that a meeting was called by my constituents by advertisement, and that twenty-eight persons—
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise to a point of order. According to the universal practice of this House a personal explanation is an explanation made after another Member has made his speech, not in the course of the speech.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member in possession of the House had not chosen to give way to the hon. Member he could not have spoken. But the hon. Member did give way, and the hon. Member for East Down is entitled to explain, provided he does not go beyond moderate limits.
MR. RENTOUL: I have simply to say that at the instigation of the hon. Member for South Tyrone a meeting was called by advertisement in the press of my constituents to request me to resign. Twenty-eight individuals—Nationalists and Unionists—attended that meeting. It was treated with absolute contempt. It was not the Conservative Association of my Division, as happened in the case of the hon. Member for South Tyrone.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The House will bear in mind that the hon. and

1169
learned Gentleman interrupted me first. I did not even know that he was present until he practically identified me with hon. Gentleman opposite as a Home Ruler. That was his object, and I made my retort. I can only say that I was present at a meeting of five hundred when a resolution such as I have described was passed. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think this is a case for Home Rule. I do not think so at all. What it is a case for, clear and explicit, is for the devolution of the work, but that does not necessarily mean an Irish Parliament. The case for devolution, however, is complete, and it is perfectly impossible for this House to go on attempting to carry a load that is entirely beyond its powers. I should imagine that instead of getting better it is much more likely to get worse. It is really of no use for hon. Members on this side of the House to complain of hon. Members on that taking up time or, as they say, wasting time. They have their own commission from their constituents. Their constituents do not quarrel with their methods of doing business here, and I fancy that so long as that is the case they are not likely to pay much attention to anything that is stated on this side of the House. Therefore we were absolutely wasting time in complaining of hon. Members opposite. We have to face the situation—this House is attempting to carry a load which it is utterly unable to carry, and the time has arrived for some man of initiative on either Front Bench to give a lead in the devolution of work within the compass of this Parliament—not by setting up others—that will enable us to go through our business in a legitimate and orderly manner. I do not complain of the First Lord of the Treasury. I do not think anybody would have done better in his place; at all events, we have always courtesy and civility from him. That has been my experience. I am not going to criticise any of the men who are attempting to administer what had become an impossible system. The twelve o'clock rule has been referred to. I have been for sixteen years a Member of the House, but I never remember a session when we have had less of the twelve o'clock rule. I had come to believe that it had gone out of existence
1170
altogether. What have we done? Can any sane man in the world imagine such a thing? By the time Supply has been closured we shall have run up between 400 and 500 divisions. Allowing ten minutes for each division—and that is a short average—by the time the session is closed we will have spent eight parliamentary days walking round the lobbies. And we are all sensible men! That of itself stamps the whole system as effete and played out. What is really wanted is someone of initiative among the leaders of the House to face the question, if a session should have to be devoted to it, and so arrange the procedure of the House that matters affecting mere localities should go upstairs, and that this great Assembly should not be occupied with petty details. What have I seen this very session during the last month? I came here one Wednesday afternoon, when the Mediterranean Fleet was going to be discussed. Surely that is a question of sufficient importance to occupy the House and the nation. We had to wait until half a dozen Irish Members spoke about whether there was to be a level crossing or a metal bridge in some place in the county of Kilkenny. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: That is important.] It is very important for Kilkenny. Surely it is a perfect absurdity that matters of trifling detail of that kind should occupy the time of this great Assembly when a matter such as the condition of the Mediterranean Fleet is awaiting discussion. There is nothing to hinder the House in giving a real session for the revision of our procedure. The First Lord of the Treasury will find it much more difficult to pass this Supply rule next session than he has ever done before, because, if anything has ever broken down, that rule, drawn with the very best intentions, has utterly failed. In attempting to carry a load it cannot carry the House will get worse rather than better, and if we are not to have the House discredited in the eyes of the world we should see that it is set in order, and that we have liberty to do the business of the nation.
MR. ASQUITH: I am so far in agreement with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that I think, as I have long thought, that there are

1171
certain evils inherent in the present procedure of the House of Commons which, under the most skilful management, cannot be got rid of, but only palliated and mitigated, and the removal of which is absolutely essential if this House is adequately to perform its duties to the country. Among these reforms there is none on the smaller scale which is more urgent than that we should reform, if indeed we do not entirely abolish, our present inadequate and ridiculous system of dealing with private legislation. As regards the reforms on what I may call the larger scale, I am more convinced than I ever was that it is only by a system of devolution—a large and liberal system of devolution—consistent with Imperial unity and the supreme control of this Parliament over all parts of His Majesty's dominions—that we shall find any substantial relief from that which we so much deplore. But this is not, I think, an occasion on which we can profitably enter upon these comparatively large issues, and I should like to call the attention of the House once more to the actual position in which we stand. It is now 22nd July. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he hopes, and apparently expects, that the session will come to an end on 17th August. In other words, we have twenty parliamentary days at our disposal. And how are those twenty parliamentary days going to be occupied? In the discussion of something like twenty Bills, many of which have not even been introduced, some of which are in their very early stages, none of which, I think, have got beyond the stage of Committee, and a hundred Votes in Supply. I think the situation only needs to be described in the right hon. Gentleman's own language for it to be seen that the House of Commons is asked, during the next three weeks, to carry on its work under conditions that will reduce discussion to a mockery and a farce. The independence of the House of Commons, both as a body whose constitutional duty it is to criticise the action of the Executive and as a body whose constitutional duty it is to consider projects of legislative reform—the independence of the House of Commons absolutely disappears. I do not think the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member
1172
for King's Lynn, used too strong an expression when he said the House had been reduced to an automaton, automatically to register the will of the Executive of the day. Quite apart from these larger questions of procedure, what has brought about this state of things, a state of things which no one who is jealous for the honour of the House of Commons can contemplate without repugnance and alarm? The causes appear to me to be tolerably plain. In the first place, we began the session a great deal too late, and in the next place we frittered away its early days in the discussion, sometimes, I agree, unduly prolonged, of comparatively unimportant affairs; and it was only after Whitsuntide that the Government introduced to the House of Commons the two most contentious measures of the year—the Education Bill and the Rating Bill, both of which still remain to be discussed. What is the result of that arrangement of parliamentary time? It is, as my right hon. friend beside me has pointed out, that the closure, instead of being an extreme weapon to be resorted to in a great emergency for the defence of parliamentary freedom, becomes part of the ordinary apparatus of every-day parliamentary life, upon which the Government comes to rely more and more as a necessary instrument for carrying their measures. Never since the closure was introduced, certainly never during the last five years, has it been so liberally or so automatically applied as during the present session. I really do not think we could have a more remarkable or a more humiliating proof of the truth of what I have said than the proceedings which have taken place under the auspices of the Government in relation to these two contentious Bills within the last week. What happened? We had a night's discussion in Committee on the Education Bill. The Chairman, for reasons we all regret, not being in the chair, it was impossible to apply the closure. Thereupon the right hon. Gentleman avowedly puts off the further discussion of that measure until he can have by his side the only hand that can unlock the wardrobe in which the closure is kept, and the Education Bill being indefinitely postponed we have the Rating Bill put down for the Second Reading to-

1173
morrow. The right hon. Gentleman says that a favourable bulletin has been issued as regards the health of the Chairman. We are all delighted to hear it. The right hon. Gentleman positively tells us to-night that he is going to put off the Rating Bill to an indefinite date—[A MINISTERIAL MEMBER: Monday.] for another week at any rate, and that he is going to bring back the Committee on the Education Bill, because now he will be able to apply the closure. I venture to say that that method of conducting parliamentary business is not only new, not only dangerous, but it is to a large extent responsible for the condition in which we find ourselves. For my part, I hope all who sit on this side of the House will take the same course by way of protest against the mismanagement of business in the earlier part of the session and this avowed and lavish resort to the machinery of the closure. I, for my part, shall record my vote so as to prevent, as far as can be, the right hon. Gentleman getting the facilities for which he asks.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There have been, as far as I have observed in the course of this debate, three topics of very unequal importance discussed by various members who have taken part in it. The first of these topics is my own unfortunate shortcomings as the Leader of the House; the second of these topics is Home Rule; and the third of these topics is the general congestion of business, consequent upon the over-pressure in this House. As regards the first of these questions, that connected with my own shortcomings, I really do not think it worth while occupying much of the time of the House. The hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Irish party, who took the first place in this afternoon's debate, drew a comparison between me and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, I need not remind the House, was very much to my disadvantage. I do not object to that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I belong to the same Government; the stock of virtue for the Government is the same whether it is due to him or to me, and I am quite ready to hand over all praise to him and to take all the blame to myself provided the general
1174
position of the Government is not damnified thereby. I have been led to understand that if I had only irritated the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and shown what I think the hon. Member for Waterford called a little more human nature, if I could have followed the seductive methods and the persuasive tongue so characteristic of my right hon. friend, we should have got through the session without a hitch, the closure would never have been applied, hon. Members for Ireland would have hurried into their places to give the Government Votes on Supply and further Government business to the best of their ability. I have not these potent gifts of the serpent charmer. I can only lay before the House in very humdrum fashion the necessities and convenience not of the Government, but of the House, for their consideration, and if when they have considered them they do not feel inclined to adopt my suggestion, I am afraid I have no resource open to me but that of which complaint has been so lavishly made to-night. Hon. Members have declared that the Government have been unduly lavish in putting on the closure, that they have hurried debate unnecessarily. Now, does any human being really suppose—I am not talking of what we say in this House or on the platform—does any hon. Member sincerely believe, when he is neither in this House nor on the platform, that if the closure had not been moved we should have been able even to make the progress we have done? The right hon. Gentleman has said that it is a great commentary upon the bad management of the Government that we put off the Education Bill until we had an opportunity of dealing with the Committee stage of that Bill, when closure might be applied if the Chair gave leave. Does he seriously think that that was a foolish course? If he had had charge of the Bill would he have taken any other course? Why, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman knows much better. He knows perfectly well—even the experience of that night might have shown him if he was present, I am not sure whether he was—that when an Opposition, united in nothing else, are united in talking against a measure, it is absolutely impossible to deal with the situation except by that machinery the creation

1175
of which I regret as much as any other man in this House, but which, by the universal consent of every successive Government and every successive leader, is an absolute necessity under modern conditions. It would have been sheer waste of the time of this House had I adopted any other course than the one I did, and nobody knows that better than right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Observe the extraordinary inconsistency of the attacks made on the Government. We are told by one member of that bench that our legislative programme was meagre, that our legislative performances are more meagre still. The right hon. Gentleman says we ought not to have hurried on business as much as we have; and then the same right hon. Gentleman says we ought to abandon most of our Bills. What are you to do with criticisms of that kind, with speakers who in the middle of their speech forget their exordium, and by the time they get to their peroration have forgotten the middle of their speech? I wish to take this question as far as I can out of the personal category, and I regret even the amount of personal reference which I have been obliged to introduce into my remarks so far. In order that I may be absolved from touching any further on the personal aspects of this question, let me deal in one sentence with my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn. My hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn made what I think anybody would construe to be a very violent attack upon the Government, and he anticipated, when I rose to a rejoinder, that I should make a reply as violent as his attack. I never had the least intention of doing anything of the kind. My hon. friend is in the habit of playing about a good deal on these occasions. Sometimes when he plays about he throws stones; sometimes when he plays about he throws mud. On the present occasion he preferred the mud to the stones, but I do not care to reply to either of these particular missiles, so I leave my hon. friend alone, and proceed to questions far removed from personal controversy or the merits of this or that Leader of the House, this or that Front Bench, whether in Opposition or on the right hand of the Speaker.
In the category of these important dis-
1176
cussions the most important place must be given to the question of Supply. The hon. Member for Waterford, my hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone, and hon. Gentlemen opposite have pointed out that unhappy truth—that the House is far less advanced in Supply than it was at the corresponding period of last year, and that, if ordinary signs and prognostications are to be believed in, we shall at the end of the allotted period of Supply have a very much larger number of un-discussed Votes to deal with than we have had before. That is true, and a melancholy truth it is. Are we, therefore, to consider that the Supply rule has failed? Are we, therefore, to consider that the Government is to blame? Well, how is the Government to blame? I have endeavoured in the interests, not of the Government—they are not affected in this case—I have endeavoured in the interests of the House by the occasional use of the closure—ten times, I think, in the course of the Supply of the year has the closure been applied—to aid adequate discussion of the Votes. I am attacked for having put on the closure and for the position in which business now stands—another inconsistency in the criticisms passed upon us to-night. The House must remember that the time at the disposal of Parliament is limited, and must be be limited. Even if we sat 365 days in the year our time would be limited, but I presume no man would wish that this House should sit more than six, six and a half, or seven months—personally, I think seven months is too much. [An OPPOSITION MEMBER: Why?] I am not going into that now. I should be prepared to discuss it. At present I am content to shelter myself under the sufficiently powerful ægis of Mr. Gladstone, who always held that there was no greater mistake than to attempt to throw on this House too great a burden, or to sit beyond what human capacity enabled us to do. I presume that some part of the time during which we sit must be given to Government legislation. If you are going to increase the time for Government legislation you diminish pro facto either the amount of time given to Supply or that given to private Members. There is no way out of that simple arithmetical fact.
Now, does the House think that

1177
twenty-three days is sufficient for the discussion of Supply or not? I do not pretend to say that twenty-three days is sufficient—forty-six days would not be sufficient, 460 days would not be sufficient, at the rate practised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is not sufficient if, for example, by discussing Supply you mean discussing it at the length at which we have discussed Irish Supply, the chief topic of discussion to-night. But that is not the question; the question is whether twenty-three days is a sufficient proportion of your six or seven months to give to mere criticism of the Government, and whether if you extend that twenty-three days, or, at all events, very largely extend it, you would not still further unduly limit the already curtailed proportion that is given to private Members, or still further limit the time given to Government legislation. It is that tripartite division of the session which I do earnestly beg hon. Gentlemen always to have in mind when they discuss whether enough time is given to this or that topic. You have only a certain amount of time to deal with, cut up into these three portions, and everything you give to one portion you take away from another. That is a very elementary statement, but it is constantly, I had almost said invariably, forgotten by hon. Members who make these criticisms, and if anybody desires proof of that let him bear in mind the speeches that have been made to-night with regard to Irish Supply. The amount of time allocated to Irish Supply in the course of the present session is, broadly speaking, about the same as has been accorded to Irish Supply since the new rule came into existence. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: No.] It amounts to three days—that is, one-eighth part of the whole time given to Supply. If the House think that insufficient, well and good—increase the time. But, as I said before, you will have to increase it at the cost of English or Scottish Votes, of private Members' time, or of Government legislation—there is no other way. I am disposed to think that it is sufficient if properly used. Has it been properly used? My hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone said, truly enough, that a great many important Votes have not been discussed. They could have been discussed had the Irish Members desired it. The Government
1178
left it entirely to the Irish Members to settle what Votes should be put down, and in what order, and hon. Gentlemen practically settled the duration of the discussion. And if it be true that one-eighth of the whole time given to Supply is enough for Irish Supply, and if it be true that twenty-three days is a sufficient proportion of the whole session to give to the discussion of Supply, then, I say, hon. Gentlemen ought to devote themselves to assisting the Government in so allocating that eighth part of the twenty-three days as to enable them to make their chief criticisms on the Irish Executive, which I am sure they could do in that time without any serious grievance. This is not the appropriate time to say whether these twenty-three or twenty-four days are sufficient. The House, after considerable experience, has fixed the number of days for Supply. It may have to enlarge it, possibly; but if it enlarges it, it will do so at the cost of the two other interests, both of which are also pleaded for on these occasions. Hon. Gentlemen insist on having their cake and eating it. All those concerned in the three subjects I have mentioned claim that they do not get enough time, and everybody is agreed that the Government have not got enough—they say that our programme is limited and our performance meagre.
In these circumstances I would venture to ask the House to approach this matter in a common-sense spirit. I have always been anxious to have some more formal and authoritative division of the time given to Supply than the rule provides. Who has resisted that? The Opposition. I have wanted to allow hon. Gentlemen themselves to settle how the time is to be given; they have refused to accept the responsibility. But that puts them out of court when they come to criticise me as to the distribution of the time, and it only remains for them to say that the time itself should be increased, with the consequences I have ventured to put before them. I do not touch on Home Rule. I do not touch on devolution or delegation. I quite agree that this House must consent either to modify this rule still further, to be content with a relatively small amount of output of legislative work, or sit a great deal longer.

1179
[Nationalist cries of "Why not?"] I have always myself leant to a fourth alternative—that really important measures might be allowed to run on from one session to another. I am not going to discuss or to defend that now. It so happens that my views are on record in a Report made, and agreed to, I think, by a Committee of this House. They have found many opponents on this side, I think, but they have always been opposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; indeed, I think by all the Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite. The House will have to face the fact that with these rules you can only have a small output of legislative work unless you curtail your speeches. It is a question not of argument, but of arithmetic, and though it may be convenient, for party or personal reasons, to attack the Government, to say that the Leader of the House has shown a want of human nature, or that the closure has been used too drastically, or not drastically enough—though criticisms of that sort are sure to be made, and I trust borne with toleration, the real facts lie far deeper. The House is only deceiving itself if it thinks that all that every Member wants of it—more discussion of Supply, more legislation, more private Members' time, and equally short sessions—can possibly be got while we continue to carry on our debates under our existing rules. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that he would like to go back to the old rules under which we attempted to do our business—to abolish closure and all the other unhappy expedients which we have from time to time adopted. I tell him that will never be done, it never can be done, and the changes that have to be made—and changes I doubt not, will have to be made—certainly will not be in the direction of giving unlimited licence to every man to take up what proportion of public time he likes, even if his object be, as some have suggested it is the object of certain speakers in this House, not to further business, not to discuss measures, but to bring into contempt and impotence this great legislative Assembly.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has discussed parliamentary pro-
1180
cedure in much the style in which a beleaguered general, say at Lady-smith, discussed the amount of the provisions that he had for men and horses. He tells us that, like the beleaguered general, he starts with the proposition that he has to hold out for six or seven months, that he has so many animals to provide for, that his rations amount to so many lbs., and he is, therefore, easily able to demonstrate that, providing parliamentary business is divided into three great classes, at all events, Ireland can only have three days for Supply in any session. I think that any Minister dealing with the complaints from Ireland should put himself in the position which Pitt and Castlereagh occupied when they endeavoured to allure the Irish Parliament to give up legislative independence. Fancy Castlereagh addressing the Irish Legislature in these terms, and, instead of promising a shower of gold, saying: "Your taxation is now a million; it will be made ten millions. Now you have six months for the discussion of Irish Supply; join us in free and happy England, and instead of six months we will give you three days!" Yet that is the position to which the right hon. Gentleman, by his method of rule of thumb, has reduced the Treaty of Union.
I really cannot understand the face and the hardihood with which any British Minister—recollecting, as we must, that parliamentary promises are supposed to be kept—can address Irish Members in the same spirit and terms as he addresses British Members, or to suggest that we are bound by any one of those considerations which he was able to address to the Liberal Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested in that graceful and happy manner in which he sometimes specially indulges that the real object of the Irish Members in debate has not been the fair and free discussion of the attitude of Ministers towards subjects of commanding Irish interest, but an attempt to bring parliamentary institutions into contempt. [Cheers from the Ministerial Benches.] And that is a charge which the party behind him endorse. This is a new Parliament which contains many men of ability from Ireland, who come over here for the first time. Now, one of the main objects of the session was the

1181
passing of the Civil List Bill. You had not a Civil List Bill in the House for over sixty years, and every subject was open to us for discussion. It was a Bill of enormous magnitude even from a constitutional point of view, and involved the entire relations of Great Britain and Parliament to the kingship of the two islands. And what was the attitude of those gentlemen who want to bring parliamentary institutions into contempt, and who want to show their disloyalty of the Empire? The fact is, this Bill to grant £250,000 to the Crown was practically allowed to go through by this new Parliament—with these new Irish Members—sub silentio. The hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot endorse the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that the only object of the Irish Members is to bring parliamentary institutions into contempt, and at the same time sit silent when confronted by such an argument as I have used. Our object is not to bring parliamentary institutions into contempt, but to restore parliamentary institutions to their integrity. Our object is not to destroy Parliament, but to create a Parliament; and I say that our position is really the constitutional and conservative position—namely, the restoration of a Parliament—destroyed by the British Government under conditions as vile as any committed even by the arts and crafts of English statesmen.
I rose, not for the purpose of defeating the general position of affairs, but merely with the object of stating the shiver which I experienced at one of the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman; and in the hope of relieving the weary Tritons on the Government benches by a practical suggestion which will enable them to save a very considerable amount of parliamentary time. It has nothing to do with the rules of parliamentary procedure in the past—the good old scheme of Mr. Gladstone when they met at four o'clock, when they were tired, and continued sitting after twelve o'clock, when they were still more tired. That was a practical way of doing business, and not by the new methods of the closure. I ask what is the meaning of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that he made
1182
in regard to the city of Belfast. That city has already been the subject of sufficient contention in a great many Parliaments. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the city of Belfast, for some inscrutable reason or other, is suffering from an absolute denudation of local self-government, and that it is necessary to bring in a Bill to restore to Belfast the constitution which it so highly prizes. I always understood that King William III., of happy memory, in 1688, by abolishing brass money and wooden shoes, had given to the citizens of Belfast the very fullest measure of the liberties they were entitled to enjoy. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the Land Purchase Bill and the Local Government Bill promised in the King's Speech have to be dropped, and that in the dog days, for some reason which we have not appreciated, some special measure is to be devoted to the city of Belfast to enable it to resume the duties of local government. That is a most astonishing proposition. The hon. Member for South Tyrone actually complained here a short while ago that Irish Members took up the time of the House in discussing questions of level crossings in Ireland, when they might have been discussing the unlevel crossings of the Mediterranean Fleet; but I ask what are the portentous conditions which have suddenly rendered it necessary for His Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill at this stage of the session dealing with this important portion of His Majesty's dominions. We know that we had a private Bill this session to extend the franchise of the Harbour Board of Belfast, and my hon. friend the Member for Waterford strongly appealed to the Government to extend the franchise now enjoyed by a very small proportion of the ratepayers to the general body of the citizens of that community, but the right hon. Gentleman declined to agree to it. But now in the month of July, or in the beginning of August, the right hon. Gentleman is going to take heart of grace, and we shall rejoice if he is going to extend the scope of local self-government in Belfast. But if this Bill is going to deal with the question of the valuation of Belfast, I should like to remind him that that necessarily involves

1183
the whole question of the financial relations of Ireland. [Cries of "Oh, oh," and Ministerial laughter.] I will demonstrate that to hon. Gentlemen who laugh. I will take the case, not of Belfast, but of Dublin, and I hope that what I say about Dublin will be fully credited by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It necessarily follows that any scheme of revaluation of any community under the present Acts also involves the increase of Imperial taxation. I do not intend to go into this point at any length—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I hope the hon. Member will not follow this line of argument, because it is very much beyond the question before the House.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Unless it be on a question of revaluation, I am at a loss to know what the Bill is proposed for by His Majesty's Ministers. As I understand it, the Government apprehend that there is no power in Belfast at this moment, owing to some blunder on the part of the corporation, to strike a rate in the present year. I suggest that they would save an enormous amount of parliamentary time if, instead of bringing in a Bill to enable Belfast to strike a fresh rate, the Government should advance the money to the citizens of Belfast till next session. I do not know the amount of money required. It may be £20,000 or £30,000. Let us suppose that it is even £100,000. Why, the Government have this session voted £500,000 for a railway for the niggers in Uganda. Let the Government give a loan of £100,000 to this loyal community of Belfast—men of integrity and honour—who will promptly pay it back in the ensuing session of Parliament. I really make that suggestion in all good faith to the Government, instead of taking up the time of Parliament with a contentious measure. One word more and I have done. Complaints have been made by the hon. Member for South Tyrone and the hon. Member for Waterford as to the position of the Irish land question, and as to the position of the Irish Estimates dealing with the Irish Land Commission. I noticed that in another place the Duke of Abercorn has carried a motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the
1184
recommendations of the Fry Commission. It can hardly be supposed that that Committee will contain any representative of the tenants.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman's suggestion does not seem to be relevant to the question before the House.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I am going to make a suggestion that there is an omission in the programme of His Majesty's Government. We can only discuss the administration of the Irish Land Acts on Supply. But in another place they are able to bring on discussion and criticism of these matters by the machinery of the appointment of Committees; and I would say that we are entitled to have the Vote on the Irish Land Commission put down again at an early stage, so that we will be able to reply to the criticisms on the administration of the Irish Land Acts made in the House of Lords. I am strengthened in my demand by the action of Mr. Gladstone in 1882, when a motion was made in the House of Lords to inquire into the working of the Land Act, and to bring pressure to bear on Ministers and judges. Mr. Gladstone put down a resolution on the books of this House in order to strengthen the hands of the Land Commissioners and the Irish judges, and denouncing the criticisms made in another place. Sufficient time should be given to answer the criticisms made in another place, although I admit that the Government opposed the motion for the Committee. I claim that the Irish Land Commission and the judges in the Irish courts should not be executing their duty with this sort of sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.
MR. BROADHURST: I would repeat to the Leader of the House a suggestion which I have made on a former occasion in regard to the rearrangement of the meeting of Parliament. I think that we should have part of the session in the autumn, and the finishing part in the early months of the year. What should be avoided is any sitting during the months of July, August, and September; during

1185
these months Members suffer much from the long night sittings, and the work is inefficiently done. The result is that many Acts of Parliament are passed in a manner highly unsatisfactory. What is the present position? The Standing Committee on Trade meets at eleven and continues on till four in the afternoon, then we come into the House, and with the twelve o'clock rule suspended, we never get home till the small hours of the morning, although we have to meet again early in the forenoon. In my judgment the months for the sitting of the House could be so arranged as to conduce to the advantage of the country, the business of the nation, and with far less physical suffering to hon. Members engaged in Committee work. I wish the Leader of the House would give some promise that he will apply his mind to this question, and see whether he could not suggest some alteration of the Rules of Procedure that would bring about the readjustment I have suggested.
MR. O'MARAsaid that no adequate information had been given as to several matters which had been brought before the House. The House was now apparently called upon to do unlimited work in a limited time, and the real solution was a devolution of its business. It was very easy for the First Lord of the Treasury to say that the matter was merely a mathematical problem; but the fact remained that in
whatever way the time of the House was divided up, it still remained insufficient to deal adequately with the business submitted to it. [Several HON. MEMBERS: Divide, divide.] He had no intention of unduly taking up the time of the House, but if he were interrupted he could speak for quite a long time. If, however, he were permitted to proceed, he would not speak very long. The First Lord of the Treasury had named twenty or thirty Bills, including the Light Railways Bill, to which he stated there would be very little opposition, but he could tell the right hon. Gentleman, speaking for himself and his friends, that any Bill which proposed to vote half a million of money solely to English purposes while Ireland was overtaxed would be very strongly opposed by the Irish Members, and that they would use the forms of the House to the very utmost in offering a strenuous opposition to any such Bill. He very much doubted whether the sanguine intentions of the First Lord of the Treasury with regard to the work to be carried out would be fulfilled before the end of September, and he suspected that the right hon. Gentleman would have to cut down his programme still further, and announce another massacre of the innocents in a week or two.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 249; Noes, 172. (Division List No. 346.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Boulnois, Edmund

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bousfield, William Robert

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Brassey, Albert

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bull, William James

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bullard, Sir Harry

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Butcher, John George

Cranborne, Viscount

Baird, John George Alexander

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

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Balcarres, Lord

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

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

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

Crossley, Sir Savile

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Dalkeith, Earl of

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

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Banbury, Frederick George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Davenport, William Bromley-

Bartley, George C. T.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Denny, Colonel

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

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets S. Geo

Beckett, Ernest William

Charrington, Spencer

Dickson, Charles Scott

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Bignold, Arthur

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Bill, Charles

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

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph C.

Blundell, Col. Henry

Coddington, Sir William

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred D.

Bond, Edward

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Duke, Henry Edward

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lawrence, Wm. F.(Liverpool)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

Lawson, John Grant

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

Rentoul, James Alexander

Fardell, Sir T. George

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

Renwick, George

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Finch, George H.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Fisher, William Hayes

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Round, James

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Russell, T. W.

Flower, Ernest

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

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

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Gardner, Ernest

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Garfit, William

Lowe, Francis William

Seton-Karr, Henry

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

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Gore, Hn. G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

Lyttelton, Hon Alfred

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

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

Macdona, John Cumming

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Maconochie, A. W.

Spear, John Ward

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Greene, Sir E. W. (B'rySEdm'nds

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

Malcolm, Ian

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Grenfell, Wm. Henry

Manners, Lord Cecil

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hain, Edward

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Thornton, Percy M.

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'd'y)

Mitchell, William

Tollemache, Henry James

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

Valentia, Viscount

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Moon, Edw. Robert Pacy

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

Webb, Col. Wm. George

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

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

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

Heaton, John Henniker

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Helder, Augustus

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

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

Henderson, Alexander

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Williams,Rt.HnJPowell-(Birm

Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

Mount, William Arthur

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Wills, Sir Frederick

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside

Muntz, Philip A.

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

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Murray,Rt.HnA.Graham(Bute

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Hoult, Joseph

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Howard,John (Kent,Faversh.)

Nicholson, William Graham

Wilson,JW.(Worcestersh., N.)

Howard,J.(Midd., Tottenham)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

Orr-Ewing, Chas. Lindsay

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

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pease, Herbt. P. (Darlington)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

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

Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)

Percy, Earl

Wylie, Alexander

Kenyon, Jas. (Lancs., Bury)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Younger, William

Keswick, William

Pretyman, Ernest George

Kimber, Henry

Purvis, Robert

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

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Pym, C. Guy

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Laurie, Lieut. General

Randles, John S.

Law, Andrew Bonar

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

NOES.

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

Boland, John

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Ambrose, Robert

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Caine, William Sproston

Asher, Alexander

Brigg, John

Caldwell, James

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Broadhurst, Henry

Cameron, Robert

Asquith,Rt.HnHerbert Henry

Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Carew, James Laurence

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Causton, Richard Knight

Bell, Richard

Burke, E. Haviland-

Channing, Francis Allston

Blake, Edward

Burns, John

Clancy, John Joseph

1188

1189

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Price, Robert John

Craig, Robert Hunter

Joyce, Michael

Rea, Russell

Crombie, John William

Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU

Reckitt, Harold James

Cullinan, J.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Reddy, M.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Kennedy, Patrick James

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Kinloch, Sir J. G. Smyth

Redmond, William (Clare)

Delany, William

Kitson, Sir James

Reed,Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Labouchere, Henry

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lambert, George

Rickett, J. Compton

Doogan, P. C.

Langley, Batty

Rigg, Richard

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Duffy, William J.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lewis, John Herbert

Robson, William Snowdon

Dunn, Sir Willam

Lloyd-George, David

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Elibank, Master of

Lough, Thomas

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Emmott, Alfred

Lundon, W.

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Farrell, James Patrick

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Soares, Ernest J.

Fenwick, Charles

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Spencer,Rt.Hn.C.R.(Northants

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

M'Dermott, Patrick

Strachey, Edward

Ffrench, Peter

M'Kenna, Reginald

Sullivan, Donal

Field, William

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Tennant, Harold John

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Flynn, James Christopher

Morton,Edw.J.C.(Devonport)

Thomas,Alfred(Glamorgan, E.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Murphy, John

Thomas, F Freeman-(Hastings)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Tomkinson, James

Furness, Sir Christopher

Newnes, Sir George

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Gilhooly, James

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

Tully, Jasper

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Wallace, Robert

Grant, Corrie

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ryMid

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Harcourr, Rt. Hn. Sir William

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil

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

Weir, James Galloway

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Harrington, Timothy

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Harwood, George

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

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Dowd, John

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Hayne, Rt. Hn. C. Seale-

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon, N.

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

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Malley, William

Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Mara, James

Young, Samuel

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Yoxall, James Henry

Holland, William Henry

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Horniman, Frederick John

Paulton, James Mellor

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Philipps, John Wynford

Joicey, Sir James

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

MILITIA AND YEOMANRY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: I do not intend to oppose the general
1190
scope of this Bill. I think it is a very good thing that the regular forces of the Crown and the Yeomanry, Militia, and Volunteers should all be under one and the same law. But what is very remarkable in this Bill is that it does not do that at all. In the first clause it is provided that it shall only apply to yeomen who enlist or take commissions in the Yeomanry after 1st August in the present year. The result of that will be that the Yeomanry will be under two different laws. All enlisted in the present regiments will be under one law, and will be liable to be called out for a much shorter period of training, while all who enlist from the 1st August in any regiment of the Yeomanry will remain out

1191
for a longer period. The result will be that three-fourths of a regiment may be able to disappear after eight days training, for excluding the day marching in and the day marching out, that is the number available. A subsequent clause of the Bill provides that the Yeomanry are to come out for a minimum of eighteen days. The reason why the War Office have introduced this Bill is that they did not like to induce the present yeomen to extend their term of service. I myself think it would have been better to have got all the officers and men in the present regiments to resign, and re-enlist under the new conditions. I should also like to ask if it is not a very dangerous experiment to extend the period of the training of the yeomen from eight to eighteen days. At the present moment we have only 15,000, and we have seldom been able to train more than 10,000 or 11,000 men. The number is now to be raised to 35,000, and the number of days of training is to be increased from eight to eighteen. I think that is a very dangerous experiment, and I know that in the south of England the loss of two market days will operate against enlistment. It is of capital importance that we should make things as comfortable as we can for the Yeomanry, and not give them hard terms of service; and for my part I do not believe that the payment of 5s. a day is sufficient to induce men to join under more arduous conditions than at present. The term of service for the Militia field artillery is now to be extended from sixty days to eighty-four. This is a very great extension of time, and I think it cannot fail to militate against the service.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that with the part of the Bill which dealt with the Militia field artillery he cordially agreed. It was what had been suggested for a considerable time by those who, like himself, were not wedded to the present system. The present action of the Government dispelled a doubt as to their intention as regarded Volunteer field artillery. He had never favoured a purely Volunteer system of field artillery. The great advantage of a Militia field artillery had apparently become
1192
clear to the Government. There was nothing about Volunteer artillery in this Bill, and they might therefore take it that the feeling of the Government at present was that the prospect of obtaining a large force of Volunteer field artillery was not great, and they therefore only intended to maintain a few batteries here and there for the purpose of show, rather than anything else, and that the Militia field artillery would be the main force upon which the country would rely for the home army. His right hon. friend had suggested whether the time for training was not too long; the Swiss had been successful in making a magnificent Militia field artillery, and their period of training was a short one; but then a larger proportion of the Swiss population were more used to out-door life and more used to judging distance on their mountains than any people this country could obtain, and therefore, in his opinion, the time of training suggested that the Militia field artillery was not in any way too long. But while he cordially approved of that part of the Bill, he had the greatest possible doubt with regard to the Yeomanry part of the Bill. His right hon. friend had used an expression which showed the danger against which the Government had to guard; he used the expression that the Government would not get the men unless they made it comfortable for them; but these were the cavalry upon which the Government were relying, and the mounted infantry as well, and it was impossible to get either cavalry or mounted infantry worthy of the name without proper and adequate training. Whilst he believed thoroughly in the civilian soldier for the purposes of war so far as the infantry private was concerned, and that they could be trained very quickly, he altogether disbelieved that an efficient cavalry soldier or mounted infantry man could be made without considerable training. The cutting down of the training of these men was a mere delusion—dust cast in the eyes of the nation. It would not make cavalry or mounted infantry, it would not make efficient troops. The Government had the rooted fallacy fixed in their minds—that they could make cavalry or mounted infantry out of men and horses, whether the men had

1193
ever seen the horses or not. The levies sent out to South Africa in the winter and spring were, as they heard now from officers at the front, not fit to cope with the mounted forces of the Boers, although they had been there six months. Yet the Government were going to continue, apparently, in the firm belief that they could make cavalry from these Imperial yeomen with a slight amount of training. Efficient cavalry could not be made in this manner. It was a delusion, for which the country would have to pay heavily in the future. With regard to the Yeomanry portion of the Bill, he doubted whether the Government would be able to get the increased number of men they required from the same class that these men were now drawn from. A good deal might be done in a few days for a crack Yeomanry regiment; the recruits drawn would be persons of some intellect and education, and they would learn a good deal in a few days, but the largely increased number of men that the Government required must be drawn from other classes. As a matter of fact, the Government were trying to get their cavalry on the cheap, and the result would be that the men obtained would not be cavalry, and would not be mounted infantry, and they would not be efficient, except that small portion who would continue to be drawn from the class which recruited the crack Yeomanry regiments.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that this Bill was of sufficient importance to have had some explanation given of it by the Secretary of State for War. Last year 8,600 Yeomanry, out of an enrolled strength of over 10,000, went out to training. The number was 1,866 under the strength of their establishment, and in face of that deficiency in their numbers the Government came forward with a proposal to increase the nominal strength of a new mounted force up to 35,000 men. It followed that the composition of the new force as far as personnel was concerned must be radically different from the personnel of the old Yeomanry cavalry. That force had hitherto been recruited mainly from tenant farmers and country gentlemen, but the numbers being so increased it would be impossible to
1194
recruit entirely from that class in the future. The new Yeomanry must be drawn from other classes, tradesmen of the country towns or else those of the middle classes who had the leisure to devote to service of this kind. It would follow that the non-commissioned officers and privates, being themselves employers of labour, and able to devote a consecutive fortnight to the service, would be largely replaced by persons not employers of labour but employees, and it was extremely improbable that employers would be able to let off a sufficient number of young men who would be able at the same time to give fourteen days consecutive service to the Yeomanry. It was for that reason he deprecated the hard and fast line laid down by the Bill of a period of fourteen days for the training of the Yeomanry. This Bill was really part of an ambitious scheme, and what was necessary in providing an increased force of mounted men was that the Secretary of State should create some regiments of regular mounted infantry.
COLONEL BLUNDELLwho was almost inaudible in the gallery, was understood to say that he thought the additional Yeomanry would be an admirable adjunct to the Army, but all the new Yeomanry should be required to serve in the field if they were wanted. We could not afford to spend this enormous sum upon troops of this kind unless they could be sent into the field if required.
MR. LAMBERTsaid he noticed the word "Imperial" had been left out of the Bill, and unless these men were required on occasion to serve abroad, that word would have to be left out. If, as the right hon. Member had said, the numbers had declined with only five to six days service in the year, how much more would it be so with the extra and onerous duty of serving from fourteen to eighteen days? The agricultural classes could very ill afford the time necessary to serve fourteen to eighteen days, and yet if they did not obtain recruits from the agricultural classes and from those who were used to horses, it was of no use having Yeomanry at all. His own idea was

1195
that, if they wanted men to take care of horses, they must have men recruited from the agricultural classes. It could not be denied that it was of the utmost Importance to have men who knew how to take care of horses, because such men would get a horse to do three times as much work as the animal would do under a town-bred man who had hardly ever seen a horse in his life. What he was afraid of was that the right hon. Gentleman would not get his 25,000 extra yeomen. Was it necessary to get them for home defence? Was it supposed that an enemy would land, and that then we should want these Yeomanry? If an enemy landed, he thought the Militia would be a far better force with which to meet it. He also feared that the Bill might have the effect of destroying the already depleted Militia, whilst at the same time a sufficient Yeomanry force would not be raised to justify the expenditure. He had not the slightest doubt that many men would be drawn from the Militia to the Yeomanry, because the length of service was shorter, and the treatment of the Militia in South Africa had not been such as to encourage enlistment in that force. Although the Militia had been under no more compulsion to go abroad than had the Yeomanry, the Militia had received no send-off or welcome home, and in South Africa had been placed on the lines of communication. Personally, he was rather inclined to think that if they wanted to have useful soldiers they must have professional soldiers. He was not altogether a lover of an amateur soldier, because everybody knew that if one wished to be successful in a trade he must learn it. His own advice to the right hon. Gentleman was that if he really wished to carry out a scheme of Army reform he should content himself with a present reform of ths War Office, and postpone other reforms until the war in South Africa had ended, and he knew how many men were coming home and would join the Yeomanry.
SIR ELLIOTT LEESsaid the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean were to a certain extent justified, but the Yeomanry as at present constituted had not, so far as he could see,
1196
attracted the full number of men well able to ride in our country districts. In the squadron of Imperial Yeomanry which he commanded, which was 120 strong, only forty came from the county Yeomanry. Another forty was composed of farmers, who were just as good riders as the forty which came from the county Yeomanry, and about twenty were small tradesmen from the country towns, who were also good horsemen and quite competent to do their work. The remainder of his squadron were chiefly grooms, who were all at home on horseback, and men who trained very quickly into efficient mounted soldiers. He pointed out that all the mounted troops in South Africa were improvised troops in regard to the duties which they had to perform, and had to do work for which they had not been in any way trained. The cavalry, for instance, might have done two or three days scouting at home, but had never been trained to fight as dismounted men, and although the mounted infantry had been trained to do what were considered the duties of mounted infantry at that time, these were not really the duties which they had to perform in South Africa. He did not think it would be impossible to improvise quickly men of this stamp, provided the staff was in existence, and competent officers and senior non-commissioned officers, and provided also that they were careful to recruit only from men who could ride or who then would have time to learn to ride. He agreed that they must have men who could pass a fair examination in riding, and then he thought he should get a good force, although he believed it would be difficult to raise the number required. As to the value of the scheme he had no doubt. With regard to what had been said about the new Yeomanry being no use in South Africa, though they had been there six months, he might say, although he was not there to defend the new Yeomanry, that body had only been out there three months, and that also the mounted infantry raised in South Africa were at first quite as difficult to handle as the new Yeomanry which had been sent out. For his part, while not perhaps agreeing to all the details of the scheme, he wished it every success.
CAPTAIN NORTON: If I take a somewhat pessimistic view of this scheme. I hope it will not be thought that, as an ex-cavalry officer, I wish in any way to make little of the Yeomanry. Nobody realises more than I do the admirable work which has been done by the Yeomanry who went out to South Africa. But it is a pity that we should not have had from the Treasury Bench some exposition of the scheme, at all events with reference to the Yeomanry and Militia artillery. This is a scheme—to use the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean—for producing cavalry "on the cheap." If it is the intention to form a real cavalry from a force to be embodied for fourteen or eighteen days in the year, I say the scheme is a fraud and an impossibility. If, on the other hand, it is for the purpose of producing a force to be utilised in the event of invasion as an auxiliary to the other arms at home, I say again that it will not be effective. Three of the army corps which form the larger scheme of the right hon. Gentleman are to be supplied with no other cavalry than those furnished by this force. Can it be held for a moment that these men are suitable for the purpose? In the first place, it is admitted that we have not a sufficient number of men of the yeoman class in the country. The force would, therefore, be drawn from other classes "more or less accustomed to horses," as a previous speaker has said. That is a very wide expression. If a man unaccustomed to horses is put on horseback, and used as a cavalryman or a yeoman, the horse is very soon rendered useless for military purposes. Reference has been made to what the Swiss have done as regards artillery. But the youth of Switzerland are trained from earliest boyhood in the use of arms in the elementary schools, and they have special training in shooting every year. It may be possible in a mountainous country and amongst people who have special facilities to train men as artillery, but it is absolutely impossible to train cavalrymen under these conditions. Every nation in Europe, even after selecting men of the best class—for by means of conscription they have the pick of the population, and they choose for cavalrymen those accustomed to horses and country life—are
1198
unable to produce efficient cavalry in less than three or four years. Some years ago I was sent on a mission to Italy to report on the Italian cavalry, and there I found that, although they had neglected to consider what I may call "special cavalry," they had expended an immense amount of time on mounted infantry work, and notwithstanding the fact that their cavalry were very efficient, as mounted infantry it took them four years to train those troops. Therefore I say that if this force is intended to be a cavalry force it will undoubtedly break down.
Moreover, it will be a very expensive force, seeing that out of the 35,000 only a very limited number will be suitable, after considerable training, to do the work which the entire force ought to be able to perform. Doubt has been expressed as to whether the Government will get the large number of men they ask for. I firmly believe they will, but not from the class that is wanted. They will be obtained at the expense of a certain number of the best militiamen and of the cream of the Volunteers. The title of "Imperial Yeomanry," which I presume they will be allowed to bear, coupled with the fact of their being cavalry soldiers, will induce all who can to join the Yeomanry rather than the Volunteers. That bears out my view with regard to the whole scheme—that, admirable as it might be, no portion can be carried out without robbing some other portion. A great deal has been said about events in South Africa having tended to show that shock-tactics are not required. But in countries where shock-tactics are not necessary you require far more competent scouting, and it takes much longer to train a man to scout than to perform any other duty. I full agree that the regiments that went to South Africa were lamentably deficient, and it is simply because the amount of time, patience, and training required to enable a cavalry regiment to scout thoroughly well can be obtained only at the expense of parade movements and shock-tactics. It is emphatically true that inexperienced men can be taught only under highly trained officers, commissioned and non-commissioned. But where are the officers to come from who will be capable of training com-

1199
paratively undisciplined men in scouting duties? It is extremely doubtful whether one-half of the regular cavalry officers at the present day would be competent for such work. Are we to presume that, because there have been no shock-tactics in South Africa, there would be none in any other country? We all know that the whole of North Europe, with the exception of one little patch—the Hertz Mountains—is one great plain. As a matter of fact, there must be times when shock-tactics will be adopted—especially, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean reminds me, against bad mounted infantry. It would be the delight of foreign officers to find opposed to them inefficient cavalry and mounted infantry, because highly trained cavalry in small numbers could sweep away any number of semi-trained troops. A cavalry man only partly trained is worse than useless.
Cheap labour is bad labour, whether it applies to the factory, the mine, or soldiering. The man who is underpaid is not the best class of man. Those who obtain high wages in the labour market will, as a rule, make the best soldiers. If you do not offer sufficient incentives to the better class of men to join, your force will necessarily be composed of men whom it will be practically impossible to train. The men will be practically of the same type as now join the Volunteers. How long are they likely to remain? A Volunteer enlists at the age of sixteen or seventeen years, and generally serves three or four years. If that is applied to the Yeomanry, seeing that the amount of work to be put upon them is far larger than in the case of the Volunteers, it is certain that the men will not remain in the force for more than four or five years. That, again, will lead to our having an incompetent force. I do not share the view of the hon. Member who thought the Government would not be able to obtain the horses. In my opinion the horses will be forthcoming, but the requisite care of them will be lacking. With reference to Clause 2 of the Bill, I ask whether the Government still seriously think that they will obtain the right class of men for this work if they are to be employed for only three months in the year, and have to provide for themselves
1200
during the remaining nine months? There are very few men in the country who could enlist under such conditions I may be told that the intention is to raise this large force for home defence with a view to obtaining from it a force of 5,000 or 6,000 men of the right class to send abroad in case of necessity. That may be feasible, but it will be at an enormous cost to the country. The suggestion of a few battalions of highly trained mounted infantry which could be used as a school for other mounted infantry would give much better value for the money. As to employing any of these mounted men in this country, the idea is preposterous. There is no country on the face of the earth less suitable for the operations of cavalry. A cavalryman would be confined absolutely to the roads, and the best horseman mounted on the finest weight-carrying hunter, if sent to carry despatches or to scout between two points ten miles apart, would be beaten easily by any ordinary cyclist. If the Government want a force for the purposes of scouting in this country, let them provide a force of cyclists, who would be far more valuable in that direction, and a comparativly small force of mounted infantry, trained by highly competent officers, and they will be doing much better for the country.
As to musketry, what can these new levies learn about musketry in fourteen or eighteen days? They would have to spend a vast amount of time on the rifle ranges. Is it to be supposed that you will get 35,000 men, accustomed to horseflesh, who are prepared to give these fourteen or eighteen days, and who in addition would have to spend a large amount of time in acquiring that knowledge of musketry which is essential if they are to be of any value as mounted infantry? I think not. The right hon. Gentleman boasted that he obtained 15,000 Yeomanry. He obtained 15,000 men whom he was pleased to call Yeomanry, but who, for the most part, were I will not say the sweepings of London, but men drawn from all sorts of classes, and with reference to whom I have had all sorts of reports. We hear by every mail that they are worse than useless, although they have been trained for six months in the face of the enemy. It

1201
may be all very well to train these men in the face of the enemy when they are in a country half as large as Europe, and opposed by only 13,000 or 15,000 men, but if men of that quality were put in the field against a European force they would very soon be swept away. The right hon. Gentleman said he could have obtained another 15,000 men. It is a great pity he did not do so, and send them to Aldershot to be trained, so that he could have picked out a certain number when they had reached a certain state of efficiency and sent them to South Africa. With reference to the schools, in my opinion it would be far better, instead of spending £300,000 in keeping up a force which will be neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red herring, to devote the money to forming a school at Aldershot where you could teach the duties of mounted rifles to the most suitable men in the different infantry battalions until you had by degrees raised a force which would be of some definite value in any war in which you might be engaged outside this country. I have no desire to oppose the Bill, because I know it has for its object the making of what I may call a gallant attempt to do something to remedy the wretched state in which our forces are. But in my belief, if the right hon. Gentleman succeeds in raising this force, he will raise a nondescript and costly force, thereby defeating the object we have in view—namely, the reform of the Army on the basis of giving the people of this country value for their money.
MR. O'MARAsaid that the criticisms which had been made in the course of this debate—
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
MR. O'MARA (continuing)said the Government did not need so many Yeomanry, because they were simply for scouting, and when an enemy invaded this country scouting would not be necessary. The criticisms which had been passed by experts in that House upon this measure confirmed the truth of
1202
what Napoleon said when he called England a nation of shopkeepers. The criticisms which had been made were too ridiculous and absurd to need a reply from the Secretary of State for War, and they were too absurd to occupy the time of the House. A second Bill had been substituted for a Bill previously issued, and he presumed that they were now dealing with the second Bill. To withdraw one Bill and substitute another on an important matter of this kind after only a few weeks consideration pointed to great carelessness in the War Office. The difference between these two Bills was that the War Office in the first Bill appeared to be in doubt whether the officers of the Yeomanry would be included.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,: The draughtsman was under the impression that the first Bill would include the officers, but this was found not to be the case.
MR. O'MARAsaid that every man in the street knew that officers did not enlist. The Yeomanry recently recruited would be perfectly useless as a military force. The fact that officers were omitted from the first Bill, and only by an afterthought included in the second Bill, showed the state of chaos the War Office had got into. To his mind, it was an example of the slipshod manner in which the business of the country was being done. The Estimates had been presented in the same way.
MR. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Bill before the House.
MR. O'MARA: Yes, Sir, but it has to do with the manner in which the War Office has presented the Bill.
MR. SPEAKER: It has nothing to do with the Bill.
MR. O'MARAsaid he did not want to wander from the point. This was only an example of the way in which the present Government had anticipated Bills

1203
that were to come before Parliament. In the Education Vote—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must have some regard to the Bill before the House.
MR. O'MARAsaid he wished to point out that the Government had anticipated this Bill. It was the outcome of the Army reorganisation scheme, about which a great furore had been raised. They were told during the General Election that if the present Government were returned to office they would immediately set about the reorganising of the Army, but so far as he could see, this Bill had been absolutely the sole outcome of the energy and the sublime genius of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In the resolution brought before the House at an earlier part of the session it was proposed that the establishment of the Yeomanry should be raised to 35,000, and that they should be apportioned to three army corps which were part of the Army reorganisation scheme. It was a well-known fact that before the war broke out the Yeomanry nearly amounted to the nominal strength of the establishment. He submitted that if the Army was to be continued on the voluntary system, increased inducements should have been offered to the Yeomanry to enlist in larger numbers. Instead of bringing in a Bill with that object, the right hon. Gentleman introduced a measure which took away certain distinct advantages the Yeomanry at present possessed. The Bill proposed to make it compulsory for the men to spend between fourteen and eighteen days under canvas every year. If they made the Militia laws applicable to the Yeomanry, they would certainly interfere with the recruiting of the Yeomanry when the war was over. The right hon. Gentleman could never hope to recruit 35,000 men under the voluntary system when the war fever died down. A great wave of patriotic fervour and foolishness had passed over the country, and, in his opinion, a number of foolish men had enlisted in the Yeomanry and gone to South Africa. He had carefully read the accounts in regard to that body. The Yeomanry, especially the later contin-
1204
gents, collected from the slums of the large cities, were perfectly useless as a military force. It was stated in this House that three to six months active warfare had not been sufficient to turn these men into soldiers. There had been constant examples of the Yeomanry surrendering. Everybody in the House knew what an utterly useless and humbugging force this was, and it was proposed to spend more money giving them more training.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss the action of the Yeomanry in South Africa.
MR. O'MARAsaid he would pass away from that subject with the remark that if three to six months service did not make them capable soldiers, he did not think the fourteen days training proposed by the Bill would do it. It was proposed that the Bill should come into operation immediately after 1st August. Those who enlisted in the Yeomanry after that date would not know that there had been a change in the law, and they would suddenly find that the conditions of enlistment were different from those which they expected. Before the stringent regulations proposed were put in force a notice should be put in the papers, and the public should be informed that the Yeomanry would no longer be a purely volunteer body. He would do his best to prevent the Bill passing into law, unless some provision was made for giving due notice to all classes of people who would come under it that the changes in the conditions of service had taken place.
MR. BRODRICK: Those who have listened to the hon. Member for South Kilkenny will see that his speech needs no reply from me. Members in that part of the House usually address the House with great point and humour on the subjects which they understand, but the hon. Member has chosen a field which he obviously does not understand, and has spoken of a Bill which he has not even taken the pains to master. I deeply regret that he has made an attack on the Yeomanry in

1205
South Africa, which is absolutely uncalled for, and consists only in his own imagination. Having said that, I dismiss the speech, which differs from other speeches in that it has not a practical character, and was not calculated in any way to influence the judgment of the House.
MB. O'MARA: Mr. Speaker—
MR. BRODRICK: I do not propose to give way to the hon. Member. As regards the other speeches which have been made, I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean and one or two others painted the picture a little too black. The propositions of the Bill are two-fold. In the first place, we desire to bring the new Yeomanry under the Army Act. Lord Roberts believes in the Auxiliary forces. Although we must insist on such an amount of training as will make them fit for the work they have to perform, still to ask men to come up for a third week when employers can only afford to allow two weeks is a demand which we may not find it easy to carry out. In any reasonable way we are prepared to meet the requirements of those who can only give a certain amount of service. A great deal has been said with regard to the fact that this is the only proposal the Government has made for meeting the lack of cavalry with our Auxiliary forces in this country. It is an entire mistake to suppose that if three Army corps leave this country fully equipped with cavalry brigades we should have entirely to rely on the Yeomanry for the cavalry of the remaining corps. We keep two cavalry brigades in England, and we shall have this very large body of Yeomanry in addition to all the reserve squadrons of the cavalry which has gone out. I would beg the House to notice this, that although there is no man in the House who understands more than I do the difference between the trained cavalry soldier and the man who has joined the Yeomanry and done fourteen days in the year, still I accept fully what has fallen from my hon. friend the Member for Birkenhead, who has seen service in
1206
South Africa, that, given good officers and men trained to ride and shoot, a very short training makes them a very useful body of men. That is what we aim at in regard to this body of Yeomanry, whom we ask the authority of the House to place under the Army Act. That will force the men to come out for the period of training they have undertaken to go through. We want them trained as long as they are to be trained, because that is the amount of training which in the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief will make them an effective force for the work they have to do. At a time when we have a great strain upon us for South Africa, it is a very encouraging feature to find that every week brings us a fresh regiment of Yeomanry, and I am quite certain that those who have seen the Yeomanry who are now being formed, and who will be trained shortly, will think that Parliament has not spent money badly in making so valuable an acquisition to our defensive forces. I should be out of order if I went into the question at this moment, but we should not blind ourselves to the necessity of having a sufficient Regular mounted infantry. I am fully alive to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean in this respect, although I must take leave to say that his speeches have one great note of similarity in them—that he invariably begins to complain of the expense which we incur, and ends by proposing that we should have a much larger body of Regular forces. We cannot in this country expect to keep the enormous body of Regular mounted troops which are necessary to provide mounted forces for all our Auxiliary forces. We must rely to a considerable extent on Auxiliary mounted forces. This is the principle which has been laid down in the Estimates of the year. That also is the principle which we ask Parliament to support by giving us the power to see that the men who have undertaken to train shall do so under the provisions of the Army Act. Then one word as to the Militia artillery. We have asked for power to train the Militia artillery for eighty-four days. Every Militia battery of field artillery makes it unnecessary to keep a battery of

1207
Regular artillery at home. We have—and I give full credit to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean for the persistency with which he has urged the necessity of increasing the artillery—raised a very large number of batteries of Regular artillery in the last two years, but to complete the six army corps we are obliged to add a certain number of Volunteer and Militia artillery. The experience of our inspecting officers in regard to the experiments already made has been that in the case of those batteries that have been tried of Militia artillery, excellent results have been obtained. Of course, during the present year we are able to embody Militia artillery for such a period as is required, because the Militia is embodied. In a subsequent year we could not keep them out beyond fifty-six days without the special authority of Parliament. We do not propose to bring any man under this liability who has not voluntarily undertaken it. It may be that we shall have in some way to offer special terms to those who do undertake it, but we mean to have field artillery somehow, and we believe that the Militia affords the best means of getting it, except in the case of some isolated batteries of Volunteers. I ask the House to give us the Second Reading of this Bill, which is a modest measure, which asks no one to undertake anything unless he desires to do so, but gives you facilities for the training of men which the Commander-in-Chief considers necessary, and which carries out the wish of this House that we should, so long as we can, avoid resorting to compulsion for the defence of this country, and which at the same time endeavours to give us forces that will be efficient; and I ask the House not to nullify the Votes which it has given previously for defensive purposes by depriving us of the strength in the arms of artillery and cavalry of which we have need.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid there were one or two points he would like to know about. There were, no doubt, good points in the Bill, and they thoroughly recognised the efforts made to provide artillery and cavalry for the Auxiliary
1208
forces, which had never been made up to the present time. With regard to the use of the word "Imperial," he would like to add his voice to those of the gentlemen who had already spoken, and to say that it should not be given to any corps whose services are restricted to the British Isles. There was no doubt that the Yeomanry and Militia were restricted to the British Isles if they did not volunteer for service abroad. He had always thought that we should have done better if one battery where there were four batteries had been enlisted for Imperial service—in other words, service anywhere within the Imperial dominions of the King. It would have saved an immense deal of money and an immense deal of trouble on the outbreak of war. He hoped that next year a Bill would be introduced to allow special corps of Yeomanry and Militia to be recruited which might be ordered abroad on the outbreak of war. He was sorry that such a provision was not in this Bill. It had been said that scouting was easier to learn than barrack square drill. That was a mistake; it was infinitely more difficult to learn, as had been shown in South Africa; and if the cavalry had devoted more time to that kind of work and less to barrack square drill they would have been much more efficient. It was quite true that the Yeomanry corps, in spite of their deficient training, had done splendid escort work. But it must be remembered that our troops in South Africa had never had regular cavalry against them. Though the Boers were very good mounted infantry, it would have been very much worse for our troops had they had regular cavalry. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman in raising the Yeomanry would not take officers and men from the Militia, where they were too scarce at present, and that a little more would be done to encourage the Militia than had been done in the past.
MR. YOUNGERsaid he wanted to say a few words on that part of the Bill which dealt with the time of the Yeomanry training. Last year when he was out training there were hard and fast regulations in regard to periods of leave. That had proved rather a drawback in many cases,

1209
and he would press on the right hon. Gentleman to grant a little more elasticity to commanding and squadron officers in granting leave, which was a matter of great importance to their very best men. They were as a rule large farmers, they had weekly bills to pay, and it was absolutely necessary for them to have the privilege to go home at the end of the week, to look after their business, and to pay their men. These were the men they were anxious to keep in the regiment, but they would find it difficult to do so unless they had such leave. He was sure that the discretion of the commanding and squadron officers in regard to leave would not be abused. His experience of the Yeomanry was that they could not do more than fourteen days training. In his own squadron he had men who lived in towns, clerks and shop assistants, who could not possibly get away for more than fourteen days. In fact, that was the whole of their holiday, and it was to their credit that they devoted the whole of their holiday to acquiring military training. All were agreed that it was most essential that the Yeomanry officers should know their duties, and whatever facilities the Government could give to these Yeomanry officers to acquire more knowledge would be very much welcomed. He understood that it was the intention to re-open the old schools of instruction, but he thought greater facilities should be given to the Yeomanry officers to attend the autumn manœuvres, which would be a great advantage to them. As a matter of fact, the Yeomanry officer had quite as much to learn as a Regular cavalry officer. Some recognition should be given to those who showed special aptitude for their work, or who passed a certain standard of efficiency.
MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid that to propose to grant leave to officers and men to attend to their private business was a rather inconsistent way of setting up a grand new force for the defence of the country. The Irish representatives were quite as much entitled to express their opinion on the proposals of the Government as any other section of the House, and when they did so, even although their opinions might not be palatable to the representatives of the
1210
Government, it was not exactly creditable to the members of the Government to dismiss their comments in the way the Secretary for War had done. Such tactics on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, he could assure him, did not tend to shut their mouths. They did not care a pin whether the right hon. Gentleman was pleased with their comments or not, but they intended to express them all the same. He presumed that this Bill was introduced by the Government as one part of their great scheme of Army reform. This had been a war session in every sense of the word. They had had discussions on all the phases of the war, and they had had promises of the most elaborate character as to the complete reform of the Army service, and the complete clearing out of the War Office. Was it in fulfilment of these promises that the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward this modest Bill? The parent of a measure was always anxious to describe it in the best way he could for the consideration of the House, but as an Irish Member there were certain features of this Bill in regard to which they were entitled to express their opinion, and to criticise the effects of the measure on the country which they represented. He did not propose to go into the question of the Yeomanry, although the English Yeomanry were identified with the very worst forms of oppression in Ireland, and their name was detested by the Irish people to this day, since they were used to scourge the Irish people in 1798. He was glad to know that the Yeomanry corps were not to be extended to Ireland. The only so-called Yeomanry which had been sent out from their country to South Africa had been gathered together by Lord Longford, and they had distinguished themselves by the most disgraceful proceedings. What he was concerned about in this Bill was the second clause, which proposed to extend from the 1st August in the present year the period of Militia artillery training to a period not exceeding eighty-four days. He was no admirer of the Militia system in Ireland. He thought it was a vicious system. It took the Irish agricultural labourers away from their work into camps, some to the Curragh, some to county Kerry, and some to county Donegal, where neither their capabilities for

1211
work nor their moral and physical training was improved. These men were, for the most part, uneducated agricultural labourers, who did not know the conditions of their enlistment, and they were no great credit to their country; but the effects of the system were to deteriorate them, and they returned to their homes worse men than when they went away, even only after twenty-eight days training. For that reason he objected very strongly to increasing the period of training. The right hon. Gentleman had dealt at considerable length with the voluntary system of enlistment in the Army, and said that as long as this country confined itself to the voluntary system, some such steps as were proposed by the Bill would have to be given effect to. That might be true, and if he would confine the operation of the Bill to England and Scotland, and exclude Ireland from its scope, and also exclude Ireland from paying any portion of the cost, then the criticism of the Irish Members would not be as pointed as the right hon. Gentleman might find it to be during the course of the passage of the Bill. The Militia system, they contended, was unfair in two ways; it took the men away from their natural occupations—and he was glad to know that they got fewer and fewer every year—and it sent them back to their homes worse men than when they went away to camp. If this was part of the great scheme of Army reform, which had been introduced with so many grandiloquent phrases, it illustrated the truth of the old Latin fable, Parturiunt montes, nascitur ridiculus mus—the mountain laboured, and there came forth a little mouse! The Government had startled the whole country with their glowing periods as to the way they were going to reform the Army system, and here was a miserable little attempt at the fag end of the session which had nothing to commend it to the sensible views of the House of Commons, except the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, in his anxiety to give some apparent effect to his promises, had produced a Bill which would not accomplish that which he desired, but only still further prove that the management of the War Office and of the Army was, as at present constituted, a huge and screaming farce.
COLONEL LEGGE (St. George's,)said that although this was a very short, it was a very important Bill, because it changed the whole status of the Yeomanry. Hitherto the Yeomanry were enlisted under the Act of George III. for a period of three years. But they were now to be brought under the Militia Act of 1882. The terms of service would be the same as that of the Militia—namely, six years—with two modifications. The first was that whereas the preliminary training of the Militia recruits was for a period of six months, that provision was not to apply to the Yeomanry. The second modification was that the period of annual training of the Yeomanry was to be for not less than fourteen days and not more than eighteen days. Practically, in fact, the Yeomanry would be mounted Militia. He had had considerable experience in the training of both infantry and cavalry officers and men, and knew very well that it took very much longer to make a cavalry soldier than an infantry soldier, yet in the Bill it was proposed that Yeomanry, or mounted Militia, were to receive no preliminary training whatever, and only from fourteen to eighteen days annual training, while a good many Yeomanry officers said that that was more time than the men could give. He wished that the Secretary of State for War would explain how he proposed to render these mounted men efficient with such a limited amount of training. It would take the Yeomanry twenty-six years to get the same amount of training as the Militia received in six years.
MR. TOMKINSONsaid that, speaking from thirty-five years experience of the Yeomanry, he thought that it was possible to make a cavalry soldier with fourteen days annual training. It was an undoubted fact that officers of the Regular Army, from the Commander-in-Chief downwards, came down to see the Cheshire Yeomanry, and without exception they expressed an unqualified approval of that corps and their astonishment at the efficiency which had been attained in the limited time of training. It was to be remem-

1213
bered that the greater proportion of the Yeomanry came out year after year, and although they did not always commence their week's training at the same point, their intelligence and enthusiasm produced extraordinary results. Their riding was first class, their shooting at all points good, and they formed an efficient force, available for regular duty when called upon. Inasmuch as under the proposed regulations they should have at least fourteen days in camp, he had a still better opinion of what the efficiency of the force would be. Experience of the last two years out in camp, with their horses picketed in wild, open country, instead of in the county town, which gave them admirable opportunities for learning outpost duty and reconnaisance, convinced him that the system proposed by the Bill, if carried out and adhered to, would achieve the most satisfactory results. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Lincoln, that any relaxation in the matter of leave should be given in time of training. It was the looseness of the training and the case with which farmers got away on leave which had been one of the direct drawbacks to efficiency in the past, and made them to some extent only a force on paper. This Bill would bring every man under the same strict regulations in the future. It might increase the difficulty of obtaining recruits, but it would make them a real force.
GENERAL LAURIE: This Bill practically remodels one branch of our forces, and actually creates another. Years ago I had considerable experience in doing practically the same work, namely, in assisting in remodelling the cavalry of the Canadian Militia, and in the organising of the field batteries of that Militia for the first time. Our experience was that it was a great advantage to put the men into camp, where they could devote themselves to their work far better than in billets. We went even further, and we treated the men in every way as soldiers on active service. There were no marquees and no caterers, but ordinary military messing, and the result was that the men were very efficient when they were required. With regard to artillery, eighty-four days are
1214
laid down. I cannot help thinking that that number is either too small or too great; it will not be a success with horses hired haphazard. Our experience was that where a man brought in his horses, which he knew he could drive and formed with two comrades a gun team, they worked together very soon. But I am satisfied that the average artillery officer will tell you that you cannot get three men picked haphazard and six horses and make them into a gun team in eighty-four days. On the other hand, the Canadian artillery went into camp for sixteen days, and at the end of that time were able to do their work. They might not of course have been fit for the Horse Guards parade, but they were fit for practical work. Who relieved Mafeking? Three batteries of the Canadian artillery were among the leading troops into Mafeking, and were found most efficient. If a man brings in his own horses he will not take eighty-four days to learn the work; if he does not bring in his own horses he cannot become efficient in that time. Non-commissioned officers No. 1 of guns require a longer training, and a much shorter training will turn out a field gunner. I think it will be found necessary to differentiate, and give a certain proportion of the men a longer training than others; to establish schools for non-commissioned officers, and to induce the men to bring their own horses. Our experience in Canada was that that was the way to obtain an effective Militia field artillery, and that is what is wanted.
MR. TULLYsaid that hon. Members opposite objected to Irish Members speaking on such a Bill, but they did not object to making Ireland pay part of the expense. The hon. and gallant Gentleman described it as a Bill to set up one branch of the service and to do away with another.
GENERAL LAURIE: To remodel one branch and to organise another.
MR. TULLYsaid that that was not the impression which the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement conveyed to him. The object of the Bill was to put the Yeomanry under the same conditions as the Militia; but if that were done they

1215
would neither have cavalry nor mounted infantry. In his opinion the 35,000 men to be enrolled under the Bill at 5s. a day were simply 35,000 voters for the Tory party, and that being one of the objects of the Bill, he would oppose it as far as he could. The Secretary of State for War said that the Army should be composed of professional men, and that experts were what were required. The Boers were all experts with the rifle, and consequently a small army of 25,000 men were able to hang up a British army of 300,000 men who were not experts. The right hon. Gentleman would not get an army of experts by enrolling tinselled things like the Yeomanry and Volunteers. He was only creating new swarms of inefficient men, after the manner of the Chinese, and when the time came to test them they would prove to be of no use. The motto of the Irish Yeomanry in Ireland was "No surrender," but in South Africa they changed it to "No surrender except to the Boers." The Bill had not been justified by any argument he had heard from any of the military experts. It was quite ridiculous to imagine that by paying the Yeomanry 5s. a day, and taking them out for a period of ten days every year, they could be converted into any kind of fighting material. The money would be simply wasted. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite referred to the relief of Mafeking. He thought that that had been played out, and that nobody now believed in that bogus siege and Barnum
business. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked the House to adopt the Bill on the ground that the Canadian Militia helped to relieve Mafeking. He thought that was drawing too much on the credulity of hon. Members. Another point was that Yeomanry were not permitted in Ireland, although he was not very anxious about that, but Nationalists would not be allowed to be trained to the use of the rifle. Of course the Solicitor General for England would not listen to any such suggestion as that. Volunteers would also not be permitted in Ireland, and the only privilege given to that country was the privilege of contributing to the expense. He thought that was a point which deserved consideration. If Ireland had to pay, it ought to receive some advantage; if Ireland received no advantage, why should Ireland pay? An hon. Gentleman opposite described the wonderful Yeomanry to be set up under the Bill as gentleman who went home for a week-end to pay their labourers. That to his mind was merely pic-nicing and going on a kind of "beano." If English farmers were to have "beanos" he thought England ought to pay for them. On those grounds he would oppose the Bill at every step.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 59. (Division List No. 347.)

AYES

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Brassey, Albert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Brigg, John

Craig, Robert Hunter

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cranborne, Viscount

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bull, William James

Crombie, John William

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Bullard, Sir Harry

Cross Alexander (Glasgow)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Butcher, John George

Crossley, Sir Savile

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Caldwell, James

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Balcarres, Lord

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

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Davenport, William Bromley-

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Balfour,Rt.HnGeraldW.(Leeds

Chamberlain,J.Austen(Worc'r

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Banbury, Frederick George

Charrington, Spencer

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Bartley, George C. T.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo.

Bathurst,Hon.AllenBenjamin

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Dickson, Sir Charles Scott

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

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

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Bignold, Arthur

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Duke, Henry Edward

Bond, Edward

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Duncan, J. Hastings

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Dunn, Sir William

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Robson, William Snowdon

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Emmott, Alfred

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Round, James

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Russell, T. W.

Fenwick, Charles

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Seely,Capt.J.E.B.(Isleof Wight)

Finch, George H.

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Seton-Karr, Henry

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowe, Francis William

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Macdona, John Cumming

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

Gardner, Ernest

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Soares, Ernest J.

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

Maconochie, A. W.

Spear, John Ward

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

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

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts

Majendie, James A. H.

Strachey, Edward

Gore,Hn.G.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Stroyan, John

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

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ry S. Edm'nds

More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hamilton,Rt.Hn.LordG.(Midd'x

Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

Thornton, Percy M.

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Morrell, George Herbert

Tomkinson, James

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Mount, William Arthur

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Muntz, Philip A.

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Murray,Rt.HnA.Graham(Bute

Webb, Colonel William George

Heath,James(Staffords,N.W.)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Helder, Augustus

Newnes, Sir George

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Henderson, Alexander

Nicholson, William Graham

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Holland, William Henry

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Wills, Sir Frederick

Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Horniman, Frederick John

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Hoult, Joseph

Purvis, Robert

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

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Pym, C. Guy

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

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Randles, John S.

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

Joicey, Sir James

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Wylie, Alexander

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Younger, William

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Renwick, George

Yoxall, James Henry

Kinlock, Sir John George S.

Richards, Henry Charles

Lambert, George

Rickett, J. Compton

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

Law, Andrew Bonar

Ridley,S.Forde(Bethnal Green)

Lawson, John Grant

Rigg, Richard

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Ritchie,Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson

Lee,ArthurH.(Hants, Fareham

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

NOES.

Ambrose, Robert

Doogan, P. C.

Lundon, W.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Duffy, William J.

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Bell, Richard

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Boland, John

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Dermott, Patrick

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Ffrench, Peter

Murphy, John

Broadhurst, Henry

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Burns, John

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Channing, Francis Allston

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Clancy, John Joseph

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

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

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Joyce, Michael

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

Cullinan, J.

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Dowd, John

Delany, William

Lloyd-George, David

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

1218

1219

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Redmond, William (Clare)

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

O'Malley, William

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Tully, Jasper

O'Mara, James

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Young, Samuel

Power, Patrick Joseph

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Price, Robert John

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. William Abraham (Cork)

Reddy, M.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Redmond, JohnE.(Waterford)

Sullivan, Donal

Bill read the third time, and passed.

ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION BILL [Lords].
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that there had been no attempt on the part of the Government to explain the Bill. In 1863 Parliament for the first time passed an Act with a view to protecting the public against the discharge of noxious gases from alkali works. In 1874 the law was extended to additional works. In 1878 the matter was the subject of a Royal Commission, and in 1881, on the Report of that Commission, an Act was passed which practically the present Bill sought to amend. In 1892 a number of additional works were put under the Act of 1881, and with the exception of the Act of 1892, the Act of 1881 remained without alteration. The present Bill sought to amend the law in some very important particulars, and he noticed that it was very peculiar in its construction. It was drafted in a most unusual and most unbusinesslike fashion. It sought in one clause to amend four different sections of the Act of 1881, two of which related to Part 1 and two to Part 2 of the Act. That was not a practical method of dealing with the matter. There was no reason whatever why each section should not be amended separately, and the Government had introduced a certain amount of confusion, because they thought they could get a single clause Bill more quickly through the House. He recognised at once the importance to the country of manufactures of this kind, even if they might give off obnoxious and offensive gases,
1220
because it was good that we should have varied employment for the working classes of this country; but on the other hand, the State had its duty to perform towards the general public. He laid down the general principle that while the State should protect these manufactures so far as it was necessary to ensure the working of a particular manufacture, yet on the other hand everything should be done that could be done consistently with commercial profit to protect the public from obnoxious or offensive fumes. The present Bill was to amend Clauses 3 and 4 of the Act of 1881, and it further amended Clauses 8 and 9 of the same Act, which related to sulphuric acid works. With regard to alkali and other works embraced in Section 3 of the Act of 1881, the Bill did not in any way alter Sub-section A of that section, but when they came to Sub-section 2, which amends Sub-section 4 of the Act of 1881, muriatic acid was mentioned for the first time. The Bill did not really intend to make any change in the existing law with regard to the escape of muriatic acid into the atmosphere, and the introduction of Sub-section 2 in the clause of the Bill did not, so far as muriatic acid was concerned, inflict any hardship whatever upon the trade. The amount of condensation by statute was fixed at 95 per cent., but if they looked into the reports of the local inspectors they would find that the average condensation was only 90·53, so that the requirement of the Act was by no means a stringent requirement, as the working of the Act for the last twenty years had shown. As regarded the amount of muriatic acid which escaped in the coal and other gases, the amount was fixed by the statute at one-fifth part of a grain, but the average as shown by the inspectors' reports was one-fourth below the statutory limit. From that it would appear that the statutory limit which was introduced into the Act of 1874, and

1221
retained in the Act of 1881, and which it was not now proposed to alter by this Bill, was an exceedingly low one, and he suggested that advantage should be taken of this amendment of the law in order to raise the limit, for this reason, that when Parliament introduced restrictions in the process of manufacture it necessarily took a low average, but as the work of manufacture went on, it was generally shown that the limit stated in the Act might be considerably raised.
With regard to breaches of the Act, it would be generally found that any breach which arose was entirely due to preventable causes; it was simply a question of carrying on the process of manufacture with a proper amount of plant, and keeping that plant in proper order. With regard to muriatic acid, four serious difficulties had arisen. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed, but if they lived in localities where these noxious fumes were escaping they would find that this subject affected a great many more people than they imagined. Under Sub-section B, Section 3, of the Act of 1881, which it was proposed to amend, the test was the escape of the acid gas into the atmosphere; the Bill proposed to make a new test. He would like the President of the Local Government Board to say what benefit the people were supposed to receive from the proposed change in the law. Theoretically it might be said that the Bill was an improvement of the law in the public interest, in the respect that, when residual gases were tested before their admixture with other gases, the test was more severe than if made after those residual gases had escaped into the atmosphere. But there were other escapes from these factories. In the process of the manufacture of sulphuric acid there was the escape of coal gas. The law at present made no restriction with regard to that, but the sulphur in the coal going up the chimney and mixing with the other acid gases produced sulphuric acid, and it was a well-known fact that sulphuric acid produced in that way might be carried considerable distances from the works, according to the currents of air it met, and that fact was not taken into account at all. With regard to sulphuric acid
1222
gas escapes, the standard fixed in 1874 was necessarily a low one, and experience had shown that it did not interfere in any way with the manufacture. He submitted that that standard could be very well raised with benefit to the public; that was a point he thought he was entitled to bring before the President of the Local Government Board. [Loud laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite took the same interest in this matter as he did, and endeavoured to master the provisions of this Bill, he did not think they would see so much to laugh at. There was this point also to be considered. Sulphuric acid did not diffuse, it was carried out of the chimney and fell down in a solid form, and was not in any way modified. He was surprised that the President of the Board of Trade had not taken a little bolder course in attempting to amend Section 4 of the Act. He had only amended it in a few unimportant particulars, so much so, that the Alkali manufacturers did not regard it as any restriction at all, because by the provisions of the Bill they could not be proceeded against, unless they had first of all violated Section 3 of the Act. He thought that, so far as legislation had hitherto been concerned, there had been great consideration shown by Parliament towards the owners of these works. Only provisions had been enacted with which in practice there was not the smallest difficulty in complying. Any breach of the law which had occurred had been owing entirely to the misuse of machinery, or the use of inadequate machinery. The inspectors had the most ample powers vested in them, and those powers had not been increased under this Bill; the inspectors were, in fact, held down by this Bill, because if an escape did not exceed the statutory limit the inspector had no power to interfere. Such was the nature of this Bill. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had had several conversations with the alkali manufacturers, and had come to some arrangement with them, which was not embodied in the Bill as printed, and he considered it very hard that the House should be forced to consent to the Second Reading of the Bill without some explanation being given as to what the Amendments were which the right hon.

1223
Gentleman had arranged to bring in. Amendments of that kind ought to be explained to the House at an earlier period. The right hon. Gentleman thought that if he consulted the manufacturers he would get his Bill through very much more easily than otherwise, but unless proper explanations were forthcoming the right hon. Gentleman might find that exactly the opposite was the case. What was the use of inspectors reporting annoyances when there was no power to deal with them under the present law, and when the President of the Local Government Board did not provide any remedy for them in this Bill? It might be twenty years before another amending Act was passed, and he thought there was a great want of courage in the right hon. Gentleman, when inspectors were reporting nuisances at these works, which there was no power to remedy, in not dealing with that matter. If an amending Bill dealing with this subject was to have been brought in at all it should have been of a comprehensive character. In any case, the House was entitled to know the terms of the compromise arrived at with the manufacturers. It was not a proper way of doing business to bring on a Bill of this sort, affecting an important interest in the country, at a late period of the session, in the hope of rushing it through just before twelve o'clock.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The hon. Member has found great fault with the Government for not having explained the Bill which is now under consideration. The Government have had no opportunity of making any explanation, because the hon. Member has occupied the whole of the time, not only to-night, but also on the previous occasion when the Bill came up for consideration.
MR. CALDWELLpointed out that the right hon. Gentleman was not present when the Bill was called on. If he (Mr. Caldwell) had not then risen, the Bill would have gone through without comment.
MR. WALTER LONG: I am not quite certain that even if the hon. Mem-
1224
ber had not risen any great misfortune would have occurred. On the evening in question I was just outside, and if all the hon. Gentleman desired had been an explanation of the views of the Government he could have obtained that information when the Bill was first brought on. I, however, accord him the fullest meed of praise for the length of time he has spent in descanting on the operations of this very modest Bill. We have had a very interesting dissertation on the various processes affected by the measure, and I am bound to say that, having taken some trouble in the preparation of the Bill, and having seen some of the great chemists of the country in connection with the matter, I had never realised until I heard the hon. Gentleman speak that so much could be said on the different points of view from which the Bill could be approached. I will tell the House exactly what the Bill proposes to do. We have heard a great deal about standards, the process of manufacture, the escape of gases into the atmosphere, the escape of gases from the flue connected with the process of manufacture, and the chimney which conveys the gases into the atmosphere. This Bill proposes to do a very simple thing. The hon. Member said that the interests of the public are concerned. Yes, they are, and the hon. Member may be surprised to learn that most of our great corporations, many of our county councils, and many of our urban sanitary authorities have memorialised the Local Government Board that this Bill should be passed into law as rapidly as possible. So far, at all events, the hon. Member is the only person, either inside or outside the House, as far as I know, who has offered any objection to this change in the law. In the Acts to which the hon. Member referred power is conferred on the Local Government Board to deal with the subject of scheduled manufactures, and hitherto the inspectors of the Department have interpreted the law as enabling them to test the gases during the process of manufacture, instead of having to wait until the gases escaped into the atmosphere. The damage, of course, is done to the public when the gases escape into the atmosphere, but there are some processes of manufacture which are not subject to

1225
limitation, and if gases from two different processes meet in the same flue or chimney it is obviously impossible for the inspector to tell whether the obnoxious gases arise from the process which is or from the process which is not under limitation. All that this Bill proposes to do is to legalise what the inspectors have hitherto regarded as being their right. They have hitherto tested the gases at some point in the process of manufacture, but there was a doubt as to their power to do so, and on the question being referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, it was decided that their action was illegal. All the Bill seeks to do, therefore, is to enable the test to be made at such a point as will make it real and of some value. The hon. Gentleman suggests that there has been some unholy bargaining between the alkali manufacturers and myself. There has been nothing of the kind. He complained that the Amendments have not been explained to the House. They have not been explained, because we have not yet reached the proper stage; it is not usual to put down Amendments before a Bill has been read a second time. The Amendments have been arranged in the ordinary way. The alkali manufacturers and the manufacturers of sulphuric acid have been good enough to approach me in the ordinary way, to point out their difficulties, and to explain that if this treatment is to be applied to certain processes of manufacture it might result in the extinction of trade. The manufacturers have been absolutely fair and most considerate in the way in which they approached me. The hon. Member for the Northwich Division of Cheshire acted on behalf of the alkali manufacturers, and the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Glasgow acted on behalf of other people concerned. Their case has been very carefully examined, and we have arrived at Amendments which they believe will meet their case. What we propose to do is to put what is known as the Hargrave process and any new process to be hereafter discovered in the second category; that is to say, that the manufacturers using those processes should be liable only to use the best practicable means. For the rest, all that we do is to empower the inspectors to apply their
1226
tests at the process of manufacture, instead of waiting until the gases escape into the atmosphere, and we do this not in the interests of the Department or of the inspectors, and certainly not from the curious motives which the horn. Member has suggested, but solely in the interests of the public health. It is part of the statutory duty of the inspectors of my Department to see that the law is carried out, to see that manufacturers who exceed the legal limit are checked, and the nuisance abated. This cannot be done unless this additional power is given. The change is a simple, but effective one, and I hope the House will agree to the Second Reading without unnecessary delay.
MR. O'MARAsaid it was evident from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that an arrangement had been come to between the alkali manufacturers and the Local Government Board.
MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Gentleman suggests that an arrangement has been come to. He is entirely mistaken. All that I have done is to adopt a course which is quite usual, though it may not be known to him. I have intimated that I am prepared to move, or to accept if they are moved from his own side of the House, certain Amendments which would carry out the objects I have distinctly explained to the House.
MR. O'MARAaccepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. Although the Bill sought to amend four sections of the Act of 1882 it was a one-clause Bill, and, notwithstanding the fact that it was supposed to have been considered in the House of Lords, the whole discussion in that place extended to only twenty-two lines of Hansard. The Bill was a very important one. No doubt from the flues and chimneys of many manufacturers an immense amount of noxious gases had been issuing for twenty years past. The object of the Bill was a good one, but he could not agree with the method by which it was sought to be attained. The proper place to test the fumes was as they issued from the chimneys. When the gases

1227
issued from the process of manufacture they were frequently mixed with smoke, or some other gas, which entirely nullified the injurious effect, so that when they issued into the atmosphere the noxious gases were in such a state that no harm could possibly result. The manufacturers who had been so careful of the public health as to expend large sums in the construction of plant for the purpose of so mixing the noxious gases ought not to be penalised in the way suggested by this Bill. Sulphuric acid had been treated in an extraordinary manner. It had been placed on quite a different basis from all other acids, and accorded markedly preferential treatment. His objection to the Bill was that it was an unnecessary interference with the trade of alkali manufacturers. It was important that the House should realise the importance of the trade concerned, because any interference with that trade would seriously affect the chemical trade of the country. From the port of London alone in 1896 the quantity of saltpetre exported was 161,000 tons, and of other chemicals 752,000 tons; while in 1900—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That has nothing to do with the subject before the House.
MR. O'MARAsaid he was endeavouring to prove that the Bill would seriously affect this trade, but, in deference to the Speaker's ruling, he would not further pursue that point. The power given to the inspector under Section 3 was a grievous interference with the liberty of carrying on the manufacture in the best way. The Bill was a bad one, and he begged to move that it be read a second time this day three months.
MR. TULLYin seconding the motion said the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to dissipate the objections brought forward by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, but he had not dealt with those objects in a sufficiently serious fashion. He was always suspicious of such Bills as the present when they came from Government Departments. Such measures were alalways organised by the officials, with the object of creating a new swarm of
1228
officials, so that they might have more patronage at their disposal. One of the objects of the present Bill was to create another tribe of inspectors, and thus to provide more work in that direction. He thoroughly agreed that alkali works should be restrained from poisoning the atmosphere and the people, and if this Bill had been a thoroughly honest measure for that purpose he should have heartily supported it. But there had been secret negotiations and bargaining with certain hon. Members, and the House did not know what had been done in the dark. Moreover, although the Bill would primarily affect England, it had a certain bearing on Ireland, and the peculiar thing was that, while the Local Government Board in Ireland would initiate the prosecutions, the registration of firms would take place in England. Thus, while Ireland was saddled with the cost of the prosecutions, England, as usual, took care to grab the fees for registration purposes. In Committee he should certainly move an Amendment to provide that the fees should be returned to Ireland for Irish purposes. It was necessary that some indication of the scope of the agreed Amendments should be given, because it generally happened that English manufacturers in matters of this sort endeavoured to get the best of the bargain. The Alkali Bill of twenty years ago was resisted by the Irish party, because they saw in it an indirect attack on an Iris industry. Twenty years ago the Irish party obtained certain terms in regard to this question from the Government, and why was that settlement now to be torn up? He had very great suspicion as to what the effect of the Amendments would be. If he were certain that they would have no harmful effect that might regulate his opposition to the Bill. This was a measure which could not be rushed through without discussion, and but for the speech made by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark the House would not have known that so many trades were affected, and they would not have heard of these secret agreements made with English manufacturers. They might discover hereafter that the Amendments brought forward on behalf of the Government would have a very injurious effect upon

1229
Irish industries. If the President of the Local Government Board would assure him that the Amendments would not be harmful to Ireland, he would take the right hon. Gentleman's word for it. Unless they had some guarantee of this sort, and unless they were told that this was not an attempt to crush Irish industries, they would have to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. He was in favour of the Bill so far as it dealt with poisoning from sulphuric acid in beer or in anything else.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. O'Mara.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I regret that an engagement in another part of London has prevented me from attending this debate, which I hear has been a very instructive one. I can assure my hon. friends that the President of the Local Government Board has listened with the greatest consideration and patience to the explanations offered to him on behalf of the alkali trade, which convinced him that the Bill as originally brought in would not meet the desires of those who are engaged in the trade. I can assure the House that the Bill in the shape in which I hope it will be in its final stage will do no harm to the alkali manufacturers either in Great Britain or Ireland. I believe the alkali manufacture is carried on in the same way in Ireland as in this country, and what satisfies English manufacturers will also satisfy the Irish manufacturers. If we go to a division upon this Bill, I shall support the President of the Local Government Board. Of course we find fault with the circumstances under which this Bill has been introduced. For many years the alkali trade has been managed by men of very high scientific attainments, who have always treated the Government Department as a friend and not as an enemy, and the manufacturers have been met in exactly the same spirit by the Department for the past forty years. This is the first
1230
Bill of the kind ever introduced without a previous friendly consultation with the trade, and I am glad to assure the House that, in my opinion, this will be the last time that such a Bill will be introduced without previous consultation with the trade. Above all things, there ought to be perfect frankness between the Government and the trades affected. The interpretation introduced into the Factory Act some time ago affecting young persons employed in certain dangerous trades caused a good deal of unpleasantness, because it was introduced practically without the knowledge of the trade. I think it ought to be the very first principle in conducting the business of a Government Department to endeavour to preserve perfect frankness between the Department and the trades affected. I tender my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy and consideration, and I hope the Bill as amended by "the dark and secret negotiations" will be perfectly satisfactory to all concerned.
MR. JOHN BURNS: This is a small, useful, and necessary Bill, which, so far as it goes, has my cordial support. The speech of the hon. Baronet who has just sat down seems to me to indicate that this Bill will not go far enough. He has stated that the trade has hitherto been conducted by men of high scientific attainments. Judging by the appearance of some parts of the country around the factories carried on by these gentlemen of high scientific attainments, they do not seem to have shown that kindly consideration for their rural and agricultural neighbours which, in my opinion, men of high scientific attainments ought to be capable, of displaying; and if this Bill induces these men to cultivate a more neighbourly spirit and develop some more generous regard for those less well situated than themselves in regard to this world's goods, then this Bill will have gone a step in the right direction. The hon. Member who has just sat down stated that the President of the Local Government Board had shown the greatest possible consideration for the trade. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should not show

1231
too great consideration for this particular trade.
MR. WALTER LONG: I have surrendered nothing in principle by the Amendments I have agreed to.
MR. JOHN BURNS: What I am suggesting is that the right hon. Gentleman should stick to the Bill and nothing less than the Bill, and if he can get a little more than the Bill so much the better. In discussing this question with these men of high scientific attainments the right hon. Gentleman must see that their ingenuity does not induce him to whittle this Bill down too much. I prefer the simple general provisions of this Bill expressed in general language rather than the precise, not to say microscopic, terms which have been used by hon. Members to-night, and which they wish to force upon the Local Government Board. The sub-section of the Bill provides that the Local Government Board shall use the best practical means of preventing the discharge into the atmosphere of noxious gases. I prefer that to be expressed in the general language of the Bill, for it will enable the inspectors to generally supervise, and not be diverted off the track of general supervision by these microscopical differentiations which not even the hon. Members who have mentioned them understand. I have risen to ask the President of the Local Government Board to recognise that it is practically twenty years since we had an Amendment of the Act dealing with alkali works. During that time the most profitable works in this particular trade have begun to look upon some form of regulation and restriction as necessary in the interest of the public health, and as being perhaps the best incentive for putting their works in order and for making handsome profits. Any Act of Parliament that compels chemical factories and works to cease to emit noxious fumes and gases from their chimneys will drive them ultimately to utilising what were formerly considered to be waste products. I believe that the utilisation of these waste products by these men of high scientific attainments has made this industry much more profitable. I have risen to point out to the men of high scientific attain-
1232
ments that there is plenty of scope for larger profits than they are now making, plenty of opportunities for them to protect the health of those engaged in those dangerous processes, and plenty of scope for them doing something in the interests of the general public who live in the neighbourhood of their works. I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, under the alkali works included in this Bill, he will protect the House of Commons by adding Doulton's factories, on the Lambeth side of the river Thames. This ought to be done in order to protect the health of members of the House of Commons, and also the health of the ladies who came to the House of Commons to take tea on the terrace in too large numbers—[Ministerial cries of "No, no!"]—yes, in too large numbers, and who are greatly inconvenienced by the emission of noxious gases from over the road, and incidentally to save this splendid fabric of the Houses of Parliament from being slowly deteriorated, as it has been during the last twenty years, by the fumes and gases from Doulton's factories. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot include this factory, I trust that the head of Doulton's firm will read the report of my remarks, which, I hope, will cause that firm voluntarily to set their house in order; or perhaps the raising of this question will induce the Commissioner of Police to see that both the smoke and the noxious gases and fumes which come from Doulton's factories will be dealt with in the interests of the general public.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I wish to point out to the House that this Bill was introduced without our knowledge in the other House of Parliament. I make no objection to that course. This Bill is intended to give the inspectors the opportunity of carrying out and enforcing regulations dealing with the noxious gases at their source. Up to the present the practice has been that these noxious gases and fumes have been allowed to pass into the common chimney, where they mix with other gases, and thereby escape the control of the inspectors. The President of the Local Government Board has insisted upon this principle, and he has

1233
obtained the consent of those engaged in the trade to this new principle. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman has recognised that it is not advisable to discourage in any way the adoption of new processes. It is in the interest of the public and of the chemical trade as well that no undue restrictions should be placed upon new processes. I hope that the House will not only pass the Second Reading to-night, but also that it will allow the Committee stage to pass through.
MR. FIELD, in supporting the Bill, said he had been requested to do so by the Royal College of Physicians in Dublin. He had also received several communications from working men in Dublin in support of this Bill, and he had risen because he understood that some of his colleagues had been opposing this measure. He believed that it was a good and useful Bill, which was calculated to preserve the health of those engaged in the alkali works. He could not see, however, why the fees paid in Ireland should go into the British Exchequer. He trusted that the President of the Local Government Board would appreciate the point he had brought forward in regard to the fees, for in this respect England appeared to him to get the money, while Ireland did the work. He hoped that the Second Reading of the Bill would be carried.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he wished to make it clear to the Government that they did not promote the progress of legislation by trying to rush measures through just before twelve o'clock without a word of explanation. The President of the Local Government Board had yet to get this Bill through the Committee stage. With regard to the ordinary processes, they were still going to keep the standard at four grains, and they were not going to allow any latitude at all. What did it matter what process it was, if more than four grains of sulphuric acid went up the chimney? He approved of the Bill as far as it went, but it ought to go much further. He hoped his hon. friends would not press their motion to a division.

LARCENY BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.

NATIONAL GALLERY (PURCHASE OF ADJACENT LAND) [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam) in the Chair.]
Question again proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works under any Act of the present session for the acquisition of certain land near the National Gallery in London, and for other purposes connected therewith."—(Mr. Akers Douglas.)
MR. J. P. FARRELLobjected to the passage of the resolution on the ground that there were in the South Kensington Museum a number of Irish gold ornaments, which the Irish Members had on many occasions appealed to the Government to have removed to Dublin.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Bill is for the acquisition of certain land for the protection of the National Gallery in London. On that the hon. Member cannot discuss the question of the Irish gold ornaments.
MR. T. M. HEALYthought Irishmen had reason to complain that again and again motions of this kind were made with reference to the National Gallery in London, while nothing whatever was done in regard to the National Gallery in Ireland. Seventeen or eighteen years had elapsed since complaint was made

1235
of the purchase of a Murillo for £80,000 or £90,000, and a promise was given that the Vote for the Irish National Gallery should be increased, but although during that period enormous sums had been spent on art in this country, not a single sixpence had been so expended for the benefit of Ireland. The eyes of Londoners had been fixed solely on some metropolitan collection, and no thought whatever was taken for the advancement of art in the sister isle. When the Committee were asked to agree to such grants as that now proposed, it was only reasonable that Irish representatives should press for an equivalent grant to Ireland. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman had not said a word in explanation of the proposal. It seemed to be supposed that they knew all about the English National Gallery and the purposes for which this land was required, but he should certainly refuse to vote a single penny until some explanation was given.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I certainly did not intend to be rude to any hon. Member by not rising; in fact, I did rise, but I gave way to the hon. Member opposite. I fully explained the object of this resolution when the Bill came up for Second Reading. We propose to acquire, I think it is four buildings in Pall Mall and immediately behind, in order to secure the complete isolation of the National Gallery on the western side to protect it from fire. The Bill was introduced in pursuance of a promise that I made last year, when a fire occurred in a neighbouring building. We ask the House to give us compulsory powers for use if we cannot get the property voluntarily. The motion before the House is simply to authorise us to pay certain moneys for this purpose to be voted by Parliament hereafter.
MR. FIELDasked the right hon. Gentleman to inform the House how much money was going to be expended under this Bill. He thought that last year they voted an enormous sum of money for the National Gallery in this country, and he happened to know something about the Irish National
1236
Gallery, which was being almost starved out of existence. He thought that when they were asked to pass a Bill of this kind they were entitled to know how much money they were going to expend, and if hon. Members from Ireland allowed this money to be voted, they ought to have a promise that Ireland would get a quid pro quo.
MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that I do not think it is desirable that I should be pressed to state the exact amount. [Nationalist cries of "Oh, oh," and an HON. MEMBER: This is the confidence trick.] I think it would be very unwise to do so.—[Cries of "Why?"]—because the matter is under arbitration at the present moment, and if I were to state the amount the price might be raised and the cost to the taxpayers increased. Of course, if this is insisted upon I will give the amount. [Ministerial cries of "No, no."]
LORD BALCARRES: I am also very much interested in the National Gallery of Ireland, but the hon. and learned Member for North Louth has apparently forgotten that the Irish National Gallery is already an isolated building.
MR. T. M. HEALY: There is nothing, worth burning in it.
LORD BALCARRES: I differ from the hon. and learned Member. On the contrary, I think that the National Gallery of Ireland, which was formed by a great expert, the late Mr. Doyle, is one of the most interesting collections of pictures in the smaller capitals of Europe. The sum of over £20,000 has already been guaranteed by the Government towards the extension of the National Gallery of Ireland. The Government voted £10,000 last year for its extension, £9,000 for the same purpose is on the Estimates this year, and a further £3,000 is promised next year. I should have thought these facts were known to the hon. Member for North Louth.
MR. FLYNN: The noble Lord who has just sat down forgets that

1237
when this new thoroughfare was being made from Charing Cross to the northern portion of London that that was the time at which the Government ought to have done what they now propose to do.
LORD BALCARRES: This Bill is to deal with land in Trafalgar Square, nowhere near to the Charing Cross Road.
MR. FLYNN: My point is that it was not until there was considerable disturbance and alarm at South Kensington that the National Gallery authorities realised the defenceless position of the National Gallery. Then the owners of the adjacent land and property became aware that their property possessed an enhanced value. The whole thing could have been done when the county council were undertaking the widening of the road. The Government are doing this thing in the worst possible way, for they only realised that the National Gallery was in danger after this fact had obtained publicity, and after letters had appeared in The Times upon the subject, The value of the adjacent property has gone up enormously, because it is known that the Government will have to buy it. If the Minister in charge of this Bill will get up and explain exactly what the money is required for, a good deal of time will be saved, and the progress of the Bill will be facilitated. I think that the Government have shown a deplorable want of business tact in this matter.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, through no fault of their own, several hon. Members had fallen into an error with regard to the object of this Bill. The hon. Member who had just sat down did not appear to know that the widening of Charing Cross Road was carried out by the Metropolitan Board of Works at least twelve years ago, and it did not affect the side of the National Gallery dealt with by this proposal, because Charing Cross Road was on the north-east side. The reasons for bringing in this Bill were not due to any discovery which had been made by the South Kensington Committee, upon which he sat for nearly two years. It might interest Irish Members to know that the noble Lord opposite and himself had associated themselves with the claim
1238
of Irish Members that greater importance should be attached to the National Gallery in Dublin, and that a larger share of Imperial funds should be given to that particular part of the British Empire. The Bill had nothing to do with the transfer of the Irish gold ornaments from the British Museum to the National Gallery in Dublin. On the proper occasion he should not be indisposed to support the view that those ornaments should be so transferred, but the question was not now before the Committee. It would be a regrettable thing indeed if a fire did occur at the National Gallery, and probably in such an event Ireland would be the poorer by the number of pictures destroyed. The Government, as the custodians of the National Gallery, now came forward and declared that the existing conditions should continue no longer, but that the Gallery must be put in a state of "splendid isolation." It was proposed to run a 40-foot road from the north side of Trafalgar Square into St. Martin's Street. That would give complete isolation on that side, and allow the fire brigade free access from all points of the compass in case of an outbreak of fire. But better than fire extinction was fire prevention, and that would be achieved more effectually by this road running all round. He appealed to Irish Members not to delay the passage of the Bill. Many English Members were sympathetically inclined towards the contention of the Irish Members with regard to the gold ornaments, and were disposed to take the view that Ireland had been sadly neglected in regard to its museum and art gallery. On the proper occasion they would be willing to assist Irish Members in remedying that neglect, but any action in that direction would not be encouraged by such a reasonable project as that contained in this Bill being opposed. He believed the National Gallery to contain the finest collection of pictures in the world. He had visited nearly all the art galleries on the Continent of Europe, and, though some might have more masterpieces of certain schools, the National Gallery, taking it as a universal collection of art of all schools and countries, contained less rubbish than any similar gallery in the world.

1239
He hoped that some day certain of the best masterpieces would be sent on loan more frequently to other parts of the United Kingdom. The worst way to encourage lovers of art in Ireland or in England was to prevent this Bill from passing, or to subject, even for another twenty-four hours, the National Gallery to danger from fire.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid much had been made of the fact that last year Ireland got £10,000, and that this year she was to get another £10,000. But it was eighteen years since £90,000 was paid for a single picture on the distinct pledge that it should be shown round the three Kingdoms, and in that time the picture had not so much as crossed Trafalgar Square. In the Estimates of this year something like £200,000 was provided for art in England, Ireland receiving only £2,400, and Scotland £1,000 more. It was all very fine to say that the danger of fire from adjoining premises had suddenly been discovered. The National Gallery in Dublin was next door to a public house, and there was a dressmaker's shop on the other side, but that did not affect the consciences of English Members. Demands had been made for the last twenty years for an additional sum to be spent for the safety of the Irish art gallery and the purchase of a few more pictures, but those demands had been refused with contumely. He was a Philistine. He took no interest in London or in England. His interests were connected solely with his own country. He had no love for France, or Russia, or Germany, or the Philippine Islands. The Committee were told they must not press the inquiry as to the amount to be spent in this matter, as it would send up the price of the property. It would do nothing of the kind. The Bill was to put the Land Clauses Act into operation, and under that Act the matter would be settled by arbitration, and to say that an answer to that question would settle the standard of the award was absolutely absurd. The Irish Members were the representatives of the Irish taxpayers, and they had a right to know of how much the English were going to rob them over this matter. The hon. Member for Battersea had appealed to
1240
them on the ground of art. He personally had no art side. Ireland had no room for art; she was too poor. Potatoes and salt were her highest ideal, and she could manage to get along without a Murillo. But when she was asked to pay towards art for the English people she was entitled to ask for something in exchange.
MR. O'MARAsaid that, like the hon. Member for Battersea, he had visited many of the art galleries in Europe, and the conclusion he had come to was that the pictures on the walls of the National Gallery were a lot of rubbish. They were now asked to spend Imperial money to safeguard this collection at the National Gallery. He objected to spending Imperial money to which Ireland contributed for any particluar English purpose. He did not see what advantage his constituency would derive from the expenditure of this money, and Ireland had a right to benefit in some way by the expenditure of money for Imperial purposes authorised by this House. But even if those buildings were bought and an open space was made all round the National Gallery it would not do away with the risk of fire. He thought that the excellent fire brigades which London possessed were quite sufficient to safeguard the National Gallery from any risk of destruction by fire. This money authorised by the Bill before the House was to be spent to acquire land and buildings compulsorily. When the Irish Members asked for a compulsory Bill to acquire land in Ireland, those who sat on the Treasury Bench held up their hands with horror, and called it confiscation and interference with the rights of private property. He submitted that the compulsory buying of land in London was a dishonest means of acquiring the property of other people, and depriving shopkeepers of their means of livelihood. He was glad to hear from the noble Lord that £20,000 had been spent on the Irish National Gallery. The hon. Member for Battersea had asked them not to oppose this Bill, but he wished to know what benefit Ireland was going to get out of it. If a portion of the money they were voting was going to be spent in Ireland, then they would get some benefit from it

1241
It had been said that the people in Ireland had not got artistic souls—
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member must confine himself to the question of the acquisition of land in London.
MR. O'MARAsaid he would not proceed any further with that point, although other hon. Members had been permitted to discuss it.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: The debate has been allowed to go on for quite an hour on general lines.
MR. TULLYsaid he should support his hon. friend who had opposed this Bill. They had been asked to vote a large sum of money in the dark without any data being furnished to them. This was not the time to vote large sums of money for fads of this description. The Government were continually borrowing money for the war, and this was certainly not the time to vote large sums of money in order to gratify some nonsensical ideas about the National Gallery. The hon. Member for Battersea was rather menacing in his tone towards Irish Members if they dared to criticise this Vote. The hon. Member for Battersea was very glad to have Irish votes, and he did not know what some English Members would do without the votes of Irishmen. The hon. Member for Battersea said that the National Gallery was one of the finest art galleries in the world, and that, although he had seen most of the European art galleries, he had never seen anything to equal the National Gallery in London. He wondered if the hon. Member had ever been in the National Gallery in Amsterdam. It was said that the snail always thought that its own snail box was the grandest in the world, but he was not going to vote any money for this huge snail box in Trafalgar Square. The noble Lord opposite was a great authority on these matters, and he had told them that Ireland was to get £20,000 for the extension of the Irish National Gallery. He wished to point out that for the British Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, and the Wallace Collection Parliament voted something like £196,500
1242
per annum, while the paltry sum of £2,486 was the amount voted for the Irish National Gallery. There was no proportion whatever between these sums, and Ireland was not treated fairly in this matter. How was it that this danger of fire from adjoining premises had remained undiscovered until now? The time to have come forward with a proposal of this kind was when Charing Cross Road and Shaftesbury Avenue were being constructed. As to the compulsory purchase of land, he did not object to the principle, whether in England or in Ireland.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of discussing the clauses of the Bill later on.
MR. TULLYsaid the resolution was to authorise payments for the compulsory purchase of land.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I have allowed the hon. Member a considerable amount of latitude. This is merely a resolution empowering the Committee of the Whole House to put certain financial provisions into a Bill which is not now being discussed. I cannot allow the hon. Member to pursue that line of argument any further.
MR. TULLYcontended that no justification had been given for bringing forward such a proposal at the present time. The present state of affairs had been good enough for twenty years, and it might very well have been allowed to continue until the war in South Africa had been brought to a conclusion.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid it was to be regretted that the hon. Member for Battersea had concluded his speech with something in the nature of a threat to the Irish Members. The hon. Member had stated that if the Irish Members of posed this Bill, it might influence him and other English Members in the amount of support they would give to the endeavour to obtain justice to Ireland in regard to the gold ornaments.
MR. JOHN BURNSexplained that what he said was, that it might deter a number of Members who were sympathetic towards the Dublin Gallery from taking the course they otherwise would take.
MR. JOHN REDMONDthought he had not done the hon. Member any injustice. He regretted the nature of that portion of the hon. Member's remarks all the more because he agreed to a large extent with the remainder of his speech. No man who considered the matter impartially could blame the Irish Members for calling attention in the most marked way possible to the fact that while large sums were constantly being paid for art purposes in London, very small sums were voted for similar purposes in Ireland. In the matter of art, Ireland had not in the past received as much as she ought from the Imperial Exchequer. Holding that view very strongly, he thought his hon. friends were perfectly justified in raising and pressing the question as they had done. For himself, however, he did not intend to vote against the resolution. He did not agree with the view that Ireland had no concern in art. It was true that she was a poor country, that her art had been stunted and starved, but he took the view that the Irish people were essentially an artistic people, and that their country was interested in the preservation of art, and of great examples of art, not only in England, but in every country in the world. He did not believe it would be in accordance with the general sentiments of the Irish people to take any course which would militate against the preservation of works of art in the National Gallery in London. As an Irishman he should be sorry to give any vote which might be construed into an attempt to prolong a state of things in which that collection of art was endangered or threatened by fire. He, therefore, did not propose to vote against the resolution, and, if he might be allowed to express an opinion, he thought the protest which had been made against the small sums given for purposes of art in Ireland would have its effect, and that that effect would not be enhanced by taking a division on the subject.
MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid a plain question had been put to the right hon. Gentleman as to the amount of expenditure involved in this proposal, and he had expressed his willingness to give the information if pressed. On the occasion of the Public Offices (Sites) Bill the Irish Members opposed the passage of the measure. The estimate in that case was only about £300,000, but he now understood that that piece of legislation had cost nearer £5,000,000. In the face of that circumstance, he thought it would be a great mistake on the part of the Committee to pass the present resolution without some definite statement on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill proposed to acquire this land, the price of which was to be settled by arbitration, and therefore, he did not think any harm would be done by giving the House some idea as to the cost. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for South Kilkenny that they were providing no security against fire by removing those buildings. If they were to place a green field all round the National Gallery they would be liable to have a fire inside the gallery just the same. This was not a time to place additional burdens upon Ireland, more especially when Ireland got no extra contribution herself. The noble Lord opposite had stated that quite recently a sum of £20,000 had been voted for the National Gallery in Dublin. He did not think they would get a guarantee of fair treatment unless some responsible official of the Government gave them some promise of equivalent treatment to Ireland. He was disposed to divide against this Bill as a protest against passing legislation in the dark.
MR. O'MARAsaid they were not in the humour to be treated with contempt by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. His hon. friend had asked what was the amount of money which they were going to vote. They were being asked to vote an indefinite sum for a purpose in which they had no interest. Unless they were told the amount he should move that they report progress. He did not agree with the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. He agreed with him that the Irish were an artistic people, but he thought that the

1245
place for the Irish people to gratify their artistic instincts was in the Art Gallery at Dublin, and not in London. He could not see his way to vote for this money, and if the matter went to a division he should vote against it. He trusted that the First Commissioner of Works would see his way to state what was the probable amount which would be spent in purchasing this land.
MR. T. M. HEALY: We are subject in Ireland to the scandal that we have to maintain our Art Gallery by a system of annual bazaars, to which we are asked to take tickets at 5s. each. We have to maintain the Irish National Gallery in this way, whereas in England you vote tens of thousands of pounds for this purpose without giving us anything in the nature of an equivalent grant. I do not want to criticise what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. We have been denied the opportunity of discussing this matter in Supply, and therefore we have been obliged to take this opportunity of bringing the matter forward. We have failed to get the least consideration of our demands in regard to Ireland, and I am surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not thought it worth his while to come down to the House while this matter is under discussion. I think this is a fair opportunity of bringing this matter forward. Upon former occasions the Minister in charge has always been willing to state what is the exact amount of the money to be voted. I have in this House been voting money for the benefit of English art for the last twenty years, and I must confess that I can see no
improvement at all either in the art or in the manners of the British people. I think under these circumstances that we are quite justified in asking what advantage we shall get for voting these large sums of money. If you were French or Italian people who had shone in these matters you might reasonably appeal to us. I do not think that any case has been made out for the present Vote, and if the Government insist upon putting this matter forward, let them state the amount, and then we can move to reduce it by the extent to which Ireland is affected. I have looked over the Estimates, and I have failed to find the £10,000 which my noble friend opposite says is to be voted to the Irish National Gallery this year.
LORD BALCARRES: It comes under the building grants.
MR. T. M. HEALYthought they were entitled upon an occasion like this to the information they were asking for. They said that London was a great Imperial centre, that they must have their dockyards in England, and their cordite from Birmingham. Therefore, when they were dealing with art he thought they were entitled to say they ought to be more Catholic and less Protestant in their action towards Ireland, and give them a sum fairly proportionate to the amount you expend in England.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 170; Noes, 6. (Division List No. 348.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood,CaptSir.Alex.F.

Bond, Edward

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Brassey, Albert

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Ambrose, Robert

Brigg, John

Cranbourne, Viscount

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Ark wright, John Stanhope

Bullard, Sir Harry

Dalkeith, Earl of

Arnold Forster, Hugh O.

Burns, John

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Asher, Alexander

Butcher, John George

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Caldwell, James

Dickson, Charles Scott

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Duffy, William J.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

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

Duke, Henry Edward

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Charrington, Spencer

Edwards, Frank

Bignold, Arthur

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

Elibank, Master of

Boland, John

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Evans Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Farrell, James Patrick

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

Purvis, Robert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lawson, John Grant

Randles, John S.

Ffrench, Peter

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Redmond, William (Clare)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Reid, James (Greenock)

Finch, George H.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Ridley,S.Forde(Bethnal Green)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Rigg, Richard

Fisher, William Hayes

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

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

Russell, T. W.

Gardner, Ernest

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lucas Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

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

Lundon, W.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Smith,JamesParker(Lanarks.)

Gore,HnG.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop

Macdona, John Cumming

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

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

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Spear, John Ward

Goschen, Hon George Joachim

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur Ormskirk

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Stroyan, John

Gretton, John

Majendie, James A. H.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Malcolm, Ian

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hamilton,RtHnLordG(Midd'x

Manners, Lord Cecil

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

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Maxwell, WJH. (Dumfriesshire

Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robe rt Wm

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Valentia, Viscount

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Wason,JohnCathcart(Orkney)

Hayden, John Patrick

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh)

Webb, Colonel William George

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Morrell, George Herbert

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

Heath, James(Staffords.,N.W

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Hope, J. F.(Sheffild Brightside

Mount, William Arthur

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Hoult, Joseph

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Wills, Sir Frederick

Howard, John (KentFaversh.)

Murray,RtHnA.Graham(Bute

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

Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Joyce, Michael

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,Mid

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wyndham,Rt.Hon.George

Keswick, William

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

Lambert, George

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N)

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

O'Malley, William

Lawrence, Joseph(Monmouth)

Pretyman, Ernest George

NOES.

Clancy, John Joseph

Murphy, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Tully and Mr. O'Mara.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Kennedy, Patrick James

Sullivan, Donal

Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all Expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works under any Act of the present session for the acquisition of certain land, near the National Gallery in London, and for other purposes connected therewith.
Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
TROUT FISHING ANNUAL CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
BURIAL GROUNDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

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