Commons Sitting of 10 June 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  HUMBER COMMERCIAL RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  As amended, considered.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHURsaid he rose to move the omission from Clause 62 of words which put the risks of removal on the master or owner of a ship. The Bill was intended to authorise the construction of a dock and other works at Great Grimsby, on the banks of the Humber, the charging of dues for the use of the docks, the appointment of a dock master and other officials to regulate the movement of vessels in and out of the dock, and the making of by-laws under the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Act, 1847. Words appeared in the clause by which the dock company sought to exempt themselves from their common law liability for damage caused in the removal of ships by the acts of their servants. He thought that if the dock company's servants were guilty of any neglect or default in moving the vessel about the dock, the company ought to be held responsible for any damage thereby caused. The common law said that they were responsible, and he was not aware of any dock or harbour company which had sought thus to amend the common law in that respect. There were many ways in which a vessel might be injured through the neglect of the dock employees. It might be sent into a dock, for instance, where there was an insufficient depth of water, and it might ground on a mud bank or on rubbish or wreckage which had been allowed to accumulate there. It might, while it was in charge of officials of the dock, come into collision with another vessel. In all other ports in the United Kingdom the dock companies were held responsible for damage caused under such conditions, yet under this clause the owner or master of the ship was to be made responsible. This was entirely a new departure, and he believed an unintentional one on the part of the pro-
  1448
  moters. He could not understand how the clause crept into the Bill. It certainly was not there when it came up for Second Reading. He had been asked by the shipowners of the United Kingdom to move that these words be deleted, and he trusted that the promoters would consent to that being done. In that case there would be no further opposition to the Bill. He begged to move the omission of the words to which he had referred.
  MR. DOUGHTY: On behalf of the promoters of the Bill I desire to withdraw the words referred to.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  PRESTATYN WATER BILL [Lords] (BY ORDER.)
  Read a second time, and committed.

  HAMILTON BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER.)
  Under Section 7, Sub-section (2) of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [24th May], "That the clause (Water supply to public offices) proposed on consideration be read a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question again proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  Debate resumed—
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said that after consultation with the War Office he found there was no real necessity for the insertion of this clause, as the military authorities had a perfect right to insist on a supply of water to War Office buildings for domestic purposes. He therefore proposed to ask leave to withdraw it. As some discussion took place on the last occasion as to the desirability of allowing Amendments to be introduced at this stage, he would like to remind the House that when the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act was under considera-

  1449
  tion provision was specially introduced to allow Amendments to be introduced on consideration, as, unlike the practice in the other House, it was not possible to introduce them on the motion for the Third Reading.
  MR. BLAKEsaid the point raised on the last occasion was not so much the desirability of introducing Amendments on the consideration stage, but rather the importance of insisting that these matters should be threshed out at the local inquiry.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: There was no local inquiry in this case. It was an unopposed Bill. I quite agree that when there is a local inquiry these clauses should go before it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause withdrawn.
  Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—
Metropolitan District Railway Bill.
Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (Acton) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—
  Military Lands Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDI- TIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH.)
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, Viz.:—
  Metropolitan District Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  ALDEBURGH CORPORATION (WATER BILL.
    BURY CORPORATION BILL.
      GOLBORNE GAS BILL.
      Read the third time, and passed.
      LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAM WAYS AND STREET WIDENINGS) BILL.
      Duke of Cornwall's consent signified Bill read the third time, and passed.
  METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
    SHIREOAKS, LAUGHTON, AND MALTBY RAILWAY BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.
  CROMER WATER BILL.
    LONDON AND INDIA DOCKS (NEW WORKS) BILL.
      OAKHAM WATER BILL [Lords].
      As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

      SOUTHAMPTON AND WINCHESTER GREAT WESTERN JUNCTION RAIL- WAY BILL.
      As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
      Read a second time, and committed.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
      Read a second time, and committed.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
      Read a second time, and committed.
      OCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
      LOCAL GONERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (PORT) BILL.
      Read a second time, and committed.
      ARDROSSAN GAS AND WATER CONFIRMATION BILL (UNDER THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899).
      Read a second time; to be considered to-morrow.

  PETITIONS.
    BOROUGH FUNDS ACT (1872) AMEND- MENT (LONDON) BILL.
    Petition from Camberwell, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
    Petition from Westhoughton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    EDUCATION (CONTINUATION SCHOOLS) BILL.
    Petition from Leicester, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.
    Petition from Cardiff, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUA- TION SCHOOLS).
    Petition from Burradon, for alteration if Law; to lie upon the Table.
    LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
    Petition from Bradford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL
    Petition from Newark-on-Trent, against; to lie upon the Table.
    MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
    Petition from Westhoughton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    PROTECTION OF PRIVATE CAPITAL.
    Petition of E. E. Parkes Rhodes, for Legislation; to lie upon the Table.
    PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1897.
    Petition from Orkney, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL
    Petitions in favour; from Church Gresley; and Birmingham; to lie upon the Table.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
    Petitions against; from Bristol; Taunton; Wellington; North Bristol; Monksilver; Frome; Cheltenham; and Bath; to lie upon the Table.
    Petitions in favour; from Deptford; London; Ambleside; Orton; Sleaford (two); Kettering; Fulwell (two); Millfield; Hendon (five); Sunderland (sixteen); Aylesbury with Walton; Lamberhurst; Wadhurst; Tisbury; Edinburgh; Workington; Ramsgate; Portsmouth (three); Tottenham (two); Small Heath; Islington; Beeston; Brierley Hill (two); Allington; Midsomer Norton; Wolverhampton; Kirby Cane; and Wallasey; to lie upon the Table.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petitions in favour; from Orkney; Sandwick (two); St. Andrews and

    1453
    Deerness; Craig; Grange (two); Boharn; Dron; Ordiquhill; Ross and Cromarty; Botriphine; Arbroath and St. Vigeans; and Aberbrothock; to lie upon the Table.

    SHOPS BILL.
    Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
    Petitions against; from Buntingford; Abergavenny; Southwick; and Liverpool; to lie upon the Table.
    TIED HOUSES ABOLITION BILL.
    Petition from Aberbrothock, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    TROUT FISHING ANNUAL CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petition from Aberbrothock, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PARIS INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION, 1900 (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Commissioners appointed to advise respecting the procuring and transmission of British and Colonial products to the Paris Exhibition of 1900 (Vols. I and II.) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS)
  Copy presented, of Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary for the year ended 29th September, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 200.]
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Rules and Programme of Examinations for 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 199.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Order dividing the Urban County District of Strabane into Wards [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 7th June; Mr. Austen Chamberlain]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 201.]
  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ACT, 1897 (ASSOCIATIONS).
  Copy presented, of List of (1) Associations constituted under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897; (2) Associated Schools and Amounts of Aid Grant paid; and (3) Unassociated Schools and Amounts of Aid Grant paid, 1900–1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 13th May, 1901, approving certain Bye-laws made by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, with respect to the contribution to be made towards the Pilotage Funds of the Liverpool District by the Masters and Mates holding Pilotage Certificates [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCANTILE MARINE (COLOUR TESTS.)
  Copy presented, of Report on the Sight Tests used in the Mercantile Marine for the year ended 31st December, 1900 (in continuation of [C. 116]) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Transvaal Concessions Commission, dated the 19th April, 1901. Vol. II., Minutes of Evidence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Transvaal Concessions Commission, dated the 19th April, 1901. Vol. III., Appendix of Documents [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Land Settlement Commission, South Africa, dated 28th November, 1900. Vol. II., Documents, Minutes of Evidence, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  BOUNTIES ON SHIPBUILDING, ETC. (COMMERCIAL, No. 4, 1901).
  Copy presented, of Reports from His Majesty's Representatives Abroad re-

  1455
  specting Bounties on Shipbuilding, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2621 and 2622 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NEW WRIT.
  New Writ for the county of Warwick (South Western or Stratford-on-Avon Division), in the room of Colonel Victor Milward, deceased.—(Sir William Walrond.)
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—EMPLOY- MENT BY BOERS OF ARMED NATIVES.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any cases have come to his notice in which the Boers have employed natives for military purposes during the war; whether any cases have been reported in which Boers have flogged natives who they believed had given information to the British or otherwise assisted them; and whether any instances have transpired of natives being found in arms or of attempts having been made by the Boers to induce natives to take up arms against the British.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Yes, Sir. During the siege of Ladysmith the Boers employed armed natives on outpost duty at night. At the engagement of Vaal Krantz several Kaffirs fired on the British troops, and some were afterwards found on the ground killed or wounded. The systematic intimidation of natives by the Boers throughout the campaign has been notorious; as regards recent in stances several natives were officially reported to have been shot by the Boers in November last. In February J. J. de Jager was convicted at Harrismith of murdering three natives, and hanged his defence was that in one case he acted under orders, and that in the two other
  1456
  cases he believed the natives to be spies. Further, I need hardly remind the House of the terrible treatment of Abraham Esau at Calvinia, for which no reason was assigned except his pro-British sympathies.

  BADEN POWELL'S POLICE.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any, and, if any, what, evidence as to character has been required from candidates for Baden Powell's South African police.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): All candidates have been required to furnish at least two testimonials to character and to give the names of two references to respectability of character and fitness for service.

  FALSE INFORMATION FROM THE FRONT.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the outrageously false telegrams from South Africa recently sent through Reuter's and other agencies, and the absolute dearth for a long period of any detailed or reliable news of the war and the military situation in South Africa, he will undertake to allow correspondents to go to the front without reference to the politics of the journals they represent, and whether he will see that the censorship is used in future only for military objects, and not for the purpose of keeping the public in the dark as to the situation.
  MR. WEIR: At the same time may I ask whether, in view of Lord Kitchener's denial of the alleged defeat of Beyers's commando, the right hon. Gentleman will state how this telegram came to be passed by the censor, what steps will be taken to prevent correspondents at the seat of war from dispatching false information, and whether correspondents will be deprived of their permits when shown to have communicated false reports respecting operations in the field.
  MR. BRODRICK: Lord Kitchener is considering the circumstances in which the incorrect telegrams complained

  1457
  of have recently been sent. I will undertake that all such cases are suitably dealt with. I must point out that the censor is not responsible for the accuracy of the telegrams that pass through his hands, but he is responsible that nothing should be telegraphed to this country likely to give information to the enemy. As regards the general dearth of information about which the hon. Member asks, there has been no withholding of information from the House. It is obvious that the reports of the generals are necessarily summaries of the events that have taken place, and those summaries have been duly published. It is impossible for any general to allow a mass of correspondents to accompany the troops in order to represent newspapers of all descriptions. He can only allow a certain number.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to allow correspondents to go to the front irrespective of the politics of the journals they represent? It so happens that all the correspondents at the front represent only journals supporting the Government.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no knowledge of the politics of the journals represented by the correspondents at the front. The matter rests entirely with Lord Kitchener, who, I believe, is in complete ignorance of the politics of all journals.
  MR. WEIR: Seeing that the Secretary for War has been given a specific case in which the information sent to the newspapers has been false, I should like to ask whether he will take action without delay against the correspondent?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have not yet heard anything of the explanation of the correspondent, and I have told the House that Lord Kitchener will suitably deal with any such cases.
  MAJOR RASCH: I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of prosecuting the propagators of false news at home, such as Mr. Stead, particularly in connection with the letter stated to have been written by Lieutenant Morrison?
  MR. BRODRICK: I stated to the House a few days ago that all these false reports are highly discreditable to those who publish them.

  LINDLEY DISASTER.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary for War whether he can state what steps have been taken to ascertain the reason why the 10th Battalion of Imperial Yeomanry and other mounted troops, in all a force of 1,500 men with guns, which was informed on the 23rd May that Colonel Spragge's force was hard pressed at Lindley but could not hold out until Sunday, the 27th, never reached Lindley although it moved out of Kroonstadt on the 23rd, and the distance between Lindley and Kroonstadt is only forty miles; and whether any inquiry has been held; if so, what was the finding of the court.
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member has been misinformed as to the dates. On the 23rd May the 10th Battalion Imperial Yeomanry was at Zandfontein, fourteen miles west of Bothaville, and over fifty miles from Kroonstadt as the crow flies. No inquiry has been held, nor is any deemed necessary.
  MR. DILLON: But did not the force actually start and lose its way on the road?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not so informed. But the distance shows that it could not have reached Lindley in time in any case.

  FARM BURNING.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the policy and practice of burning farm buildings, mills, cottages, and other buildings in South Africa for military reasons has been discontinued; and, if so, at what date and on whose instructions; and whether he can supplement the figures given up to the end of January, 1901, in the Return laid before the House by the figures for any and each of the months since, during which this destruction may have been carried into effect.
  MR. BRODRICK: I informed the House some time ago that, except in

  1459

  cases of treachery and certain recognised military offences, farm houses would not be burned. Specific orders to this effect were given by Lord Kitchener on 7th December, 1900, and I have every reason to think they have been observed. I have no further information as to numbers, but I have requested Lord Kitchener to have a return prepared.
  MR. FLAVIN: May I ask whether houses have been burned indiscriminately, whether occupied or not?
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not think that can be the case. The Return will show the details.
  MR. FLAVIN: May I inform the right hon. Gentlemans—(cries of "Order.")
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot impart information by way of a question.
  MR. FLAVIN: May I ask whether it is a fact that vacant houses have been burned by the British authorities?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That has been answered.
  MR. FLAVIN: I have it on the statement of one of the Volunteers who burned the houses down.

  DISCHARGE OF RETURNED VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. RENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the dissatisfaction which exists amongst Volunteers who have recently returned to this country after having been on active service in South Africa with their line battalions for over twelve months, owing to their having been discharged with seven days furlough and pay, counting from date of arrival, instead of twenty-eight days furlough and pay which they expected to receive, whether arrangements can now be made to grant the extra furlough and pay.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): The question is under consideration.

  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY PAY CLAIMS.
  COLONEL BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that, owing to the battalions of Imperial Yeomanry in South Africa being broken up and the companies scattered, there has been much irregularity in the rendering of proper pay lists and in settling the claims of individual non-commissioned officers and men who have returned home, some of them in credit for considerable sums of money, which, through being out of communication with their companies, they are unable to obtain; and whether any steps are being taken to expedite and facilitate an early adjustment of claims of this description.
  LORD STANLEY: Men returning from South Africa without statements of accounts are treated as follows:—Firstly, they are taken on pay from the date of embarkation; secondly, they are granted in respect of any arrears of pay they may claim a provisional payment of £5 or thirty days pay and messing allowance, whichever is the greater, or if they can show any proof beyond their own bare statement of the sum due to them, they are granted four-fifths of the amount which appears to be due to them. Constant reminders are sent to South Africa to expedite the transmission of accounts. I know the hon. Member appreciates the difficulties the authorities are under, and I think he and the House will agree with me that more cannot be expected to be done at present.

  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS AND ARMY RANK.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, seeing that officers of embodied Militia and the City Imperial Volunteers have been granted honorary rank in the Army on being disembodied and disbanded, whether a similar indulgence could be granted to those Volunteer officers who have served with the Volunteer service companies.
  MR. BRODRICK: It has already been decided that Volunteer officers who have

  1461
  served in South Africa shall be granted honorary rank in the Army.

  IRISH VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that some corps of Volunteers composed of Irish youths have for some time past been drilled in Portobello and other barracks in Dublin, and that these Volunteers are attached to English Volunteer regiments; can he state to what religious denomination they belong, and, seeing that the raising and training of Volunteers in Ireland is illegal, out of what fund the expenses are defrayed.
  LORD STANLEY: Certain individuals, not corps, of Volunteers are allowed to drill with Regulars in Dublin, but their drills do not count towards efficiency; no expense is, therefore, incurred by the public, and no illegality is committed. No information is to hand as to the religion of these individuals.
  MR. NANNETTI: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police issue gun licences to these youths?
  LORD STANLEY: I know nothing about it.
  MR. NANNETTI: I shall put a further question.

  MILITIA COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state on what date the Militia competitive examination will take place; how many commissions will be offered, and in what branches; whether marks for service will be allowed; and when the regulations will be published.
  LORD STANLEY: Full information in regard to the Militia competitive examination was published on Saturday evening.

  CRETAN CAMPAIGN MEDAL.
  MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now
  1462
  prepared to recommend His Majesty to allow those officers, non-commissioned officers, and men who served in the last Cretan campaign to wear the medal granted by Prince George of Greece for that campaign, and which is already worn by the troops of other European Powers which were engaged in the same operations.
  MR. BRODRICK: This question has been carefully considered, and it was decided that there should be no Cretan medal. I am not, therefore, prepared to reopen it. I think my honourable friend is in error in thinking that the troops of other Powers are wearing the medal.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state whether there is any negotiation proceeding between Newfoundland and the United States with a view to renewing the Bond-Blaine Convention, or to signing any similar treaty.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE, Rochester): His Majesty's Government are not aware of any such negotiations.

  CHINA—BRITISH TRADE IN THE YANG-TSZE VALLEY.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Director General of the Hamburg-American Steamship Company has recently stated that a development of trade may confidently be expected in the Yang-tsze Valley, and that the Hamburg-American Company were co-operating with the North German Lloyd Company in the establishment of a line of steamers which would carry the German flag as far up the Yang-tsze as the river was navigable; and whether he is aware that the Hamburg-American line has further arranged for a regular service of steamers between Tsing-tan, and Chifu, and Tientsin; and whether, having regard to these developments, the Government are taking all practicable steps to secure

  1463
  the present dominant commercial position of Great Britain in these regions.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: In answer to the first paragraph of the question, we have no information to the effect mentioned. With regard to the second paragraph, for the maintenance of the commercial position of Great Britain in the regions referred to as everywhere else, we must rely upon the enterprise and energy of our traders, but His Majesty's Government will do all in their power to secure for them a fair opportunity, so far as the general principles of our fiscal policy permit.

  DISTURBANCES BETWEEN ENGLISH AND FRENCH TROOPS AT TIENTSIN.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make a statement with reference to the collision which took place at Tientsin on the 2nd instant between British troops and those of the French and German contingents stationed there.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): General Gaselee reported to me on the 8th instant, that the only information available, pending the receipt of proceedings of the Court of Inquiry then sitting, was as follows—
  "Riot originated with French soldiers who resented the closing of a disorderly house by our military police. Casualties: British soldiers, five wounded; French, three killed and four wounded; Germans, three wounded; Japanese, two wounded."
  The day following General Gaselee telegraphed that the Court of Inquiry proved that the police acted with commendable forbearance, and only fired on mob when compelled to do so in self-defence; that large numbers of soldiers joined the French, but that the German police behaved well, assisting our police by endeavouring to get their own men to disperse. Valuable support was also given by the Japanese guard. General Gaselee also states that all is now quiet.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: May I ask for an answer to a question of which I have given private notice?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I think the hon. Member's question refers to a re-
  1464
  ported disturbance which is said to have taken place subsequently. General Gaselee's second telegram was sent two days after that date, and no mention is made of it. Therefore I telegraphed to General Gaselee to ask if the report was true, and if it were true to send me particulars.

  LABOUR ORDINANCE ON THE GOLD COAST.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Master and Servant Ordinance on the Gold Coast of 1893 which has just been published is still in force; and, if so, whether he can see his way to cause it to be amended so that payment of wages in kind, the apprenticeship of children of nine years of age, flogging, and the option of striking out the clause which secures schooling for the apprentice till he has passed the fourth standard should be prohibited, and clauses inserted to secure the prevention of ill treatment or sweating by overwork of young persons apprenticed under the Ordinance.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Ordinance is still in force. The Governor will be consulted with regard to the other matters referred to in the hon. Member's question.

  DUTIES ON GLUCOSE.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, since the Budget announcement, glucose made in Great Britain has not yielded any Excise duty, while the Customs duty of 1s. 8d. has been imposed on all quantities imported from abroad; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps to correct this inequality.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I will deal with that in Committee of Ways and Means.

  CITY OF LONDON COMMISSIONER OF POLICE.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Commissioner of Police for the City of London is responsible to the Home Secretary for the due discharge of his

  1465
  duty, or does he act independently of the Home Office and of the City authorities.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): Certain regulations made by the Commissioner are subject to the Secretary of State's approval, but speaking generally the Commissioner of the City of London Police acts altogether independently of the Home Office, but subject to the control of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen.
  In reply to a further question by Colonel LOCKWOOD, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that this was a very ancient state of things.

  BOY RECRUITS FROM INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that on Monday, the 3rd instant, a man appeared before the magistrate in the South Western Court and complained that his two sons, on the completion of their time in an industrial school, had been drafted into the Army without his knowledge or consent, and that he wished to bring them up to his own trade; whether he can state upon whose order the boys have been transferred from the industrial school to the Army, in what regiment have they been enrolled, and what are their respective ages.
  MR. RITCHIE: The boys referred to enlisted from the school, with their own consent, at the ages of 14½ and 15½ respectively, in the band of the 4th Battalion Worcestershire Regiment. This was done under the powers conferred upon the managers of the school by Section 1 of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Act, 1891. I find that the father has never contributed anything towards the maintenance of the boys in the school, in spite of proceedings taken against him; and I am of opinion that he has no claims to consideration, and that the enlistment is in the best interests of the boys.

  LONDON WATER CHARGES.
  MR. FORDE RIDLEY: I beg to ask the President of the
  1466
  Local Government Board whether, in the event of the purchase of the London water companies under his proposed Bill, he will take steps to prevent the continuance of the system under which an increased rent for the use of water is charged on those houses where the rates have been increased under the quinquennial re-assessments, although no increased supply nor any alteration whatever in the supply may have taken place.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I am afraid I could not give any undertaking at the present time with regard to the subject referred to by my hon. friend.

  THE WRECK OF THE "ASSYRIAN."
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in connection with the recent wreck of the Layland liner at Cape Race, he has any official information to the effect that the crew of the steamer was composed almost entirely of Germans, and that they fell into a state of panic when the vessel went on the rocks; and whether he proposes to cause inquiry to be made into this matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The crew of the "Assyrian" on her last voyage, which commenced at Antwerp, consisted of thirty-five persons, of whom twenty-six (including nine Germans) were foreigners. On previous voyages, commencing in the United Kingdom, her crew consisted of thirty-one or thirty-two persons, mostly of British nationality. I have no official report of the behaviour of the crew when the steamer went ashore, but the circumstances of the case will certainly form the subject of inquiry, either in the colony or in this country.

  MALLAIG MAILS.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state what additional expenditure it would be necessary to incur in order to secure a steamer from Mallaig to convey His Majesty's mails to the outlying islands via the West Coast of Skye.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Postmaster General is unable to say what would be the additional expenditure involved in providing a mail steamer from Mallaig to the outlying islands via the West Coast of Skye. The increased expense, however, would certainly be considerable; and in view of the very high cost of the existing service, the Postmaster General would not be justified in recommending additional outlay for postal purposes.

  VENTILATION OF THE DIVISION LOBBIES.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will state who is responsible for putting the electric torpedo ventilators into the division lobbies without providing the usual means for stopping them by means of a button if the draught produced causes annoyance to those having to sit under them, and, if the defect can be remedied.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The electric motor fans in the division lobbies have been fixed by my direction. They are constructed so as to be controlled by the officials who attend to the ventilation of the building, and it would, in my opinion, be undesirable to alter that arrangement. They have been found very effective in removing vitiated air, without, so far as I am aware, any general complaint of draughts attending their use; on the contrary, I have been congratulated by hon. Members upon the great improvement resulting from their introduction. However, I shall be happy to confer with my hon. and gallant friend in the hope of alleviating the inconvenience he feels.

  CHARITY COMMISSION INQUIRIES.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether the Charity Commissioners have initiated a re-survey of the charities of England and Wales, or are making any inquiries with a view to compile a list of the existing charities, and, if so,
  1468
  how is the necessary information being obtained, and especially in South Wilts.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN,): Since 1890 reports upon the charities of the following counties of England and Wales have been completed: Anglesey, Carnarvon, Denbigh, Flint, Merioneth, Carmarthen, Glamorgan, Yorks, W. R., London (exclusive of the City of London). Inquiries are being conducted into the charities in the following counties: Montgomery, Durham, Lancashire, and Wilts and in the City of London. The information in each case is obtained by an inquiry on the spot, and an examination of documents by an Assistant Commissioner, and such an inquiry by Mr. Cardew is proceeding in Wiltshire.

  EARL OF KENMARE AND POLICE PROTECTION.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a member of the Irish police force has been constantly engaged at Killarney House, the Earl of Kenmare's residence, for a number of years past, and that this policeman always appears in civilian dress, and is mostly engaged in attending the flower beds around the house, and other similar duties; whether he can state the sum paid in salary and allowances to this constable during the years he has been at Killarney House; and whether he will give instructions to have this policeman withdrawn for the performance of other duties, in view of the crimelessness of the district.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): There is no foundation for the statement that the constable employed on the duty of affording protection at the residence of Lord Kenmare is or has been engaged in the manner alleged. The constable has been paid at the ordinary rates, and his employment entails no charge on the district or county. The question of the necessity of continuing this special protection is one for determination by the local responsible officers, with whose discretion I cannot interfere.
  MR. FLAVIN: What is the necessity for the protection of Lord Kenmare?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not enter on arguments.

  HERBERT ESTATE (KERRY) CONFERENCE
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain the sending of two policemen on bicycles from Beaufort, county Kerry, to Lahard, county Kerry, to attend a conference of tenants on the Herbert Estate recently, which conference was held to discuss the question of purchasing the sporting rights of their farms.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No directions were given to the police to be present at this conference. They attended on their own initiative.

  CORK DAIRY INDUSTRY.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state the decision arrived at by the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Board with regard to improving the dairy industry in county Cork and other counties by making advances to farmers, in the form of loans, for the purpose of assisting them to purchase hand-separators.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Vice-President of the Department fully explained at the recent meeting of the Agricultural Council the objections to making loans to individuals for purposes such as those suggested in the question. If, however, with or without the assistance of a local authority, associations of farmers approach the Department with any scheme of agricultural loans embodying satisfactory security and provision for punctual repayment, Such scheme will be duly considered.

  IRISH LUNACY ADMINISTRATION.
  MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the council of a county which, with one or
  1470
  more other counties, forms a lunatic asylum district may, in the absence of consent or co-operation on the part of the councils of such counties, avail itself of Section 76 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, to provide within its own jurisdiction an auxiliary lunatic asylum for the reception of chronic lunatics, not dangerous to themselves or others, and who are now, or may be, chargeable to that county, whether as inmates of workhouses or of the district lunatic asylum; and whether such an auxiliary lunatic asylum would be managed by the council of the county establishing it independently of the joint committee of the lunatic asylum district comprising that county.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Government has been advised that the council of one of the counties comprising an asylum district could not avail itself of the provisions of Section 76 of the Act of 1898, in the absence of the consent and co-operation of the other counties comprised in the district.

  GUN LICENCES IN COUNTY MAYO.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds a gun licence was refused to Patrick Masterson, of Doneagee, Achill Sound, County Mayo, seeing that Masterson, in his application, stated that he was a bootmaker, and required the gun for the purpose of killing seals, out of whose skins he could make slippers, which would be a source of income to him, and also that he was a landholder, and required the gun for the purpose of killing crows and other birds which were injurious to his crops.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In rejecting this man's application for a gun licence the licensing officer acted in the exercise of the discretion vested in him by law. It would be contrary to practice to disclose the reasons upon which this decision was based.

  MALLARANNY CATTLE MARKET.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. R. Stoney, of Rosturk Castle, County

  1471
  Mayo, collects tolls and customs in the village of Mallaranny, County Mayo, and that there is no weighing machine in the village; can he state whether Mr. Stoney is entitled to collect tolls and customs, and, if so, whether he is bound to provide a weighing machine.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. Mr. Stoney is entitled, I am informed, to collect tolls for cattle at this market. By an Order made under Section 2 of the Markets and Fairs Act of 1891 the market authority is exempted for a period of three years, from the 1st October last, from the necessity of providing a weighing machine at Mallaranny.

  NEWPORT (COUNTY MAYO) POLICE.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many policemen are stationed at Newport, county Mayo; how many of them are Roman Catholics; what is the religion of the district inspector, and also of the resident magistrate of the district.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The answers to the first two queries are thirteen and eleven. The district inspector is a Protestant, as also is the resident magistrate who attends Newport Petty Sessions. The resident magistrate who attends the other sessions in the district is a Roman Catholic.

  TULLAMORE QUARTER SESSIONS JUDGE.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the proceedings in connection with a case of alleged larceny at the last Tullamore Quarter Sessions, in which County Court Judge Curran discharged the jury without permitting them to consider their verdict, and fined one of them £10, sending the prisoner to trial at the assizes; and, seeing that this juror had merely called attention to the lack of direct evidence, and that thereupon the county court judge commented adversely on his remarks, and inflicted the fine, without giving an opportunity of explanation, whether he
  1472
  will have an inquiry made into this matter with the view to having this fine remitted.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no right to call upon the judge to explain how he performed his dutes. I may, however, mention that no fine whatever was imposed on any juror, and the prisoner was not sent for trial to the assizes; on the contrary, his trial was adjourned to the next quarter sessions, and he himself was admitted to bail.
  MR. REDDY: I was in court when the juryman was fined, so I was not misinformed.

  LIMERICK RURAL POSTMAN'S GRIEVANCES.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state why, on the changing of the route of Thomas Liston, rural postman in the districts of Kilmihill, Ballynoe, and Ballyneale, in the county of Limerick, in May, 1900, his usual weekly salary was reduced from 12s. 6d. to 8s. 6d. for no breach of discipline or lack of duty; is he aware that the mileage has not been decreased by the change, but that additional work is the outcome, a house to house collection being now made; that owing to this change Liston was unable to attend Divine worship in Ballingarry on Sundays; and that, on investigation by the officials after a period of ten months, a helper was appointed on Sundays, but Liston's weekly salary still further reduced, and whether this man will be compensated for the reduction in his salary after seven years of service.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is the fact, as stated by the hon. Member, that on the revision of Thomas Liston's duty last year his pay was reduced. Under the re-arrangement Liston's walk was extended, but his hours of duty were curtailed, as he now reaches home shortly after 10 a.m. instead of at 7.40 p.m. as formerly. The pay was, however, fixed somewhat below scale, and instructions have now been given for paying him the balance at the scale rate from the date of the alteration. A further extension of the duty has now been authorised,

  1473
  and in future the pay will be 2s. 6d. a week higher than it is at present. With regard to the Sunday delivery, it is the case that to enable the man to attend Divine service the duty has been reduced, but it has now been decided to maintain the former payment for Sunday work.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the man's wages be raised to the old scale?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

  COMMITTEE ON WAR OFFICE ORGANI- SATION—DISCUSSION OF REPORT.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing the importance of the recently published Report upon the War Office, coupled with the fact that its publication immediately followed the passage of the Vote upon which it might have been discussed, he will say whether any opportunity will be afforded of considering the Report during the present session.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am afraid I can give no pledge to the hon. Gentleman as to placing any time at the disposal of the House for the discussion of this Report.
  MR. MATHER: As a member of the War Office Organisation Committee may I ask whether, having regard to the instruction given by the Secretary of State for War when it entered on its inquiry that the subject was one of great importance and great urgency, the right hon. Gentleman will make some arrangement for the Report to be discussed in the House of Commons, provided it is necessary that such a course should be adopted, before the Secretary of State puts the scheme embodied in the Report into operation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree that it would be a very unfortunate thing if the absence of discussion in this House were to hamper the Secretary of State in acting upon the Report, but that I can assure him is not the case. My right hon. friend is considering the Report at
  1474
  present, and I conceive he would not delay any action he thought fit to take on the ground that the Report had not been discussed in this House.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, seeing that the Report will change the entire military system of the country, he will not consider it advisable to give the House one day other than the days allotted to Supply for the consideration of this question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Report suggests an entire reconstruction of the British Army.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON LOCAL TAXATION—REPORT.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation will be presented.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe the Report is in the hands of the printer, and I hope it will be issued to the public in the course of next week.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. LOUGH: Is it the intention of the Government to take the Loan Bill to-night, No. 19 on the Paper? And will the right hon. Gentleman consent to take Report of the Post Office Vote at a time which will allow of a little further discussion, in view of the inadequate debate we had on Friday on a question which excites such general interest?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I had hoped that it would be possible to take the Loan Bill, but inquiry shows it will not. As to the second question, I think I may venture to point out respectfully to the House that in proportion to its interest we have already discussed this Vote quite adequately, and I do not see how I can in any way meet the desire which the hon. Gentleman has expressed. Perhaps, as I am on my legs, I may explain to the House that I do not propose to move my motion to-morrow precisely in the form in which it appears on the Paper to-day. As it now stands I propose to

  1475
  except the three next Wednesdays from its operation. I propose to give the 26th instant to the discussion of private Members' Bills, but I do not propose to leave it altogether in the hands of hon. Members. I think the Government should retain the power of controlling the order of business on that day, and my resolution will be altered accordingly.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: What will be the other business to-morrow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Factories Bill.
  MR. GODDARD: What will be the Supply taken on Friday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will give that information to-morrow. Probably we shall devote Thursday as well as Friday to Supply.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

MOLASSES AND GLUCOSE.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The Committee will remember that in the Budget resolutions as now embodied in the Finance Bill it was proposed to impose a duty of 2s. per cwt. on molasses and all sugar and extracts from sugar that cannot be tested by the polariscope, and 1s. 8d. per cwt. on glucose. Well, since those resolutions were passed we have been able, of course, to investigate the nature and quality of the articles comprised under those two heads much more exhaustively than was possible before the resolutions were proposed; and I am quite satisfied that the duties imposed by these resolutions on molasses and glucose were not sufficient to guard the sugar revenue, and were not fair to manufacturers here with reference to certain kinds of molasses and glucose, while, on the other hand, they were too high with regard to unexhausted molasses. Among the extracts of sugar which are classed together with molasses in the Bill as it now stands are invert sugar and
1476
other kinds of extracts which contain as much as 80 per cent., I think, of sweetening matter, and which are not at all by-products of raw sugar, as are molasses, but are obtained from raw sugar of a high quality, polarising at from 90 deg. to 93 deg., which would itself pay a duty of 3s. 1d. to 3s. 2d. Therefore it is clear, I think, that to impose a duty of not more than 2s. a cwt. upon articles of that class would result in a very considerable loss to the Revenue, and would also place the foreign producer of such articles in a position of preference to the extent of something like 9d. per cwt., as compared with the manufacturer of such articles here. On the other hand, there is a kind of molasses of very poor quality, largely exhausted in the process of manufacture, which contains a comparatively small amount of sweetening matter, and is used to the extent of 20,000 or 30,000 tons a year for cattle feeding, and also to some extent in the manufacture of blacking, dyes, and other articles. Two shillings per cwt. was too high a rate for any article of that sort. The matter has been brought under my notice from both Scotland and Liverpool, which are interested in these imports. Therefore, in place of the duty on molasses as now proposed in the Finance Bill, I propose that molasses and all sugar and extracts from sugar which cannot be tested by the polariscope, if containing 70 per cent. or more of sweetening matter, shall pay 2s. 9d. per cwt.; if containing less than 70 per cent. and more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter, 2s. per cwt., as at present in the Bill. That relates, I think, to certain syrups which are largely consumed by the poorer classes. If containing not more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter, 1s. per cwt. only.
With regard to glucose, also, it is necessary to make an alterations The duty of 1s. 8d. on glucose was based on the assumption that glucose contained about 40 per cent. of sweetening matter. We have ascertained that there are two kinds of glucose, one of which, the solid glucose, contains a very much larger amount of sweetening matter than that. It is largely used for brewing purposes, and it is equal in sweetening power to something like 80 per cent. of sugar; and, therefore, solid glucose ought to pay a corresponding duty of about. 2s. 9d.

1477
Liquid glucose has a higher sweetening power than I supposed, varying from 45 to 55 per cent., and therefore I think the duty on that should be 2s. instead of 1s. 8d., as proposed in the Bill. I may say that we have had practical proof that the glucose duty as it now stands in the Finance Bill is insufficient to guard the sugar revenue, because, since the duty was enacted, it is a very remarkable fact that the import of glucose from abroad has been of a much higher sweetening power than that which was formerly sent into this country, so that it is perfectly obvious that it is competing unfairly in the market with sugar. I propose that these duties should commence from to-morrow, and that a similar Excise duty should be levied on molasses and glucose, to take effect also from to-morrow. When the duties on molasses and glucose were originally proposed, it was impossible to propose that the Excise duty should come into force on the same day as the Customs duty, because, as the Committee are aware, in order to levy an Excise duty it is necessary to make arrangements for the manner in which it shall be levied. This can only be done after careful communication with the manufacturers of the article on which the duty is to be levied. That could not take place before the introduction of the Budget; but the matter has now been entirely arranged, and the Inland Revenue authorities inform me that they are prepared to levy the Excise duty on glucose and molasses as from to-morrow, so that both the manufacturers here and abroad will be from that day placed on precisely the same footing. I trust the Committee will be willing to make these alterations in the resolutions, which are, of course, only preliminary to my proposing Amendments to the Finance Bill In order to carry them into effect.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That there shall be charged on and after the eleventh day of June nineteen hundred and one the following Customs duties:—
Molasses and all sugar and extracts from sugar which cannot be tested by the polariscope—

If containing 70 per cent. or more of sweetening matter the cwt.

s.

d.

2

9

1478

If containing less than 70 per cent. and more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter

the cwt.

2

0

If containing not more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter

the cwt.

1

0

Glucose:

Solid

the cwt.

2

9

Liquid

the cwt.

2

0

And that there shall be charged on and after the same date on glucose Excise duties equivalent to the Customs duties charged on that article."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MR. LOUGHsaid he thought the House ought to give a little attention to the action which was now being taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To his mind the proposals of the Finance Bill had not received the consideration which they ought to have done. They were witnessing that afternoon what he might call the first scene in the new drama of Protection which had been set up in this country. They had a graduated scheme under which these new duties were established. It was a subtle scheme of Protection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that there was no opportunity before the Budget was introduced of inquiry as to the imposition of the Excise duty now proposed but he maintained that they were driven into the difficulties which had necessitated these alterations, because they had accepted the principle of a graduated duty. He believed that it was not until after the introduction of the Budget that the idea of an Excise duty cropped up. He saw no reason, if they were to have one, why it should not have been enforced ever since the 19th April.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have explained that it was impossible to arrange the details before.
MR. LOUGHsaid he desired to call attention to the inconvenience which had been inflicted on a very important trade for two or three months, and which he believed would fall upon the general public in consequence of the complicated system which it had taken the Treasury so long to incubate. He

1479
would like to make an appeal to the leaders of the party to which he belonged to be warned by what was going on that afternoon, and to take a little more interest in the matter. He regretted exceedingly that there was no one on the Front Opposition Bench to say one word of protest against the system which the Chancellor of the Exchequer embodied in the Budget and which he had enlarged that evening. The right hon. Gentlemen the Members for East Wolverhampton, West Monmouth, East Fife, and Montrose Burghs had all given the sugar duty away. The one crumb of comfort he had got was that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had not committed himself yet. That was the right hon. Gentleman's great virtue. He waited, with regard to these complicated matters, until he saw the whole plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer unfolded. They had been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton that Mr. Gladstone and Sir George Cornewall Lewis had both imposed a sugar duty. But the circumstances were not altogether analogous. It was a terrible thing for this country, after twenty-five years of freedom from a duty of this nature, to have it reimposed, especially under the complicated conditions now suggested, conditions which, in view of the enormous consumption of the article taxed, must cause great inconvenience. Mr. Gladstone and Sir George Cornewall Lewis had not had to act after a period of twenty-five years freedom from the duty; they only varied it, in fact, and he therefore appealed to the Leader of the Opposition, who, as he had pointed out, had not yet committed himself, to closely watch the proceedings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There were great issues involved which must inevitably lead to considerable discussion.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that, as he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal, the effect was to put glucose on the same footing as sugar.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that, in that case, the right hon. Gentleman's
1480
resolution was a very proper one. But it appeared to him that an element was being introduced as a subject of taxation which was not proposed to be taxed by the Finance Bill. That was sweetening matter. He would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he meant by sweetening matter, and how the amount of sweetening; matter was to be ascertained. He wished it to be understood that he was not complaining of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that in the Finance Bill, as it now stood, under the head of "molasses" other articles were included in the words "and all sugar and extracts from sugar which cannot be tested by the polariscope." The polariscope could not be applied to these articles, and they were grouped together as one thing, so that a certain duty might be levied upon them. It had been discovered that they varied very much in their sweetening matter, and obviously it was necessary to make a difference between them in order to protect the sugar revenue.
MR. DILLONsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had now proposed a radical change in the resolution which was formerly brought forward. He had announced that if the Bill were passed in the shape in which it was drafted, they would be unwittingly putting on a large protective duty with regard to glucose and certain forms of molasses. That was a very good illustration of the effect of putting a tax on an article which entered largely into the manufactures of the country. If, when the Government brought in the Bill, the two or three Members on the Opposition side of the House who had taken an interest in the question had brought Forward the theory which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now stated, they would have been laughed at. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not made this proposal now the result would have been that a protective measure would have been passed without perhaps more than ten Members knowing what was being done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them now that the resolution would prevent this being a protective measure.

1481
How were they to know that? They had simply the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement. How many members of the Committee were in a position to say that they understood what was meant by Copeland's test, by which it was proposed to ascertain the amount of sweetening matter in sugar and molasses? They were going blindly in this matter on the word of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who admitted that he did not understand the subject. Unless the right hon. Gentleman was able to give a fuller explanation of the method by which the sweetening power of those various substances was to be tested, it was preposterous to ask the House of Commons to pass a measure which might be a protective measure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had at this stage introduced for the first time the expression "sweetening matter." What was sweetening matter? The Committee had received no definition. It was not sugar, and if the right hon. Gentleman meant the power of certain articles to impart sweetness, then he ought to draw a distinction between beetroot sugar and cane sugar. Cane sugar had greater sweetening power than an equal quantity of beetroot sugar. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had drafted and introduced the Finance Bill in blank ignorance as to the relative sweetening powers of liquid and solid glucose. What difficulty was there in getting that information as to the difference earlier from the chemists or experts on whose advice he relied? He must have had at his command confidential men at Somerset House, who could have told him the difference between liquid and solid glucose. The hon. Member did not see the slightest ground for the position taken up now by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing that he was in a position to make inquiry and to get the information before he introduced the resolution. Surely it was not beyond the ingenuity of modern chemists to liquefy solid glucose, and if that were done the whole structure of the new financial resolution would be knocked on the head. He thought it was the most extraordinary doctrine ever introduced in the House of Commons that a most complicated financial provision
1482
should be based on the assumption that the present relations between the sweetening powers of solid and liquid glucose would remain unchanged. This was only a proof of the vicious character of the tax. An extraordinary revolution was being introduced in the financial system of the country. He had watched with amazement the docility with which the House of Commons had accepted this extraordinary change. It was a tax, in his opinion, which combined in itself every possible objection to a tax. It was a tax on an essential and most valuable article of the food of the people. Already the price of blacking and biscuits had been raised. He was informed that Huntley and Palmer had raised the price of their biscuits, and even of those which contained no sugar at all. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed, but that was a fact. Peek, Frean, and Company had sent out a circular stating that they had been compelled to raise the price of all their biscuits without reference to the question whether they contained sugar or not. The tax would be very costly to levy, and it would be impossible, at least for several years, to be quite certain whether or not it was discriminating against the manufacturers of this country and in favour of manufacturers abroad. It was a tax which sinned against all the great canons by which the financiers of the last fifty years had been guided in bringing the finance of this country to a state of perfection which had made it the envy of every expert throughout the world. On these grounds he would resist the tax at every possible stage.
MR. CHAPLINsaid the hon. Member for East Mayo had charged the Chancellor of the Exchequer with desiring to impose a graded duty on sugar. It appeared to him that the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to place glucose and sugar of different qualities upon an entirely equal footing so far as he could. It was impossible for obvious reasons that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make exhaustive inquiries into this subject before bringing forward the proposal. If, of course, the right hon. Gentleman had made such inquiries everybody would have known what one of the principal

1483
features of the Budget was to be before the time came for explaining it. The hon. Member for East Mayo complained that he did not understand all the details of the chemical tests on this question. How many Members would be able to understand them unless they had some special chemical education? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had at his command the advice of able and experienced experts, and he had taken their opinion. It was no doubt on their advice that the changes he now proposed were made. The hon. Member for East Mayo wanted to know how many Members of the House of Commons had even the beginnings of an understanding of the question, and went on to say that he did not believe half a dozen did. He thought the hon. Member was perfectly right, and that the hon. Member himself could not be included in the number. The inference he drew from the statement was, what a blessing it would be if a few Members could recognise their want of information on certain subjects, and that they were not qualified, although ready, to talk on all possible occasions. After all, the speech of the hon. Member was an attack more than anything else on the sugar duty branch of the Budget; but whether it was right or wrong to impose a duty on sugar, at any rate that duty had already been agreed to by the House.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The objects proposed by the right hon. Gentleman are of an exceedingly technical and complicated character, and he will not expect, I am sure, the ordinary Member of Parliament to be able either to follow exactly what he said or to appreciate the rights and the wrongs of any question which might be raised in the matter. All I can say is that it will be the duty of us all to get such information as we can as to the general effect of the duty which the right hon. Gentleman proposes, which seems to me, roughly speaking, in the direction of that equal treatment of these different commodities which certainly ought to be the object which we should seek to obtain. I think that some of us should look at the question very closely, not from the general point of view of the
1484
sugar duty, which is hardly before the Committee to-day, but from the point of view of the effect of its details upon Protection, and the consequences that may follow to different branches of the trade of this country from the duties that are proposed. Now, there is one matter to which my attention has been called, and which, as represented to me, seems highly deserving of attention, namely, the duty charged upon the sugar in canned fruits. The duty has been, I believe, imposed on the sugar in canned fruits far exceeding the proportion of duty that ought to have fallen upon it, and in that way a considerable industry is injuriously affected and a protective effect is created, and it will lead, no doubt, to a considerable increase in the price to the consumer in this country. In a matter so diffused as this, the use of sugar in manufactures, where there are so many developments of industry and ingenuity in the employment of sugar in various commodities, I think we may be sure that there will be cases of this sort which will require the attention of the Committee. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been particularly called to the point to which I refer, nor do I know that it would require to be dealt with in Committee, but I hope he will be able to give a satisfactory explanation of the circumstance to which I have referred. For the present moment, I think we are hardly in a position to say "Aye" or "No" to the detailed changes which the right hon. Gentleman has intimated to us, but it will be our duty to press inquiry before we get out of Committee on the Finance Bill.
SIR MARK STEWARTsaid that, however much the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be criticised from a hostile point of view by hon. Gentlemen opposite, it would meet with great acceptance from agriculturists generally. He spoke with some knowledge on this subject. He had been somewhat startled by the fact that by the first resolution brought into the House the tax on molasses would have amounted to 2s. a cwt., or 12s. a barrel, which seemed to him a particularly heavy tax on a valuable cattle food.

1485
He, however, did not intend to enlarge on the topic, but he simply wished to thank his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for looking into this matter, and bringing this new resolution before the House.
MR. E. J. C. MORTONsaid he could not avoid protesting against what he regarded as the utter unsound ness of the whole financial scheme of the present Government, and he would take every opportunity of pro testing against each detail of it. They knew that the Chancellor of the Ex chequer had consistently asserted that the proposals in regard to the sugar duty were not protective. As a matter of fact, whether the tax on molasses as originally introduced was or was not protective, it could not be denied that the right hon. Gentleman was now proposing to introduce a graduated tax on molasses; in fact, the right hon. Gentleman was now proposing three taxes for one. He was perfectly well aware that, technically speaking, the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not be described as protective, simply because the right hon. Gentleman proposed to put on an Excise duty corresponding to the Customs duties. But he maintained that the evils which would result from these proposals were similar to the evils arising from protection pure and simple. He would point out that during the last twenty-four or twenty-six years sugar had not only become a staple article of the food of the people, but the raw material on which several small trades had been founded. Therefore to tax the raw material of these trades was to produce the very evils of which they complained from a purely protective tax. He would point out that foreign countries which gave bounties on the exports of sugar made a pure present to this country of so much sugar, and it was owing to that present that these small industries had been started. These small industries depended for their prosperity essentially on the cheapness of sugar, and that cheapness of sugar again depended on the sugar being admitted duty free. Take, for instance, the jam trade, which now employed five times the number of people that had been employed by all the sugar refineries in the country. More-
1486
over, we were able to make a profit out of the very foreign countries who made us a present of this sugar through their export bounties, and we were exporting large quantities of jam abroad.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! All that the hon. Gentleman can discuss on this resolution is the variation caused by the proposed changes in the duties on sugar substitutes and molasses.
MR. E. J. C. MORTONsaid he would endeavour not to transgress the Chairman's ruling. He would put his point in a slightly different way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal, he maintained, would still further increase the price of sugar, and thereby produce an increased evil of the character he had indicated—an evil which existed to a small extent in the original proposals of the Budget. He would like, if he might, inasmuch as the question had been mentioned in debate, to refer to the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they claimed the authority of Mr. Gladstone in regard to an increased tax on sugar.
THE CHAIRMAN: No authority was claimed in regard to the increase of the tax on sugar, but in regard to the imposition of a tax on sugar. The hon. Member is now trying to get round the ruling I have given.
MR. E. J. C. MORTONsaid he was under the impression that the analogy was that Mr. Gladstone had increased the tax on sugar, not that he had imposed it. But he would leave that point, and only remark in conclusion that he trusted the leaders on that side of the House would endeavour to rid themselves of one particular attitude of mind in regard to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there were those who supported the sugar tax as bad finance merely because bad finance would punish those who took a different view from them in regard to the war.
MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid he was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had

1487
intimated his intention of reducing the duty on the lower class of molasses. Treacle was largely imported for making feeding cakes for cattle, and if the duty on that treacle had been left at the very high figure in the original Budget resolution it would have practically stopped the trade and been detrimental to agriculture. He would have liked to have seen molasses not used for human food exempted from the duty altogether; but as that was impossible he thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for making the reduction he had done.
MR. KEARLEYsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been very slow to convince as to the necessity of maintaining this tax on glucose. The right hon. Gentleman had disregarded the information brought to his notice in the House; and it seemed extraordinary that there should not have been some inquiry on his part as to the incidence of the duty. He should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that his proposal would not fully meet the case in regard to glucose. He was perfectly certain that unless the right hon. Gentleman imposed the full sugar duty on glucose it would lead to the Chancellor of the Exchequer being defrauded by foreign firms, and most assuredly it would lead to the consumer being defrauded. He would give proof of what he had stated. In the first place, the brewer would always show a great preference for the cheap article. Now that there was a differentiation between the duties on sugar and glucose he would show a greater preference than ever for the cheaper and less desirable article. But it must not be forgotten that the brewer paid a beer duty on the specific gravity of the liquid, that was to say, on the wort; and the specific gravity of the liquid produced from glucose and the specific gravity of the liquid produced from sugar was exactly the same. The result would inevitably be that we should have beer less pure than before; it would be a glucose beverage altogether; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not receive from the brewer the amount of taxation to which he was justly entitled. The Conservative party had always been regarded as the friends of "the trade" as it was called, and in re-arranging
1488
the burden the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider the differentiation between the duties on sugar and glucose. What was the effect on the consumer? When the consumer purchased an article containing sugar he expected to get pure sugar, but the result of the differentiation between the duties on glucose and sugar would be that the manufacturer would displace pure sugar and put in this impure article that was already rapidly taking place, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was encouraging this. The right hon. Gentleman showed a lamentable lack of knowledge in this matter. He admitted that glucose was largely used, and when questions were put to him as to whether it was or was not adulteration, he said he did not appear to know much about it.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I said it was illegal.
MR. KEARLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman said it had been appealed against, but he did not appear to know that the judgment of the court of first instance had been upheld on that appeal. We did not want to be in a state of glucose saturation; we had to drink glucose beer; we did not want glucose in everything. He strongly urged that the duty on glucose should be put up to a level with the highest sugar duty, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give some consideration to that matter in his reply.
MR. GODDARDsaid he did not understand from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the result of this change in the duty so far as the Exchequer was concerned, or what would be the result so far as the revenue was concerned. When he replied the Chancellor of the Exchequer would perhaps give some consideration to that point.
MR. TAYLORsaid the very fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to increased one tax by over 60 per cent. and to reduce another by 50 per cent. was a lesson to the House as to the difficulties and dangers of meddling with subjects with which, not only the Chancellor of the

1489
Exchequer, but certainly the House at large were not qualified to deal. He did not for a moment believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to do any harm to the commercial interests of the country; but the fact that within two months of the passing of taxes of this importance it was found necessary to impose such a great change should be a warning to the House not to embark in this particular form of taxation.
MR. STEVENSONdisclaimed any desire to embark upon a discussion of the taxation of molasses, which was a technical subject with which he was not prepared to deal. No doubt the reduction of the tax upon molasses would by some be considered a boon to the agricultural classes, but he considered if it were it was of a very qualified nature, as the particular kind of molasses affected made more fat than meat, when used as feeding stuffs. With regard to glucose and other sweetening substances akin to sugar, they should not pay a less duty than sugar, and the only question was whether this particular rise in the duty of glucose was calculated to meet that object. If a particular tax was imposed upon sugar a tax, at least equal in amount, ought to be imposed on articles of food akin to sugar. Whether such a thing would be done by this tax was extremely doubtful. He trusted that when this matter was more fully considered in Committee the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be open to conviction and amenable to such suggestions as were offered, and that he would see his way to mete out to glucose and other substances used in place of sugar the same treatment as he meted out to sugar itself.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is my desire that, so far as the sweetening powers of sugar on one side and of glucose on the other are concerned, the duty should be equal. But my mind is absolutely open with regard to the further discuss on of the matter in Committee. I have made this proposal to the Committee, which, despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Devonport, is a very large increase in the duty on glucose, in the belief that practically sugar and solid glucose will be put on an equality.
1490
As to the effect of the changes on the revenue, the duty is increased to a large extent on solid glucose, and to a lesser extent on liquid glucose, but with regard to a very considerable part of molasses and other kinds of sugar the duty is largely lowered, and though I should think that on the whole there will be some increase on the total yield of the duties on molasses and glucose, I do not, think it will be a very large one.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

CIVIL LIST BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the intention of the Amendment he desired to move was to deal with the question of whether the hereditary revenues derived from the Crown lands and other sources really belonged to the King in his personal capacity or in his capacity of head of the State. In the preamble of the Bill the House was told that these had been given up by the King, but the preamble of a Bill did not make law, and the fact that in the preamble he gave them up did not give the King, in his personal capacity, any title to these hereditary revenues. He believed that no lawyer would venture to assert that these hereditary revenues belonged personally to the sovereign, except as the head and representative of the State. In 1872 a Report was made by the Treasury upon divers matters connected with finance, and in an exhaustive appendix to that Report the whole question of the hereditary revenues was treated—whence they were derived and to whom they belonged; and no one, he submitted, could read that official document without coming to the conclusion that the whole idea of the hereditary revenues belonging to the sovereign was about as much a myth as any telegram

1491
of Reuter's from the seat of war. Up to 1688 there was no such thing as a Civil List at all. Up to then the hereditary revenues belonged entirely to the State, and were devoted to the government of the State, and no distinction was made as to what the monarch was to spend on his family. What was now called the Civil List came into existence at the time of William and Mary, when the funds were voted and certain sources were reserved from which money was to be derived; but there was no pretence that they belonged to the sovereign in any way, and the House of Commons had a right to vote or refuse them as it chose. In the reign of Anne certain revenues were charged, but even then there was no idea that they in any way belonged to the sovereign. It was acknowledged then that they belonged to the country, and portions of them were taken and devoted to special purposes. In the reigns of George I. and George II. the same rule applied. In the reign of George III. the arrangement was much the same; but it was in that reign that in the preamble of the Act the King said he gave up the hereditary revenues from Crown lands, etc., and the same renunciation was performed in the preambles of the Acts of George IV., William IV., and Victoria. But could any lawyer say, after the facts which had been set forth by the official Report of 1872, that there was any right in the sovereign to hold these revenues as his own property? Such a right was not derived before the Revolution of 1688, and it was certainly not derived afterwards. The only reason the remuneration was put into the preambles of the Acts of George I., George II., and George III. was that, although those sovereigns had recognised that the larger hereditary revenues belonged to the State, they had not so recognised the smaller ones. This was considered unfair, and therefore it was specially inserted in the Civil List of William IV. that these smaller revenues, as well as the hereditary revenues, were given up. The Crown had absolutely no title to the Crown lands, or to any other hereditary revenues. The mistake had crept in apparently owing to the action of Lord Bute. If it were merely the old-fashioned mode of showing respect to the Crown, he should not have
1492
protested against it, but it was more than that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had said that as a consideration for the House granting the Civil List, the Crown had given up this personal property. But that point was not taken into consideration at all. In granting the Civil List, no account was taken of the relation it would bear to the amount the Crown lands brought in, but a sum was granted which the House thought fitting to the dignity and the maintenance of the Crown. He therefore protested against this statement being dragged into one Civil List after another. There ought always to be a protest raised against it. The principle should be kept alive that the sovereign should have no personal estates, and that so far as the Crown lands, etc., were concerned the sovereign owned no personal property. He therefore moved the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 25, to leave out from the word 'revenues' to the word 'shall,' in page 2, line 1."—(Mr Labouchere.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Gentleman has given us a very learned and interesting disquisition upon the history of Crown lands, but I confess I cannot for the life of me see how his premisses lead to his conclusions, or what benefit he desires to gain for his Amendment. The hon. Member says that there is no doubt the Crown lands do not belong to the Crown. I should say there is no doubt that the Crown lands do belong to the Crown, and every lawyer in the House, I suppose, would confirm that statement. The Crown lands belong to the Crown, and the sovereign could, if he had not made renunciation like that contained in this Bill, spend the money precisely as he chose. It may be perfectly true that in the days when there was no Civil List, in the more primitive days of British Monarchy, the Crown lands not only defrayed the cost of the sovereign's household and personal expenses, but a

1493
large part of the expenses of running the government of the country. But no lawyer would say, in the absence of a renunciation by the Crown, that it would not be in the power of the Crown to spend the revenues of the Crown lands according to the will of the sovereign for the time being. Under these circumstances I cannot see what would be gained by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. It is in the highest degree improbable that the time will ever arrive when a sovereign of this country would
refuse to come to terms about the arrangements for keeping up the Monarchy; and, in the meanwhile, the evidence afforded by the past reign shows that the present arrangement is highly satisfactory, and I think that in the present reign it would be in the highest degree foolish for the House to disturb that arrangement.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 309; Noes, 67. (Division List No 230.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Haldane, Richard Bourdon

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hall, Edward Marshall

Aird, Sir John

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Allsopp, Hon George

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Crombie, John William

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry

Dalkeith, Earl of

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Austin, Sir John

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Davies, M. Vaughan-Cardigan

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Denny, Colonel

Heaton, John Henniker

Baldwin, Alfred

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Helder, Augustus

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

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Dixon-Hartland Sir Fred Dixon

Higginbottom, S. W.

Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

Doughty, George

Hill, Arthur

Banbury, Frederick George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Holland, William Henry

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

Duncan, J. Hastings

Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'ld, Brightside-

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Dunn, Sir William

Horner, Frederick William

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

Horniman, Frederick John

Bill, Charles

Edwards, Frank

Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

Black, Alexander William

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Emmott, Alfred

Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Bousfield, William Robert

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Bowles, Capt. H. T. (Middlesex)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Fenwick, Charles

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Brassey, Albert

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Broadhurst, Henry

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex.)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Finch, George H.

Joicey, Sir James

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Jones, William (Carnanvonsh.

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Fisher, William Hayes

Kearley, Hudson E.

Brymer, William Ernest

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Burt, Thomas

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Kimber, Henry

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Flower, Ernest

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

Kinloch, Sir John George S.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Garfit, William

Kitson, Sir James

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

Knowles, Lees

Cavendish, V. C W (Derbyshire)

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

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

Langley, Batty

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Laurie, Lt.-General

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lawrence, Wm, F. (Liverpool)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Graham, Henry Robert

Lawson, John Grant

Chapman, Edward

Grant, Corrie

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

Charrington, Spencer

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm

Churchill, Winston Spencer

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

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington)

Coddington, Sir William

Groves, James Grimble

Leigh Bennett, Henry Gurrie-

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Levy, Maurice

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hain, Edward

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Percy, Earl

Spencer, Rt Hn C R (Northants.)

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Perks, Robert William

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Philipps, John Wynford

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Lowe, Francis William

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Stevenson, Francis S.

Lowther, C. (Cum., Eskdale)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

Plummer, Walter R.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Strachey, Edward

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Pretyman, Ernest George

Stroyan, John

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Price, Robert John

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Macdona, John Cumming

Purvis, Robert

Tennant, Harold John

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Pym, C. Guy

Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh, W

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, G'wer

Majendie, James A. H.

Randles, John S.

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

Malcolm, Ian

Rankin, Sir James

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Manners, Lord Cecil

Rasch, Maj. Frederic Carne

Thornton, Percy M.

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Rea, Russell

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Markham, Arthur Basil

Reid, James (Greenock)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Valentia, Viscount

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

Middlemore, John T.

Renwick, George

Wallace, Robert

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Morgan, Hn Fred. (Monm'thsh.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Morley, Rt Hn John (Montrose)

Robinson, Brooke

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Robson, William Snowdon

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

Morrison, James Archibald

Roe, Sir Thomas

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

Moss, Samuel

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Mount, William Arthur

Russell, T. W.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

Muntz, Philip A.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Wilson, Charles H. (Hull, W.)

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hon E R (Bath)

Myers, William Henry

Seton-Karr, Henry

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

Nicholson, William Graham

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Norman, Henry

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Yoxall, James Henry

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

Parker, Gilbert

Smith, H C (Northumb. Tynesd.

Partington, Oswald

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

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

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Spear, John Ward

NOES.

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Ambrose, Robert

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hammond, John

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

Blake, Edward

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydv'l

O'Brien, Kendal (T'pp'r'ry, Mid

Boland, John

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hope, John Dean (Fife, West)

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

Burns, John

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Caine, William Sproston

Leamy, Edmund

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Caldwell, James

Leng, Sir John

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

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Lewis, John Herbert

O'Kelly, James (Rosc'mm'n, N.

Crean, Eugene

Lloyd-George, David

O'Malley, William

Cullinan, J.

Longh, Thomas

O'Mara, James

Delany, William

Lundon, W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Dillon, John

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Reckitt, Harold James

Donelan, Capt. A.

M'Dermott, Patrick

Reddy, M.

Doogan, P. C.

M'Govern, T.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Duffy, William J.

Mooney, John J.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Murnaghan, George

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Flynn, James Christopher

Murphy, John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Gilhooly, James

1496

1497

Sullivan, Donal

Ure, Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Labouchere and Mr. M'Kenna.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

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

Clause agreed to.
Clause 2:—
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid his next Amendment dealt with the amount of money proposed to be voted by Parliament for the King's Civil List. He proposed that the amount should be £415,000 instead of £470,000. Hon. Members did not realise that the funds of the Duchy of Lancaster formed part of the Civil List and brought it up to £530,000. The late Queen Victoria was voted a Civil List of £385,000 at a time when the revenue of the Duchy of Lancaster, instead of producing £60,000 as at present, only produced £12,000. Many years ago a Liberal Government proposed £50,000 a year to the late Prince Consort, but the Conservatives at that time were so sound in certain matters connected with finance that, backed up by the Radicals in the House of Commons, the amount was reduced to £30,000. It seemed to be thought by some gentleman to be a crime of lese majesté, when the Government proposed a sum of money either for the sovereign or a royal prince, to propose a reduction. He was prepared to vote whatever sum was actually required, but he was not ready, upon vague general observations such as were found in the Report of the majority of the Civil List Committee, to vote more than he thought was really necessary. The revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster had increased largely in recent years, and taking them at £60,000, and including £30,000 for the Prince Consort, which would have remained had he lived, the Civil List of Her Majesty would have been £475,000 as against this £530,000, which they were now called upon to vote. Although that Civil List was much smaller than the one proposed now, it amply sufficed for Her Majesty. A good deal was made upon the Committee of the fact that during the last few years Class III. of the present List exceeded the amount set down in the Civil List during the last five years of Her Majesty's reign by £11,000. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would admit that the expenses of His Majesty's
1498
Household did not exceed the amount at which they stood at the commencement of the reign of Queen Victoria. The ceremonial expenditure in Class II. had been reduced. The amount for salaries had been reduced by doing away with sinecure offices to the extent of £15,000, and the class had also been reduced £6,000 by the abolition of the Royal Buckhounds. The pensions which would fall to be paid were reduced by about £10,000. When the Civil List of Queen Victoria was arranged considerable reductions were made with respect to political offices, and some were abolished altogether, but that was considered in the amount. But here, though the expenditure was reduced, that was not taken into consideration in the amount. The amount of the Civil List was raised, and the amount to be paid out of it was reduced. There was the one item of "personal staff" added, which was really no addition. Personal staff in the reign of Queen Victoria came out of the privy purse, and now it was made a separate class of its own. In looking over the expenditure of the late Queen he found a large amount put down for Balmoral and Osborne. These palaces belonged to Her Majesty, but he held to the old Whig doctrine that the sovereign ought to hold no personal property of his or her own. The sovereign should give up his personal estates to relatives, if they liked, and should be entirely dependent upon the amount of money voted by the House of Commons. If they had to consider not only what was necessary for the sovereign, but also what was necessary to maintain Balmoral and Sandringham, the Civil List might be raised in order to keep up estates which were of no value to the country. The result of this was that the privy purse had increased enormously. Although there were reductions in the class, the total amount of the privy purse would be £200,000, which, with all respect to the Sovereign, he was bound to say he thought was somewhat excessive. He wished not only that the Sovereign should have enough to maintain himself in comfort, but that the Court should be conducted with decent magnifi-

1499
cence. He did not, and never would, agree to the doctrine laid down by the majority of the Committee upstairs, that they should never place any restriction upon the hospitality of the Sovereign. If that was true, they were violating their own rule in asking £470,000. If that was true, what they ought to do was to give the Sovereign power freely to draw what he wished from the Treasury. They knew that the Queen's Court was kept with what he would call decent magnificence, and he was not aware that the present Court required more. A few belonging to the privileged classes who went to the entertainments wanted more to be granted than the late Queen received. He could only say that he never heard of one of his constituents being asked to the functions. This was a little Society matter, and he thought that, in view of the lavish and ostentatious hospitality practised by certain persons in this country who had grown suddenly rich, the Court should set an example of decent hospitality.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 6, to leave out the word 'seventy,' and insert the word 'fifteen' instead thereof."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'seventy' stand part of the clause."
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid he was very sorry the hon. Member for Northampton had moved this Amendment. It was clearly proved in the Committee upstairs that it was most desirable, in the interest of His Majesty and of the country, that proper provision should be made for the Crown. It was considered that a large expenditure would be required to keep up the dignity and honour of the office, and that it would be far wiser that an amount should be given which would be satisfactory in that way, so that His Majesty should not be obliged to run into debt, because they had made an improper allowance to him. The King had to keep up his Court in very much the same way as other monarchs in Europe had to do. The monarchical principle was fixed in the minds of the people of Europe, and therefore it was desirable that we should keep up the Crown in exactly the same way as was done in other countries. There was
1500
only one country in Europe which at present was not a monarchy. That was France. He was in Paris when the Czar of Russia was there, and had an opportunity of mixing with the people and hearing their sentiments. The feeling he heard expressed on all sides was that they ought to have a monarchy of their own. In discussing this question they ought to consider what had been done abroad. He would give a few figures showing what other countries had done. A comparison of the expenditure equivalent to that of the Civil List in European countries showed the amounts to be:—In Russia, £2,750,382; Prussia, £785,965; Austria, £775,000; Italy, £642,000; Great Britain, including all the grants to the Royal Family, £590,000; Spain, £370,000; Bavaria, £275,158; Saxony, £188,960; Belgium, £140,000; Sweden, £112,000; Portugal, £80,300; Holland, £66,666; and Denmark, £66,200. In republican France the amount was £426,240, and in the United States £442,625. That worked out per head of the population as follows:—Saxony, 11·97 d.; Bavaria, 11·35 d.; Denmark, 7·27 d.; Prussia, 5·92 d.; Russia, 5·12 d.; Spain, 4·99 d.; Belgium, 4·98 d.; Italy, 4·84 d.; Austria, 4·16 d.; Portugal, 3·82 d.; Sweden, 3·72 d.; Great Britain, 3·46 d.; France, 2·66 d.; and the United States, 1·69 d. But if they took off the value of the Crown lands which was dealt with under the last Amendment it really worked out at a penny per head of the population in this country. He thought they would find that nothing could be cheaper than the amount we had to pay in this country in comparison with other countries.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the extraordinary figures they had listened to from the hon. Baronet the Member for the Uxbridge Division certainly came as a surprise to him. There was a time in the history of this country when the Civil List included the whole cost of government, apart from the Army and Navy. The figures cited by the hon. Baronet showed that this House was asked to vote to the King and Queen a larger sum than sufficed in the United States for the entire government, including the payment of Members of Parliament.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid that if in the United States they indulged in the luxury of paying senators the cost was included in the figure he had quoted.
MR. KEIR HARDIEremarked that that was exactly his point. What the hon. Baronet invited the Committee to do was to vote for the King and Queen of England, for their own personal use, a larger sum than was given for the entire government of the United States. If the hon. Baronet was prepared to move an Amendment that King Edward should, out of his Civil List, pay the Members of this House, he would vote for the Amendment. There were two points on which he would invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give some information before the question went to the vote. When the subject was last under discussion he asked whether the £50,000, included in the £110,000 for the privy purse, which was supposed to be voted to the Queen, would be paid to Her Majesty direct, or to the King, leaving him to dispose of it as he saw fit. Unless the sum was to be paid to her direct, he would move a further Amendment to this clause at the proper stage. If this House voted a sum of money to Queen Alexandra, the more popular of the two—[Cries of "Oh!" and "Order!"]—he would speak the truth even if it did not please hon. Members opposite. If this House voted a sum of money to Her Majesty, they should be sure that it was paid to her direct. He also asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the King continued to hold various commissions which he formerly held in the Army, and, if so, whether he was paid for holding these positions. He found that His Majesty was a Field Marshal on the Active List and colonel of several regiments. Evidently His Majesty did not believe in "one man one job." He should vote for the Amendment because he thought the sum which it specified was more than sufficient. The late Queen and Prince Consort, with a young and increasing family, had a total income for the privy purse of about £100,000 a year, whereas the sum that was to be voted now to the King and Queen, for whose family separate provision was made, was close on £200,000. He submitted that this

1502
was to set an example of wasteful extravagance which at a time like this would be injurious to the nation.
MR. E. J. C. MORTONsaid it seemed to him to be idle to compare the expenditure which might take place during the present reign with what was spent towards the close of the last reign. During the last forty years the sovereign was almost practically in retirement, for reasons which they all knew. We must go back to a period not later than 1861 for the purpose of comparison. Moreover, in making such a comparison, they must remember that during the last forty years there had been a most remarkable increase in the number and extent of great properties in this country. It had been estimated that within the next thirty years, by the falling in of leases, the capital value of the property of one landlord, in a town which was not London, would be increased by £40,000,000. They knew that for many years to come there was not the slightest chance of our giving up the monarchical system in this country; and he held, from a purely democratic point of view, that it would be a danger to the country if the monarch were not among the wealthiest men in the country. The sovereign must have great influence in the State, and he was not prepared to submit the sovereign to the temptations of undue influence, and to run the risk of increasing the power of those men whose properties had become so great within the last forty years, a power that was already a social danger.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I think it is not necessary to detain the Committee at any length in regard to the proposals of the hon. Member for Northampton. The hon. Member has stated to the Committee precisely the views which he stated to the Committee upstairs, and that Committee decided against him, not merely by a majority, for he could get no one to support his views. I am not disposed to compare the Civil List with that of other countries, or to discuss the view expressed by the hon. Member who has just sat down. But I do think that the proposals which the Government submitted to the Committee upstairs, and to which that Committee agreed unanimously,

1503
with the exception of the hon. Member for Northampton, if they erred, erred on the side of moderation. I rise merely to answer a question asked by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil with regard to the colonelcies held by the King in the Army. Those are purely honorary appointments. His Majesty is, I believe, colonel of more than one regiment, but he receives not one single penny in respect
of these appointments. That portion of their Majesties' Privy Purse which will be allocated to the Queen will, in accordance with precedent, be paid direct to Her Majesty's privy purse.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 335; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 231.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hall, Edward Marshall

Aird, Sir John

Craig, Robert Hunter

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

Allsopp, Hon. George

Crombie, John William

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Crossley, Sir Savile

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hardy, Lawrence (Kent, Ashf'd

Austin, Sir John

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Baldwin, Alfred

Denny, Colonel

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

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

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

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Heaton, John Henniker

Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Helder, Augustus

Banbury, Frederick George

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Hermon Hodge, Robert T.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Doughty, George

Higginbottom, S. W.

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hill, Arthur

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Duncan, J. Hastings

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

Bigwood, James

Dunn, Sir William

Holland, William Henry

Black, Alexander William

Edwards, Frank

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Hope, John Deans (Fife, W.)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Emmott, Alfred

Horniman, Frederick John

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Fardell, Sir T. George

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Brassey, Albert

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

Broadhurst, Henry

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leigh)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Brookfield, Col. Montagu

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Jacoby, James Alfred

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Finch, George H.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Brymer, William Ernest

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex-

Bull, William James

Fisher, William Hayes

Joicey, Sir James

Butcher, John George

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Caine, William Sproston

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Kearley, Hudson E.

Caldwell, James

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Cameron, Robert

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Garfit, William

Keswick, William

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

Kimber, Henry

Cautley, Henry Strother

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Kinloch, Sir John George S.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

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

Knowles, Lees

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Chamberlain, Rt Hon. J. (Birm.

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lawson, John Grant

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Graham, Henry Robert

Lecky, Rt Hn. William Edw. H.

Chapman, Edward

Grant, Corrie

Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

Charrington, Spencer

Green, Walford D. (Wedn'sbury

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

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

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Coddington, Sir William

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Gretton, John

Leng, Sir John

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Levy, Maurice

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Groves, James Grimble

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Parker, Gilbert

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

Partington, Oswald

Spear, John Ward

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Paulton, James Mellor

Spencer, Rt Hn C R (Northants.

Lowe, Francis William

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Spencer, E. (W. Bromwich)

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Percy, Earl

Stevenson, Francis S.

Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

Perks, Robert William

Strachey, Edward

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Philipps, John Wynford

Stroyan, John

Macdona, John Cumming

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxf'd U.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Plummer, Walter R.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Tennant, Harold John

M'Kenna, Reginald

Pretyman, Ernest George

Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

Majendie, James A. H.

Purvis, Robert

Thomas, J. A. (Gl'm'gan Gower)

Malcolm, Ian

Pym, C. Guy

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

Manners, Lord Cecil

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Randles, John S.

Thornton, Percy M.

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Rankin, Sir James

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Rea, Russell

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n

Reid, James (Greenock)

Ure, Alexander

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Remnant, James Farquharson

Valentia, Viscount

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Wallace, Robert

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Ridley, Hn M. W. (Stalybridge)

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

Robinson, Brooke

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Morgan, David J. (Walthams'w

Robson, William Snowdon

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

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

Roe, Sir Thomas

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

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

Morrison, James Archibald

Round, James

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Russell, T. W.

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Moss, Samuel

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Moulton, John Pletcher

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Williams, O. (Merioneth)

Mount, William Arthur

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Muntz, Philip A.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Seton-Karr, Henry

Wilson, Chas. Hy. (Hull, W.)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

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

Myers, William Henry

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

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

Newdigate, Francis Alex.

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

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

Nicholson, William Graham

Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Norman, Henry

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

O'Neill, Hon. Rbt. Torrens

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Smith, H C (North'mb., T'neside

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

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

NOES.

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

Hammond, John

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

Ambrose, Robert

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Malley, William

Blake, Edward

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Mara, James

Boland, John

Leamy, Edmund

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Lundon, W.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Burt, Thomas

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Reckitt, Harold James

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

M'Dermott, Patrick

Reddy, M.

Crean, Eugene

M'Govern, T.

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Cullinan, J.

Mooney, John J.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Delany, William

Murnaghan, George

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Dillon, John

Murphy, J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Donelan, Captain A.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sullivan, Donal

Doogan, P. C.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

Duffy, William J.

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

Fenwick, Charles

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Flynn, James Christopher

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

Gilhooly, James

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he rose for the purpose of moving the addition of certain words to the clause as it stood. Naturally they were all pleased to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect that a certain amount from the privy purse was to be devoted to the use of Her Majesty the Queen. But the question was, what was that amount to be? He thought the House of Commons should have something to say in deciding what proportion of the Civil List should be paid to Her Majesty. In these days of woman's rights and all the rest of it, it seemed but right and proper that the House of Commons should decide how much Her Majesty was to receive out of the sum they had just voted. His Amendment was to add after Clause 2 the words, "£50,000 of which sum shall be paid to Her Majesty Queen Alexandra for her sole and separate use." He hoped that whatever difference of opinion there might be as to the total amount of the privy purse, there would not be any great difference of opinion as to the desirability of the nation saying, through its representatives, what proportion of it was to be paid to the Queen. He could not speak from personal knowledge, but he was told that it was common to provide marriage portions, pin-money, and other allowances to wives, and the proposal he now submitted would carry out that idea. The King, despite his great qualities, was, after all, but human, and it might prove too great a temptation to him were he to be allowed an undisputed sway as to how the privy purse was to be disposed of. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could assure the Committee that some reasonable part of the £110,000 of the privy purse was to be paid to Her Majesty direct, then it was needless to say he would not seek to press his Amendment; but failing any such assurance, as a matter of principle and as a matter of precaution, he would invite the Committee
to divide on the Amendment, which he now begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 6, at the end of the clause to add the words 'fifty thousand pounds of which shall be paid to Her Majesty Queen Alexandra for her sole and separate use.'"—(Mr. Keir Hardie.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The proposal of the Committee and the proposal of the Bill really is that the privy purse should be their Majesties' jointly. That follows exactly the precedent of the Civil List Act of King William IV. and Queen Adelaide. For that reason I do not consider the Amendment of the hon. Member is advisable, and I cannot accept it. I do not see any reason to conceal from the House, what I communicated to the Committee upstairs, that the amount which will be paid to Her Majesty the Queen will be £33,000 a year.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he was bound to say that he thought the arrangement was not one to which the House ought to agree. The late Queen had £60,000 voted for her privy purse. The King, following the precedent of King William IV. and Queen Adelaide, was to receive £110,000; that was to say, £50,000 in excess of Her late Majesty. If His Majesty were not married, obviously it would be considered that £60,000 would be amply sufficient. Surely, therefore, it would have been understood, without the present explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Her Majesty Queen Alexandra was to receive the extra amount, and that was the reason for increasing the privy purse from £60,000 to £110,000. If his hon. friend went to a division he should vote with him.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 65; Noes, 310. (Division List No. 232.).

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Caine, William Sproston

Dillon, John

Ambrose, Robert

Caldwell, James

Donelan, Captain A.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Doogan, P. C.

Blake, Edward

Crean, Eugene

Duffy, William J.

Boland, John

Cullinan, J.

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Delany, William

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Flynn, James Christopher

Mooney, John J.

Reddy, M.

Gilhooly, James

Murnaghan, George

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Grant, Corrie

Murphy, J.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Hammond, John

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Robson, Wm. Snowdon

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Brien, Kendal (T'pper'ry, Mid

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sullivan, Donal

Kennedy, Patrick James

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

Thomas J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Leamy, Edmund

O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.

Ure, Alexander

Levy, Maurice

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

Weir, James Galloway

Lewis, John Herbert

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Lundon, W.

O'Malley, William

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

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

O'Mara, James

M'Dermott, Patrick

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr. Labouchere.

M'Govern, T.

Power, Patrick Joseph

M'Kenna, Reginald

Reckitt, Harold James

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Gretton, John

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Groves, James Grimble

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Allsopp, Hon. George

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hall, Edward Marshall

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Craig, Robert Hunter

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cronborne, Viscount

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

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Crombie, John William

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Austin, Sir John

Crossley, Sir Savile

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cust, Henry John C.

Haslam, Sip Alfred S.

Baldwin, Alfred

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Balfour, Maj. K R (Christchurch

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Heaton, John Henniker

Banbury, Frederick George

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

Helder, Augustus

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

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

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Higginbottom, S. W.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Hill, Arthur

Bigwood, James

Doughty, George

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

Black, Alexander William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Holland, William Henry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightsd.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Duncan, J. Hastings

Horniman, Frederick John

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Dunn, Sir William

Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry

Bowles, T. Gibson (Kings Lynn)

Edwards, Frank

Houston, Robert Paterson

Brassey, Albert

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Broadhurst, Henry

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Fenwick, Charles

Jacoby, James Alfred

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Brymer, William Ernest

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Jessell, Captain Herbert M.

Bull, William James

Finch, George H.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Burt, Thomas

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Joicey, Sir James

Butcher, John George

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Fisher, William Hayes

Kearley, Hudson E.

Cameron, Robert

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Keswick, William

Cautley, Henry Strother

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Kimber, Henry

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Garfit, William

Kinloch, Sir John George S.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Knowles, Lees

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

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

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

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

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

Lawson, John Grant

Chapman, Edward

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.

Charrington, Spencer

Goschen, Hon George Joachim

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

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Green, Walford D. (Wednesby.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

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

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Coddington, Sir William

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

1510

1511

Leng, Sir John

Nicol, Nonald Ninian

Spear, John Ward

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Norman, Henry

Spencer, Rt Hn. C R. (Northant

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich

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

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Lough, Thomas

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Lowe, Francis William

Parker, Gilbert

Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Partington, Oswald

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

Paulton, James Mellor

Stroyan, John

Lucas, Col. P. (Lowestoft)

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

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

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert W.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Macdona, John Cumming

Perks, Robert William

Tennant, Harold John

Maconochie, A. W.

Phillips, John Wynford

Thomas, F Freeman (Hastings

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

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

M'Arthur, William (Cornw'll)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Thorburn, Sir Walter

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W

Plummer, Walter R.

Thornton, Percy M.

Majendie, James A. H.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Malcolm, Ian

Pretyman, Ernest George

Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

Manners, Lord Cecil

Purvis, Robert

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Valentia, Viscount

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Randles, John S.

Wallace, Robert

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rankin, Sir James

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Rasch, Major Frederick C.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigton

Rea, Russell

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Welby, Lt.-Cl. A. C. E (Tannton.

Middlemore, John T.

Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

Welb'y, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fred. G.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst'w

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u-Lyne-

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Money, Charles (Breconshire)

Round, James

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose

Russell, T. W.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Morris, Hon. Martin H. F.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Morrison, James Archibald

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Moss, Samuel

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

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

Moulton, John Fletcher

Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks

Mount, William Arthur

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

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

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

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

Muntz, Philip A.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

Myers, William Henry

Smith, H. C (North'mb. T'nes'de

Newdigate, Francis Alex.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Clause agreed to.
Clause 3:—
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he had looked into history with reference to the subject matter of this clause. He found that Prince Frederick, son of George II., received, including the revenue from the Duchy of Cornwall, £52,000. The Prince wanted more, as was the habit of most people, but the House of Commons refused to increase the sum. On the death of Prince Frederick the Prince
1512
of Wales—afterwards George III.—had £20,000, which was increased to £40,000 per annum. George IV., who was a somewhat expensive gentleman, received as Prince of Wales £50,000 a year, which, with the revenue from the Duchy of Cornwall, gave him £63,000. But he incurred debts to the amount of £650,000, and his allowance was raised to £113,000. As, however, £60,000 was allocated for the payment of his debts, with interest, he only, in fact, received £63,000. In past times it was always thrown back wards and forwards in the House of Commons whether the Prince of Wales should receive a large salary or not. The Opposition thought that if they could

1513
curry favour with the Prince of Wales they might get into power, and, accordingly, they were always in favour of giving him a large salary. The Government of the day, however, supported by the King, were always in favour of granting him a small amount. His present Majesty as Prince of Wales received £60,000, and Queen Alexandra as Princess of Wales received £10,000, or £70,000. At that time the Duchy of Cornwall produced £14,000, and it was estimated £84,000 per annum was amply sufficient for the Prince and Princess of Wales. At present the Duchy of Cornwall produced a little over £60,000, and there was a proposal that the Duchess of Cornwall should receive £10,000, in addition to which the Committee knew very well that when the Duke went abroad on visits such as that he was now paying to the Colonies he received large travelling allowances. Taking the Civil List at £540,000, £70,000 for the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall was more in proportion with it than the £130,000 which was practically proposed by the Government. It seemed to him that £70,000 was amply sufficient, and he did not see that more was required. If it were proved to him that more was required in order to keep up the state and dignity of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall he would be perfectly ready to vote it, but all the Committee had had up to the present were general statements. He was regarded as a kind of idol hater who went into temples protesting against diamonds and gold chains being hung on idols, but in this matter he thought that £70,000 was sufficient. Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer show it was not? A suggestion had been made by the hon. Member for Plymouth that as there were so many rich people in the country, some of whom were worth £2,000,000 of money, His Majesty should be given £3,000,000; but his plan would be much more simple. He would rather confiscate a great deal of the money of these millionaires than increase the amount of the Civil List, but that was a course which he could not hope would recommend itself to the Conservative party. However, he thought that with £70,000 a year a gentleman, though he happened to be the son of the Sovereign, ought to be
1514
able to rub along very comfortably, and he should, therefore, vote against the clause, but he should like the right hon. Gentleman to enlighten his ignorance.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member has made a discursive speech, but as he asks me to enlighten his ignorance I would refer him to the appendix to the Report of the Committee, which is entirely at variance with the figures given by the hon. Member as to the allowance made by Parliament to his present Majesty when he was Prince of Wales. As far back as 1863 there was granted to his present Majesty £40,000 a year, at the same time His Majesty receiving £46,000 a year from the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. There was a further grant of £10,000 a year for her present Majesty, then Princess of Wales, and that altogether made up £96,000 a year just the same amount as the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York will, in all, receive. Therefore on what ground the hon. Member proposes that this clause should be rejected I cannot imagine. It has been thought necessary to make some reduction in the amount to be voted to the Duke of Cornwall and York, as the circumstances of the Heir Apparent when a Queen was on the Throne were somewhat different; but we could not ask Parliament to grant less than is now proposed in the clause—£20,000 a year.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he rose to support the Amendment, not because the amount proposed was too large but because the whole principle was wrong. The reason the House of Commons was called upon to vote the sum was that the Duke of Cornwall was the prospective heir to the Throne, and it was necessary to pay him a sort of retaining fee until such time as he was required to occupy that august position in order that he might learn his duties. Outside Royalty it was not the custom to do any such thing. Business men who desired to train their sons to any particular profession had to bear the cost of that training. Already the House had voted £20,000 for the personal expenses of the Duke of Cornwall and £40,000 for the ships of war which accompanied him,

1515
upon a journey he had undertaken to make himself better acquainted with the various parts of the Empire which he would one day be called upon to rule. He should vote for the Amendment.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 294; Noes, 46. (Division List No. 233).

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Cust, Henry John C.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dalkeith, Earl of

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Jacoby, James Alfred

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Davies, M Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Allsopp, Hon. George

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

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Jones, William (Carnarvons.)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Kearley, Hudson E.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Doughty, George

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Austin, Sir John

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W (Salop.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Duncan, J. Hastings

Keswick, William

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dunn, Sir William

Kimber, Henry

Baldwin, Alfred

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

Edwards, Frank

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Kitson, Sir James

Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Knowles, Lees

Banbury, Frederick George

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

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

Fenwick, Charles

Lawson, John Grant

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

Bigwood, James

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Black, Alexander William

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Fisher, William Hayes

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Blundell, Colonel Henry

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Leng, Sir John

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

FitzGerald, Lord Edmond

Levy, Maurice

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Bowles, T Gibson (King's Lynn)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Brassey, Albert

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Broadhurst, Henry

Garfit, William

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

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

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Brymer, William Ernest

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

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Bull, William James

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Burt, Thomas

Grant, Corrie

Macdona, John Cumming

Butcher, John George

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

Maconochie, A. W.

Caldwell, James

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Gretton, John

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Groves, James Grimble

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

Cautley, Henry Strother

Guthrie, Walter Murray

M'Kenna, Reginald

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Hall, Edward Marshall

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Majendie, James A. H.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Middx

Malcolm, Ian

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Manners, Lord Cecil

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Mansfield, Horaoe Rendall

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Chapman, Edward

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfrieshire

Charrington, Spencer

Harwood, George

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hay, Hn. Claude George

Middlemore, John T.

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

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredk. G.

Coddington, Sir William

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Heaton, John Henniker

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott. (Hants.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Helder, Augustus

Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Higginbottom, S. W.

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hill, Arthur

Morrison, James Archibald

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

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

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Craig, Robert Hunter

Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Cranborne, Viscount

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Moss, Samuel

Crombie, John William

Houston, Robert Paterson

Mount, William Arthur

Crossley, Sir Savile

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Muntz, Philip A.

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thornton, Percy M.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Robson, William Snowdon

Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

Myers, William Henry

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Round, James

Ure, Alexander

Nicholson, William Graham

Russell, T. W.

Valentia, Viscount

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Wallace, Robert

Norman, Henry

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Palmer, George Wm. (Heading)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H (Renfrew

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Parker, Gilbert

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Weir, James Galloway

Partington, Oswald

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

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

Paulton, James Mellor

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington

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

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Perks, Robert William

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

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

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Spear, John Ward

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'rth'nts

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Purvis, Robert

Stevenson, Francis S.

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

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Wilson, Charles H. (Hull, W.)

Randles, John S.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

Rankin, Sir James

Strachey, Edward

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Stroyan, John

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

Rea, Russell

Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxf'd U.)

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

Reckitt, Harold James

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Reid, James (Greenock)

Tennant, Harold John

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

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

Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge

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

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Thorburn, Sir Walter

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Ambrose, Robert

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Kelly, James (Rosc'mm'n, N.

Blake, Edward

Leamy, Edmund

O'Malley, William

Boland, John

Lundon, W.

O'Mara, James

Burke, E. Haviland-

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Caine, William Sproston

M'Dermott, Patrick

Power, Patrick Joseph

Crean, Eugene

M'Govern, T.

Reddy, M.

Cullinan, J.

Mooney John J.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Delaney, William

Murnaghan, George

Redmond, William (Clare)

Dillon, John

Murphy, John

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Donelan, Captain A.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Doogan, P. C.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Sullivan, Donal

Duffy, William J.

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Keir Hardie.

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Gilhooly, James

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

Hammond, John

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:—
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he would not move the Amendment he had placed on the Paper to substitute £50,000 for £70,000. He and his hon. friend had tried to befriend Queen Alexandra, but they had been opposed both by the Government and also hon. Gentlemen
1518
sitting on the Liberal benches. It was quite evident, from what had already taken place, the age of chivalry had passed, and, after the scurvy way in which she had been treated by the House, he did not wish to deprive Her Majesty of any benefit she might derive from this clause in the event of her surviving the King.
Clause 6:—
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
MR. LABOUCHEREobjected to the clause on the ground that it proposed to divide up the amount given to His Majesty into various classes. That was a course of which he disapproved, because, in his opinion, it showed a certain distrust of the King. If a large sum was to be voted for his household the King should be allowed to dispose of that sum. These classes were first adopted in the Civil List of George IV. In the reign of George III. Mr. Burke proposed that the Civil List should be divided into classes, and that the last class should be payments to Lords of the Treasury. The Lords of the Treasury strongly objected to this, because one of Mr. Burke's proposals was that if the amounts in the other classes were exhausted the Lords of the Treasury should not have anything for their class. One reason why he objected to this classification was that it allotted sums not only to particular classes, but to various items in each particular class, and although the sovereign was not obliged to expend money in a particular way, it was a strong recommendation to him to do so. There were a great many political officers in His Majesty's household, and it was a scandal and an outrage that, when a change of Government took place, money which was supposed to be provided for the maintenance of the State was distributed as bribes in the House of Lords. One Lord was made Lord Chamberlain and another Lord Steward. The Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, and the Master of the Horse were of no use—they were merely ornamental. One had only to look at the papers to see that there was a very large body of gentlemen permanently attached to the Court for these purposes. These gentlemen liked the positions, and, he presumed, they liked the money. These positions were simply given to them as rewards for past services to the party in power. He also objected to the ecclesiastical salaries. He took exception, in Committee, to the number of the King's chaplains, which was thirty-four, and he was supported in his action by His Majesty, or at any rate His Majesty was influenced by what he had said, which had no doubt been communicated to him, because he at once reduced the number of his chaplains by twenty-four.
1520
He would like to see that process with regard to chaplains continued. He would like the number to be still further reduced by ten. He would like to see the King rid himself of not only all the chaplains, but the political officers as well. A chaplain got only £40, but over £5,000 was charged for ecclesiastical salaries. That really amounted to an endowment of the Church of England. This was a personal matter, and he did not wish Parliament to interfere with the discretion of the King by laying down the heads of the expenditure, as it showed a want of confidence in him. Now that the money saved in any class went to the privy purse and not back to the Treasury, there was no purpose in dividing the Civil List into classes.
MR. M'KENNAalso objected to the clause, but for somewhat different reasons. His view was that there was a great deal of expenditure which was useless, and served no proper purpose, and His Majesty also held that view, as would be seen from the fact that he had effected considerable retrenchments in various classes. But the result of all such retrenchments ought to go into the Treasury, and not go to swell the privy purse of the sovereign. The Committee settled an amount which they considered sufficient for the privy purse, and if the clause were allowed to stand it would mean that the effect would be that where any economy was effected in different classes the money saved would go into the privy purse, and not into the Treasury. He submitted that the proper course would be to hold an inquiry into the expenditure in the different classes, and having held that inquiry, to put the total amount of expenditure in each class at a figure which the Committee found to be appropriate, and that the result of any economy which happened to be effected should be paid back into the Treasury. With regard to the ecclesiastical offices, the King himself had now reduced the expenditure on ecclesiastical offices and salaries by £720 a year, and that saving ought not to go to the privy purse, but to the reduction of the Civil List.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I believe that the hon. Member is prema-

1521
ture in saying that economy in the ecclesiastical establishment has already been effected, though the King has had the matter under his consideration. The effect of omitting the clause would be to leave it in the power of the sovereign to decide to what purposes the whole of the Civil List should be applied. That is contrary to the practice of Parliament for many years. If the proposal is adopted Parliament will lose all control over the officers of the Court and the state of the Court. At present, although it is possible to effect economies in the different classes, yet transfers of expenditure from one class to another have to be approved by the Treasury. His Majesty's Government are not prepared to assent to a change which, to my mind, is almost unconstitutional.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I very much agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is impossible to support the view that in voting this large sum of money the sovereign should be allowed to dispose of it as he thinks fit. The whole object of voting this money is to maintain the dignity of the Crown, and Parliament by the Civil List which it proposes indicates in general terms what it regards as belonging to the dignity of the Crown. The hon. Member for Northampton said that this is a new doctrine. So it is. But it was introduced because in the time of George III. the Civil List had been appropriated to purposes of which Parliament did not approve. Anyone familiar with the speeches of Burke on the Civil List would know that he condemned the course taken by George III. on the ground that the Civil List had been devoted, not to maintaining the dignity of the Crown, but to the promotion of the war in America. Therefore the new principle of indicating how the Civil List should be appropriated was adopted; and I must differ from the hon. Member for Northampton in preferring that constitutional doctrine.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the right hon. Gentleman had offered a piece of advice which might or might not be taken by the sovereign, and which in
1522
many instances, it was quite certain would not be taken. If clauses were put into the Bill by which it was provided that any money not paid to a particular class should remain in the Treasury, he could understand the value of such provisions. The Bill did not provide that the money must be spent in the particular classes, and that did away with the only reason for the division into classes. As the advantages of such an arrangement were not derived by the Treasury it was better that the whole amount should go to the sovereign in one sum. His reason for not voting in the Civil List Committee for the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Monmouth was that after voting against many large, sound, and practical reductions, the hon. Member proposed that after the whole matter had been settled the House should appoint a Committee composed of Members of both Houses of Parliament, and the head housemaid, or the head scullery wench, and other such persons, to consider whether a housemaid could be suppressed here, and a scullery wench there. Such a course would be like shutting the stable door after the steed was stolen. It was derogatory to Members of the House that they should be called upon to sit day after day with two or three housemaids and scullery wenches, to discuss these matters, and therefore he refused to vote for such silly little proposals.
MR. M'KENNA, having pointed out that the Amendment to which the hon. Member for Northampton alluded was an altogether different one from that to which he had referred in his previous remarks, drew the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that £193,000 was put down for the expenses of His Majesty's Household, the members of which numbered something over 900. If by proper economies the Household could be reduced to 500, and the charge brought down to £100,000, the Treasury would have no power to prevent that reduction, and the other £93,000 would go automatically into the privy purse, instead of reverting to the Treasury, as the control of the Treasury applied only to transfers from one class to another, and not to reductions or economies in any particular class.
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid the hon. Member had supposed an impossible case in suggesting that the Royal Household might be reduced from 900 to 500. Under the Amendment now proposed the sovereign would be enabled to abolish the Royal Household altogether, and, if he chose, distribute the money so saved among a number of members of the House of Lords—to whom the hon. Member
for Northampton specially objected—or among the members of the Episcopal Bench, to whom the hon. Member for North Monmouth had an even stronger objection.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 233; Noes, 62. (Division List No. 234.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Davies, M Vaughan- (Cardigan

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Keswick, William

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

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

Kimber, Henry

Allsopp, Hon. George

Doughty, George

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Kitson, Sir James

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

Dunn, Sir William

Lawson, John Grant

Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Austin, Sir John

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

Edwards, Frank

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Bain, Col. James Robert

Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Baldwin, Alfred

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Leng, Sir John

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Fenwick, Charles

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

Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Banbury, Frederick George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

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

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Fisher, William Hayes

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Bigwood, James

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Black, Alexander William

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Macdona, John Cumming

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Forster, Henry William

Maconochie, A. W.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Midd'x)

Garfit, William

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

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

Malcolm, Ian

Brigs, John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Broadhurst, Henry

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

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Brymer, William Ernest

Grant, Corrie

Meysey-Thomson, Sir H. M.

Bull, William James

Greene, Sir E. W (Bry S Edm'nds

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredk. G.

Burt, Thomas

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Butcher, John George

Griffith, Ellis J.

Morgar, David J. (Walthams'w

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Groves, James Grimble

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

Carlile, William Walter

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morrison, James Archibald

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Middx

Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Rbt. Wm.

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Moss, Samuel

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashf'd

Mount, William Arthur

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Harwood, George

Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Channing, Francis Allston

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Chapman, Edward

Heaton, John Henniker

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Charrington, Spencer

Helder, Augustus

Newdigate, Francis Alex.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter

Nicholson, William Graham

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

Higginbottom, S. W.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hill, Arthur

Norman, Henry

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

O'Neill, Hn. Robert Torrens

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hogg, Lindsay

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Parker, Gilbert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

Partington, Oswald

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Paulton, James Mellor

Cranborne, Viscount

Jacoby, James Alfred

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Cust, Henry John C.

Jessel, Capt. Herb. Merton

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Dalkeith, Earl of

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Purvis, Robert

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Randles, John S.

Smith, H C (Northm'b Tyneside

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Rankin, Sir James

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Rasch, Major Fredc. Carne

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

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

Rea, Russell

Spear, John Ward

Wentworth-Bruce, C. Vernon-

Reid, James (Greenock)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stevenson, Francis S.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne

Rentoul, James Alexander

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Stroyan, John

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Taylor, Theodord Cooke

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Robson, William Snowdon

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

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

Ropner, Col. Robert

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Round, James

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex.

Thornton, Percy M.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Ure, Alexander

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Valentia, Viscount

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh

Wallace, Robert

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Gilhooly, James

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Ambrose, Robert

Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Bell, Richard

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Malley, William

Blake, Edward

Hope, John Deans (Fife, W.)

O'Mara, James

Boland, John

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Leamy, Edmund

Power, Patrick Joseph

Burke, E. Haviland-

Levy, Maurice

Reddy, M.

Burns, John

Lloyd-George, David

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Caine, William Sproston

Lundon, W.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Caldwell, James

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Crean, Eugene

M'Dermott, Patrick

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Cremer, William Randal

M'Govern, T.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cullinan, J.

Mooney, John J.

Sullivan, Donal

Delany, William

Murnaghan, George

Weir, James Galloway

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Murphy, J.

Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)

Dillon, John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Donelan, Captain A.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

Doogan, P. C.

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

Duffy, William J.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Keir Hardie.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Flynn, James Christopher

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

Clause 7:—
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that in Her late Majesty's Civil List there was a charge for the pensions of her servants, which charge, of course, increased as the reign went on. By this Bill it was proposed to throw £12,000 per annum—the sum to which these pensions now amounted—upon the Consolidated Fund. It was further proposed to charge upon that Fund the sum of £13,000 per annum for pensions and retiring allowances to persons connected with the Household of the late Queen, whose services his present Majesty did not require. While admitting the fairness of the latter proposal, he altogether denied that there would be any injustice in charging the £12,000 upon the King. That sum might be taken generally as the par amount of the
1526
pensions and retiring allowances on the Civil List, and by the proposal of this Bill the sovereign would be relieved for a considerable number of years to the extent of £12,000 a year. By the Amendment he desired to move, £12,000 would be taken as the par amount, and if the present sovereign had to grant for retiring allowances and pensions a larger sum, the difference should be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 14, after the word 'list' to insert the words 'in any year in which the retired allowances granted by His Majesty, and paid as part of the expenditure of his Civil List, exceed twelve thousand pounds.'"—(Mr. Labouchere.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid the hon. Member for Northampton agreed that it would not be fair to throw upon His Majesty the cost of the pensions of the servants of the late Queen who would now be retired, but for one reason or another he would still impose upon His Majesty the£12,000 pensions which existed before the death of her late Majesty. It was clear from the Report of the Civil List Committee that His Majesty contemplated considerable economies by the abolition of offices and the reduction of salaries, and to secure that object no doubt in many cases pensions would have to be paid. Accordingly, there would necessarily be a charge for pensions or gratuities quite irrespective of the amount in respect of servants of the late Queen, and if the Amendment of the hon. Member were carried it would be necessary to propose an increase of the Civil List by a corresponding amount. He therefore could not agree to the proposed Amendment.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the reason given for the House being asked to take over this liability was that His Majesty proposed to make a number of reductions. In that event there would be a saving of wages, so that not only was the House to be asked to take over the liability which appertained to the Civil List of the pensions of servants as they became due, but His Majesty was to be allowed to make money by dispensing with the services of different people. To argue that the present Civil List was no more than sufficient to meet the outlay of their Majesties without having to bear this £25,000 a year was carrying the generosity of the nation too far. He intended to support the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Northampton.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 58; Noes, 200. (Division List No. 235.)

AYES.

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

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Ambrose, Robert

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Bell, Richard

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Malley, William

Blake, Edward

Leamy, Edmund

O'Mara, James

Boland, John

Levy, Maurice

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Lewis, John Herbert

Power, Patrick Joseph

Burke, E. Haviland-

Lundon, W.

Reddy, M.

Burns, John

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Caine, William Sproston

M'Dermott, Patrick

Redmond, William (Clare)

Crean, Eugene

M'Govern, T.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Cremer, William Randal

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cullinan, J.

Mooney, John J.

Sullivan, Donal

Delany, William

Murnaghan, George

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Dillon, John

Murphy, J.

Weir, James Galloway

Donelan, Captain A.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Doogan, P. C.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Duffy, William J.

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Keir Hardie.

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Gilhooly, James

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

Hammond, John

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Banbury, Frederick George

Caldwell, James

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

Carlile, William Walter

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Bigwood, James

Cautley, Henry Strother

Allsopp, Hon. George

Black, Alexander William

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

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Austin, Sir John

Bowles, T Gibson (King's Lynn)

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

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Brigg, John

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Broadhurst, Henry

Chapman, Edward

Baldwin, Alfred

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Charrington, Spencer

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

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Clare, Octavius Leigh

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

Brymer, William Ernest

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

Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

Bull, William James

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Partington, Oswald

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hozier, Hon. James Hy. Cecil

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Jacoby, James Alfred

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cranborne, Viscount

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Purvis, Robert

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H

Randles, John S.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Kimber, Henry

Rankin, Sir James

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

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rea, Russell

Doughty, George

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Reid, James (Greenock)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. Akers-

Kitson, Sir James

Remnant, James Farquharson

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lawson, John Grant

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Dunean, J. Hastings

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rentoul, James Alexander

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Edwards, Frank

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Leng, Sir John

Round, James

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sadler, Col. James Alexander

Fenwick, Charles

Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

Samuel, Harry, S. (Limehouse)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sharpe, Wm. Edw. T.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Fisher, William Hayes

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Smith, H. C (North'mb, Tynes'e

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Macdona, John Cumming

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Maconochie, A. W.

Spear, John Ward

Flower, Ernest

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Forster, Henry William

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

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Malcolm, Ian

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Garfit, William

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Stroyan, John

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

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Meysey-Thompson, Sir M. H.

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

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

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Grant, Corrie

Morgan, David J. (Walthams'w

Thornton, Percy M.

Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Ed'mnds

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Greene, W. Raynond- (Cambs.)

Morrison, James Archibald

Valentia, Viscount

Griffith, Ellis J.

Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Groves, James Grimble

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

Moss, Samuel

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Mount, William Arthur

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

Harwood, George

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

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Heaton, John Henniker

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Helder, Augustus

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Higginbottom, S. W.

Norman, Henry

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Hill, Arthur

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

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

Hogg, Lindsay

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

Parker, Gilbert

Clause agreed to.
Clause 8:—
MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE moved an Amendment to leave out certain words with the object of providing that Civil List Pensions, which at present amounted to £1,200 a year, to persons connected with literature and art, should not be charged on the Consolidated Fund, as was proposed, but should henceforth be put upon the Budget for the year. He saw no reason why any exception should be made in the case of these particular pensions. Under the present Bill these pensions
1530
were entirely eliminated from the Civil List. He thought he was right in saying that these pensions were granted by the First Lord of the Treasury, who was a literary man. He would say that in such matters he sat at the feet of the right hon. Gentleman, who was his Gamaliel. It must undoubtedly be a very great trouble and nuisance to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the immense number of applications made for this £1,200. The right hon. Gentleman would be greatly relieved if he could tell the zealous friends of some applicant that the granting of the pension would cause a bother in the House of Commons,

1531
It was not because he distrusted the right hon. Gentleman that he proposed this change. It was because it was part and parcel of the constitutional system of this country. Even the right hon. Gentleman made a mistake once. He would mention one curious case in this connection. An eminent poet, who was no doubt quite worthy of the position, got a salary on the Civil List as Poet Laureate, but he also got a pension. The hon. Member thought that was wrong. If he got a salary he ought not to be on the pension list. If the Poet Laureate was incapacitated from writing poetry or anything of that sort, and was retired, then he might get a pension, but not otherwise. Under these circumstances, he moved.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 25, to leave out from the word 'daughters' to the word 'shall' in line 28."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: All these pensions are granted by the sovereign on the recommendation of the First Lord of the Treasury. What the hon. Member desires is that the pensions should not be charged on the Consolidated Fund, but on the Estimates for the year. The hon. Member seems to think that the matter will in some way be brought more particularly before the knowledge of Parliament if the pensions are charged on the Votes; but it is possible to challenge the advice given by the First Lord of the Treasury on the Vote for his salary, and there are also other means of raising the matter. Of course, every year a statement of the new pensions which have been granted is published, and from time to time a list of all the persons holding such pensions is laid before Parliament. These pensions could not be treated in the public accounts in the same way as those for ordinary civil servants, because they do not belong to any particular department. There is also another reason; they are of a different nature to ordinary Civil Service pensions because they are granted by the Sovereign, as a matter of grace and
1532
favour, on the advice of a Minister of the Crown. I must say I think it would detract from the grace of such pensions if they were subject to annual discussion in this House—not merely those granted in the course of the year, but also those granted perhaps years ago. I hope the Committee will not change the practice which has been followed for many years.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the practice which had been adopted for the last sixty years was not the practice that was now to be adopted. During the last sixty years these pensions had been part of the Civil List itself, and as such were properly charged on the Consolidated Fund; they were now removed from the Civil List. They had ceased to be in their nature a Royal act of bounty, and they had become in reality a part of the money at the disposition of the Minister. The whole theory of the matter was that when money was at the disposal of a Minister he should give an account of it, and it should be put into the Votes of the House and subjected to annual review. That was not the case here. The whole of this money, amounting to £24,000 or £25,000 a year, would be at the disposal of the Minister, but it could never appear in any Vote of the House. The only thing capable of being; touched would be the salary of the Minister, which would be a most unsatisfactory substitute. If the First Lord of the Treasury agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this method was necessary, he would be loth to vote against it; at the same time, he did not think the money disbursed in this manner should be charged on the Consolidated Fund. Of course, there might be an answer to that argument, and if so-he hoped it would be forthcoming.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think I can give my hon. friend reasons for thinking, as he suggests, that this is not really an amount which could be criticised. My hon. friend was under a misapprehension in thinking that there was any change in the system introduced by the Bill. My hon. friend is content with the system which prevailed during the life of the late Queen, but he appears to think there has been some change

1533
in the system which is now proposed, but I think I can show that that is not so. The old system was that the sovereign, on the advice of the Minister, gave certain pensions to persons who were considered to be deserving. The new system is exactly the same. The Minister now, as heretofore, has to consult his sovereign's pleasure as to whether such and such a pension should be given to such and such an individual, so that there is no difference whatever between the system which prevails under the present King and that which prevailed under the late Queen. The whole sum on which the Minister advises the sovereign is an amount of £1,200, and not £25,000. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said, that the administration of this money is not a very agreeable task for the Minister responsible; on the contrary, it is an anxious, laborious, and difficult task; but I believe the expenditure to be useful on the whole, and I am sure its utility would be greatly impaired, if not wholly destroyed, if it were made subject to constant debates in Supply. After all, hon. Members know very well that there are discussions that take place in Supply in which the main interest of the gentlemen who take part in them is not the
acquisition of important truth for the public, or even for themselves, but an interesting interchange of dialectics between the Minister and the Minister's critics. That is all very well in purely public affairs, but when we come to the financial position of widows and orphans, and the comparative claims of different men of letters or science, the case is different. Then, I think, we should have a personal element, which this House would not be anxious to discuss, but which, if it cropped up in the ordinary course of debate, we should be obliged to discuss, which would be almost a misfortune, necessitating the alteration of the whole practice, which would not then be constitutional. It would be a great change to have these pensions granted, not by the sovereign on the advice of the Minister, but by the Minister in the ordinary course of his ministerial duties. That is not a change which I would recommend, and I would urge the House not to accept it. I would strongly urge the retention of the old system.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 221; Noes, 71. (Division List No. 236.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Carlile, William Wallis

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Cautley, Henry Strother

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Allsopp, Hon. George

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

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Fenwick, Charles

Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

Austin, Sir John

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Finch, George H.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Baldwin, Alfred

Chapman, Edward

Fisher, William Hayes

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

Charrington, Spencer

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

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

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Flower, Ernest

Banbury, Frederick George

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Forster, Henry William

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

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Garfit, William

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

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

Black, Alexander William

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cranborne, Viscount

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Brassey, Albert

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Grant, Corrie

Brigg, John

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

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

Broadhurst, Henry

Denny, Colonel

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Groves, James Grimble

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Doughty, George

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

Bull, William James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Butcher, John George

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Heaton, John Henniker

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Helder, Augustus

Morgan, D. J. (Walthams'w)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Higginbottom, S. W.

Morrison, James Archibald

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Hill, Arthur

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

Hogg, Lindsay

Mount, William Arthur

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightsd.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

Horniman, Frederick John

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

Spear, John Ward

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Myers, William Henry

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Jacoby, James Alfred

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Strachey, Edward

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Nicholson, William Graham

Stroyan, John

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Norman, Henry

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Kimber, Henry

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Thornton, Percy M.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Tollemache, Henry James

Kinloch, Sir John George S.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Kitson, Sir James

Parker, Gilbert

Valentia, Viscount

Lawson, John Grant

Parkes, Ebenezer

Walker, Col. William Hall

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Partington, Oswald

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Leng, Sir John

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)

Levy, Maurice

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Pretyman, Ernest George

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

Purvis, Robert

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Randles, John S.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Rankin, Sir James

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

Rea, Russell

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Macdona, John Cumming

Reid, James (Greenock)

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

Maconochie, A. W.

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Rentoul, James Alexander

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Majendie, James A. H.

Ropner, Colonel Robert

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

Malcolm, Ian

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Round, James

NOES.

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

Gilhooly, James

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

Ambrose, Robert

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

Bell, Richard

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

Blake, Edward

Harwood, George

O'Malley, William

Boland, John

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Mara, James

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Kennedy, Patrick James

Power, Patrick Joseph

Burns, John

Leamy, Edmund

Price, Robert John

Caine, William Sproston

Lewis, John Herbert

Reddy, M.

Caldwell, James

Lundon, W.

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Cameron, Robert

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Dermott, Patrick

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Cogan, Denis J.

M'Govern, T.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Crean, Eugene

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cremer, William Randal

Mooney, John J.

Sullivan, Donal

Cullinan, J.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

Delany, William

Moss, Samuel

Weir, James Galloway

Dillon, John

Murnaghan, George

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Donelan, Captain A.

Murphy, John

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

Doogan, P. C.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Yoxall, James Henry

Duffy, William J.

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

Edwards, Frank

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Keir Hardie.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Clause agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.

CIVIL LIST BILL.

  DEMISE OF THE CROWN BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. DILLON: Before this Bill is read the third time I would state once more the cause and purpose of this Bill. It is introduced for the purpose of relieving Ministers from the unpleasant position in which they find themselves through continuing to sit and vote in this House after having taken an office of profit under the Crown. You might search the whole of the precedents of this House and not find a case of this kind. If it were desirable to make a change in the established practice of the House of Commons requiring Members of the House who accept an office of profit under the Crown to go to their constituents, and take their views upon their conduct, the alteration should be made under such circumstances as would relieve Ministers from all suggestion that it was made in their personal interest. For my part I do not agree with the view that has been expressed
  from the Treasury Bench that the old practice had better be swept away altogether, and that Ministers should be allowed to accept an office of profit under the Crown without having to go to their constituencies afterwards. That might be a reasonable view to take for altering the practice of Parliament in the future, but that is quite a different thing to introducing a measure to relieve Ministers from a difficulty. It cannot be denied, to put it at the lowest, that there is a degree of uncertainty as to whether the Ministers could not be proceeded against, and penalties recovered from them, for sitting in this House. The Attorney General admitted that, and stated that one of the objects of this Bill was to remove the risk that existed that a court of law might take a different view to that which he expressed. If that means anything it means that this measure is introduced for the purpose of relieving Ministers from the risk of a decision of a court of law that they were sitting in this House when they had no right to do so. For these reasons I shall divide the House on the Third Reading.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 237.)

BERWICKSHIRE COUNTY TOWN BILL [Lords].
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said that the Bill was an entirely non-controversial measure introduced by the Government at the request of the county authorities in Berwickshire, who unanimously desired that the seat of county government should be changed from Greenlaw to Duns. The present arrangement was found exceedingly inconvenient.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. DILLONasked, if the Bill were non-controversial, why the hon. Member
1548
for Berwickshire was not present to support it. It was a very important measure, and he had received communications from persons in the county begging him to oppose it. The only reason why he was approached on the matter was that on one occasion he addressed a meeting at Greenlaw in support of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, and some of the hon. Member's constituents had written him stating that the people of Greenlaw were strongly opposed to the Bill. The Lord Advocate stated that the Bill had the support of the county authorities. Did they include the people of Greenlaw?
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he was not aware that the people of Green-law were a county authority. He used the word in the ordinary sense.
MR. DILLONsaid he thought it was rather a large order to ask the House of Commons to pass a Bill of this kind without some clearer proof of the desire of the county than the bald statement of the Lord Advocate. For all they knew the change might have only been carried by a narrow majority of the county council. In the absence of a more convincing statement he should certainly divide the House against the Bill. Greenlaw had been the county town of Berwickshire since 1696, and the House ought to be given a more reasonable explanation before it was asked to disturb an arrangement which had existed for two centuries.
MR. FLYNNsaid it was extraordinary that such a Bill should have been brought forward as a Government measure at a comparatively early hour when much more important work might be transacted. He hoped that the old traditions connected with one of the most important and interesting parts of the Border would not be broken down without some more reasonable and valid explanation. He knew the country well, and he could not conceive why Duns should be selected as the county town rather than Greenlaw. The Lord Advocate said that certain county authorities had expressed a desire for the change, but the House had not heard the opinion of other local bodies regarding it. It was a significant fact that the hon. Member for

1549
Berwickshire was not present. If the hon. Gentleman had been strongly in support of the measure he would have been present to have given his representative blessing to it. No adequate reason had been given why an arrangement which had existed for over two centuries should now be changed. They had only had a few words from an ill-informed Lord Advocate, who thought, forsooth, that because a certain Bill was starred, therefore it ought to be accepted by the House without any information regarding it being given. It did not matter to him a twopenny ticket whether Duns or Greenlaw was to be the county town. He was impartial, but the question was what did the people of the district concerned think of the change? The hon. Member for the division was probably embarrassed between new claims and existing claims, and had therefore left the House. He did not blame the hon. Member, and he could quite understand other hon. Members being in equally embarrassing positions if similar Bills affecting their constituencies were brought forward. Was it reasonable to ask the House of Commons, which was already up to its neck in business, to make such a change as was proposed by the Bill without any explanation? They had no idea of the relative importance of Greenlaw and Duns, and he did not think that the House of Commons would be justified in destroying the status of an old commerical town without more adequate reasons. He hoped, therefore, that the House would resist the motion.
CAPTAIN BALFOURsaid he acknowledged that the hon. Member for North Cork had a considerable knowledge of Berwickshire, as the hon. Member was through it when he was contesting the county against the present Member. As a member of the Berwickshire County Council he desired to put before the House the Berwickshire side of the question, and he was sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree with the principle of Home Rule for Berwickshire. It was true that Greenlaw had a record of 200 years, but Duns went back further still, for it was the old county town, before Greenlaw by the influence of the Earls of Marchmont was made the county town in
1550
1696. They would be very well content to have Greenlaw still for their county town, were it not for the fact that Duns was now the natural centre and the most important town in the county. The only people likely to object to Duns would be the legal element, who had still to meet at Greenlaw under the existing Act. But owing to the fact that the bulk of the members of the legal profession now lived in Duns, they were equally unanimous with the county council in desiring that the business should be conducted in future at Duns instead of Greenlaw. He hoped the House would accept this statement from one who, although he did not represent Berwickshire, lived in the county and knew something about the district. He had talked the matter over with the hon. Member for Berwickshire; they were in absolute agreement upon this point, and he presumed it was only through some unfortunate accident that the hon. Member was not present to support the Bill.
MR. WEIRwas extremely disappointed that the Lord Advocate had not made the House better acquainted with the object of the Bill. It was also very extraordinary that at a time when there was so much urgent business of a far more important character, to the consideration of which the House might devote its time, a miserable measure of this kind should be brought forward. He was inclined to think this was a landlord's Bill, but sufficient information had not been given to enable Members to judge whether or not they should vote for the Second Reading. It was surprising that the hon. Member for Berwickshire was not present either to support the Bill or to defend his county. Certainly if it had been a Bill affecting Ross-shire he (the speaker) would have been in his place to give the House all the information in his possession.
MR. JAMES O'CONNORinferred that this Bill was the outcome of a contest between the Greenlaws and the Dunses, and having listened to the speeches which had been delivered he had decided to vote for the Greenlaws against the Dunses.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 271; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 238.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Chapman, Edward

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Allsopp, Hon. George

Charrington, Spencer

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Flower, Ernest

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

Forster, Henry William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Garfit, William

Austin, Sir John

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

Bain, Col. James Robert

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

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

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Gorst, Rt Hn. Sir John Eldon

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

Balfour, Major K. R. (Christch.

Craig, Robert Hunter

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

Banbury, Frederick George

Cranborne, Viscount

Griffith, Ellis J.

Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Groves, James Grimble

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Dalkeith, Earl of

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

Blundell, Col. Henry

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Rbt. Wm.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Harris, Fredk. Leverton

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Denny, Colonel

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Brassey, Albert

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Heaton, John Henniker

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Doughty, George

Helder, Augustus

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Bull, William James

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Higginbottom, S. W.

Butcher, John George

Dunn, Sir William

Hill, Arthur

Carlile, William Walter

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Hogg, Lindsay

Cautley, Henry Strother

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside

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

Finch, George H.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fisher, William Hayes

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

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

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Smith, H C (North'mb., T'neside

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Kenyon, James (Lancs, Bury)

Myers, William Henry

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

Kimber, Henry

Newdigate, Francis Alex.

Spear, John Ward

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Nicholson, William Graham

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Lawson, John Grant

Norman, Henry

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Stroyan, John

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

Parker, Gilbert

Thornton, Percy M.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Parkes, Ebenezer

Tollemache, Henry James

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Peel, Rt. Hn. Wm. Robert W.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Valentia, Viscount

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Walker, Col. William Hall

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Macdona, John Cumming

Pretyman, Ernest George

Warr, Augustus Frederick-

Maconochie, A. W.

Purvis, Robert

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Randles, John S.

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

M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B (Cambs

Rankin, Sir James

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

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

Rasch, Maj. Frederic Carne

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Reid, James (Greenock)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Majendie, James A. H.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Rentoul, James Alexander

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Meysey Thompson, Sir H. M.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

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

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fred. G.

Ropner, Col. Robert

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

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

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

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

Round, James

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Morris, Hon. Martin H. F.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Morrison, James Archibald

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

Moss, Samuel

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Mount, William Arthur

Sharpe, William Edward T.

NOES.

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

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

O'Malley, William

Ambrose, Robert

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Mara, James

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bell, Richard

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Partington, Oswald

Black, Alexander William

Horniman, Frederick John

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Blake, Edward

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Boland, John

Kennedy, Patrick James

Price, Robert Joseph

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Rea, Russell

Brigg, John

Kitson, Sir James

Reddy, M.

Broadhurst, Henry

Lambert, George

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Redmond, William (Clare)

Burns, John

Leamy, Edmund

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Burt, Thomas

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Caine, William Sproston

Leng, Sir John

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Caldwell, James

Levy, Maurice

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Cameron, Robert

Lewis, John Herbert

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Chonning, Francis Allston

Lloyd-George, David

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

Cogan, Denis J.

Lundon, W.

Stevenson, Francis S.

Crean, Eugene

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Strachey, Edward

Cremer, William Randal

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Sullivan, Donal

Cullinan, J.

M'Dermott, Patrick

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Delany, William

M'Govern, T.

Thomas, David Alfr'd (Merthyr

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

Dillon, John

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n, Gower

Doogan, P. C.

Mooney, John J.

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

Duffy, William J.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Edwards, Frank

Murnaghan, George

Weir, James Galloway

Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

Murphy, John

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fenwick, Charles

Nolan, Col. John P (Galway, N.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Yoxall, James Henry

Flynn, James Christopher

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, Kendal (T'pp'rary Mid

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

Grant, Corrie

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

Question put, and agreed to.

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Keswick, William

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Langley, Batty

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Doughty, George

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawson, John Grant

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Emmott, Alfred

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Lewis, John Herbert

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lockwood, Lt-Col. A. R.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Finch, George H.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Atkinson, Rt. Hon John

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Bristol, S

Austin, Sir John

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowe, Francis William

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

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Balfour, Maj. K R (Christchurch

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Macdona, John Cumming

Banbury, Frederick George

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Maconochie, A. W.

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

Forster, Henry William

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Garfit, William

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Bigwood, James

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

M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.),

Bill, Charles

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

M'Crae, George

Black, Alexander William

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Bond, Edward

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Majendie, James A. H.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Brassey, Albert

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

Brigg, John

Graham, Henry Robert

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Brymer, William Ernest

Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

Milton, Viscount

Burns, John

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

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Butcher, John George

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Caldwell, James

Gretton, John

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

Carlile, William Walter

Griffith, Ellis J.

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Groves, James Grimble

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Cautley, Henry Strother

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hain, Edward

Morrison, James Archibald

Cawley, Frederick

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Davonport)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Moss, Samuel

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Hardy, Laurence, (Kent, Ashf'd

Moulton, John Fletcher

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Mount, William Arthur

Channing, Francis Allston

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Chapman, Edward

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Murray Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Charrington, Spencer

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Heath, James Staffords, N. W.)

Myers, William Henry

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Heaton, John Henniker

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

Helder, Augustus

Nicholson, William Graham

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Herman-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Higginbottom, S. W.

Norman, Henry-

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hogg, Lindsay

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Holland, William Henry

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Parker, Gilbert

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Horniman, Frederick John

Parkes, Ebenezer

Craig, Robert Hunter

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Partington, Oswald

Cranborne, Viscount

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Penn, John

Dalkeith, Earl of

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Percy, Earl

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Kearley, Hudson E.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Pretyman, Ernest George

BERWICKSHIRE COUNTY TOWN BILL [Lords].
  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

LARCENY BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. CALDWELLsaid that this Bill was by no means a large Bill on paper, but it contained very important changes in the law of England, particularly in regard to larceny. The Bill had arisen out of recent prosecutions of solicitors in England for misappropriations of money, and there was always a danger that when a change of the law was made on account of a specific grievance it might injuriously affect other cases which were not intended to fall under the change in the law. Last year there was a great rush to pass a Bill on this subject. The late Attorney General brought it in, and all that it proposed to do was to leave out the words "in writing" from a section in the existing Larceny Act. That would have affected the proof of the charge rather than the constitution of the crime. He had taken upon himself to move the rejection of the Bill, and the present Attorney General eventually withdrew it. In introducing the present Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman condemned last year's Bill in the most violent terms, because, as he himself had shown, that Bill, instead of improving the law, made bad law worse. That showed the importance of not rushing Bills through the House at the end of a session, but of having them carefully considered. He did not object to a particular form of amending the law, and preventing crime in every possible way, but the amendment should be so carried out as to fulfil the purpose of the change in the law, without involving matters and crimes not intended to be dealt with. In England it was the essence of larceny or theft that there should be a wrongous taking of an article. There were other cases which were of the nature of theft, but these had been dealt with by the Legislature by statutory enactment, as, for instance, the case of clerks and servants who had been entrusted with the property of their masters, and who
1542
had appropriated it. Then there were the cases of bankers, solicitors, factors, and agents who were entrusted with property or money to be applied to a particular purpose, but who did not so apply it. That was made criminal by statutory enactment. Further, there was the case of carriers, and also the case of bailees, the appropriation of the goods entrusted to whom was not larceny by the common law of England, and it had to be made a civil offence by statutory enactment.
The object of this Bill was apparently to make a new definition altogether of crime, and to sweep into the net everything that was of the nature of a criminal offence. In that respect there was a great deal to be said in favour of the Bill. It left to the judge and jury to determine, after hearing the whole case, how far there had been fraudulent conversion of the money. That altered a little the phraseology of the Larceny Act of 1861, and they might reasonably allow a sweeping in of everything in the nature of criminal offence. He himself did not see any particular reason for Sub-section b of Clause 1. for it dealt with a different category of cases from those dealt with under Sections 75 and 76 of the. Larceny Act of 1861. He would like to know the effect of the Bill on cases where money had been found, and on that other class of cases to which he had already referred, namely, clerks and servants. He thought, from the definition given in the first clause, that it would apply to clerks and servants who were now dealt with under the existing Larceny Act. They would then have this anomaly, that there would be two procedures for the same offence. The same thing applied to bailees. Further, would the Bill sweep away existing enactments against carriers and bring them all under this Bill? He suggested that it would have been better to have made all these cases fall under the class of theft and made them part of the common law. By doing so they would get rid of a great many technicalities in procedure. When they made new statutory crimes the door was open to any amount of interpretation by the judges.
He thought the Attorney General would do well to re-consider the matter

1543
between now and the Committee stage as to whether it would not be advisable to follow the recommendation of the Legal Commission of 1878. He did not see why under Sub-section 2 of Clause 1 any exception should be made in regard to trustees or mortgagees. It should be left to the judge and jury to say whether there had been fraudulent misapplication of the money by the trustee or mortgagee, and if there had been fraudulent misapplication why should they be protected? Then why was the proviso in the earlier Act in regard to lien excluded from the present measure? and why also was the clause in the Commissioners' Report of 1878, to the effect that where the subject-matter resolved itself into a matter of accounting the Act was not to apply—why was that proviso not introduced into the present Bill, when they went out of their way to introduce the proviso as regards trustees and mortgagees? At the same time, he did not propose to oppose the Second Reading. He quite recognised that a change in the law was necessary, and that there were anomalies in England that should be removed. At present the criminal law only applied to certain specified persons, and he quite approved of its being extended to, for instance, auctioneers who sold property and did not account for the money. In all such cases the principle was right, but he thought that the Attorney General was hardly carrying out the object he had in view by setting up new statutory crimes.
MR. WARRsaid that the Bill was a vast improvement on the Bill of last session. It was simple, comprehensive, and intelligible. He associated himself with what the hon. Gentleman opposite had said with regard to Sub-section 2. No doubt what he had said would receive consideration from the Attorney General. There was a section in the Larceny Act dealing with misappropriation by trustees, but under that section it was necessary first to get the fiat of the Attorney General, and secondly the certificate of a judge of a civil court, in case the offence had come to light in the course of civil proceedings. There was no objection to these safeguards as regarded frauds under wills and settle-
1544
ments, but he was not so sure that there would not be a good deal of objection to them in dealing with frauds by trustees arising out of commercial transactions. He would put a case to the Attorney General. The course of business between banker and customer in business centres with which he was acquainted, though it might not apply to London, was that after an advance had been made by the banker upon the security of produce pledged with him by the customer, it was entrusted by the banker to an agent whether the customer himself or someone else, for sale on the bank's account upon the written terms that the proceeds were to be paid to the banker as and when received. The agent was thus constituted a trustee, and the provisions of the Bill applicable would apply to such a transaction. If there was misappropriation of proceeds the banker could take no criminal proceedings without the fiat of the Attorney General, and in certain cases without the consent of the judge who tried the civil action. Before these consents had been obtained the customer might have left the country. That was an illustration of the kind of case which indicated that the Bill might by amendments be perhaps made more useful. He hoped the matter would be very carefully considered, but he himself was inclined at present to think that the sub-section might well be omitted altogether.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said that everyone would agree with what had been said by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, that the subject was one of very great importance. The Report of the Commission which the hon. Gentleman quoted proposed to remodel the law of theft, but he would point out to the hon. Gentleman that that would involve a very extensive and difficult enterprise. Without undertaking an enterprise so ambitious, they were content to remove the blots upon that portion of the law which dealt with the offence of misappropriation by persons entrusted with property by others. Sections 75 and 76 of the Act of 1861 were open to very serious objections. No reason could be given for the necessity for directions in writing, particularly in the case of misappropriation by solicitors, with whom

1545
it often rested to say whether directions should be given in writing or not. That provision was one which often prevented justice being done. Again, no good reason could be given for the state of the law which declared that only agents by profession should be amenable to the provisions of the sections. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark referred to the fact that the Bill contained a proviso that any person receiving property for another might be guilty of a misdemeanour if he fraudulently misapplied that property. He quite agreed that the keynote of the whole Bill was to be found in the word "fraudulent." But he would further point out that the mere fact that property belonged to another person would not bring it within the words, "received any property for or on account of any other person." The effect of the Bill would be to bring agents to receive as well as agents to pay within the scope of the criminal law if guilty of fraud in respect of property they had received. The hon. Member pointed out that a question might arise if a defendant had been guilty of conduct which rendered him liable to prosecution under other provisions of the criminal law. But that was dealt with in the Interpretation Act of 1899, Section 33 providing that, where an act constituted an offence under one or more Acts or under common law, the offender should be liable to be prosecuted under either or all of the Acts or at common law so long as he was not punished twice for the same offence. Various other criticisms were made by the hon. Gentleman, the importance of which he recognised, and which no doubt would form the subject of consideration in Committee. He was much struck with what the hon. Gentleman had said as to the omission of the proviso with regard to the disposal of property under any lien or charge. He would point out to the hon. Gentleman that that proviso was absolutely unnecessary. It was contained in Section 75 of the Larceny Act of 1861, but it was not wanted there, and still less would it be wanted in the present Bill, under which no man would be liable unless he acted fraudulently. The hon. Gentleman and also his hon. friend referred to the provision exempting trustees and mortgagees from the operation of the Bill. The House ought to know that that provision was taken from
1546
the analogous section of the Act of 1861. With regard to mortgagees it was originally inserted on the ground that as the mortgagee was the owner of the property it would be hard, if a dispute arose between him and the mortgagor, that the latter should be at liberty to take criminal proceedings. Certainly more mature consideration would be required before they undertook to enlarge the criminal law further in that direction, but no doubt the clause would receive consideration in Committee. With regard to the cases to which his hon. friend more particularly referred, any trustee under an instrument in writing who fraudulently misapplied property was liable to prosecution under the law as it stood. His hon. friend said that certain conditions had to be complied with by the prosecutor, but they were not at all onerous. If civil proceedings were entered on, it was very proper that the certificate of the judge should be obtained that the case was one suitable for criminal prosecution, and if it were suitable there would be no difficulty about obtaining a certificate. The other condition was that the fiat of the Attorney General should be obtained for a prosecution. He did not think that any difficulty or delay would be occasioned by that condition, while the necessity of obtaining the fiat of the law officers was some security against improper claims being put forward. No doubt the whole subject deserved and would receive full consideration in Committee. It should always be remembered that there was danger of the criminal law being applied, or rather misapplied, for the purpose of enforcing a civil liability, and care should be taken that in preventing the escape of rogues, honest men were not laid open to vexatious charges. He desired to express his appreciation of the spirit in which the Bill had been received, and he could assure hon. Members that every suggestion in Committee would receive the fullest consideration.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he did not quite understand what the Attorney General had said with reference to trustees.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that trustees were specially provided for in

1547
the third section of the Larceny Act of 1861, with which the Bill was intended to be read. That Act provided for the prosecution of any fraudulent trustee, but it was considered proper to introduce precautions, because after all the trustee was the legal owner of the property, and it was desirable that he should not be exposed to improper claims without some precaution.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that was quite satisfactory.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc."—(Sir Robert Finlay.)
MR. CALDWELLsaid he hoped the Attorney General would allow some time, say three weeks, to elapse in order that the matter might be properly considered.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that having regard to the state of the session he thought three weeks rather too long. That might imperil the Bill, but at any rate some time would be allowed.

SUPPLY [7TH JUNE] REPORT.
Resolutions reported.
SUPPLY [7TH JUNE] REPORT.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1901–2.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,221,713, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of
  1554
  payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,528,810, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the salaries and Expenses of the Post Office Services, the Expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the Collection of the Post Office Revenue."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £571,085, be granted to His Majesty, to

  1555
  complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Expenses of the Post Office Packet Service."
  Resolutions read a second time.
  First resolution:—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said resolution."
  MR. O'MARAsaid it was frequently urged that the expenditure of money in Ireland compensated that country for the large revenue derived from her, but on looking through the Estimates that appeared not to be the case. The amount collected for Excise was about the same in Ireland as in Scotland, but the expenses of collection were about twice as much in Scotland as in Ireland. The salaries of assistant supervisors and first-class officers amounted to £105,000 in Scotland, but to only £46,000 in Ireland. The total cost of collecting the Excise in Scotland was £184,812, as against £93,868 in Ireland, while the numbers of officials employed in the two countries were 882 and 433 respectively. Moreover, in Scotland, the average amount of the salaries paid was much higher than in Ireland. If the officials in the latter country were as efficient as those in Scotland, why was not their pay the same? Another point to which he desired to direct attention was the amount of the rewards paid to the Royal Irish Constabulary for detecting persons engaged in illicit distillation in Ireland. While 1,800 illicit stills were discovered in Ireland, only two were discovered in Scotland. When on a previous occasion the hon. Member for East Mayo asked the amount of these rewards he was told that it was only a few pounds, but the sum taken in the Estimates was £3,000. That was a very great encouragement for the discovery of illicit stills, and he suggested that a large proportion of the discoveries in Ireland were manufactured for the sake of the reward.
  MR. DILLON: I think the figures quoted by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny require some explanation. On
  1556
  Friday night last I pointed out that in Scotland there were 129 distilleries at work as compared with 30 or 35 in Ireland, and yet in the course of last year only five illicit stills were discovered in Scotland as against 1,865 in Ireland. These figures are very difficult to understand. Living in Ireland as I do, and knowing that seizures for illicit distilling are very rare, I was astounded at these figures, and asked the Financial Secretary the amount of the rewards paid to the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary for effecting these seizures. He told me that it was something very trifling, and that the sums ranged from 5s. to £1 or £2, while for very large seizures the amount was higher.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman in order to correct a misapprehension? In the amount that I gave I spoke not of the whole sum, but of the rewards given in individual cases. I spoke of them as ranging from 5s. to some pounds in important cases. Since then I have made inquiries, and I find that the normal reward in Ireland is £2 in each case.
  MR. DILLON: I suppose that is the minimum. The amount in the Estimates is £3,000 for this year, which is an increase of £500 over last year. I do submit that some explanation and inquiry is called for in regard to the number of seizures for illicit distillation in Ireland. It is ludicrous to tell this House that there are only five cases of illicit distillation in Scotland as against 800 cases in Ireland. There must be some reason to account for this extraordinary condition of things. It is absurd to tell us at the opening of the twentieth century that the seizures for illicit distillation in Ireland are increasing, when we have in that country the most idle and the most unoccupied police in the world. The police of Ireland are kicking their heels all day with nothing to do, except when they are summoning people for illicit distillation. It is positively ludicrous to state that in Ireland, where the police are three or four times more numerous than in Scotland, you are unable to put an end to this illicit distillation, which is said to be growing to an alarming

  1557
  extent. I believe that the figure given is a bogus one in regard to seizures for illicit distillation.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The question raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo, which was also raised the other night, is one which requires serious consideration. Having had my attention drawn to the matter I at once communicated with the Board of Inland Revenue on the subject, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last that the present condition of affairs is serious, and that the explanation I have to offer is not a sufficient one. I propose to go into the matter with the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, and to consider in greater detail what the nature of the seizures has been, and whether the system of rewards which has been in force without change for several years is a good one—and I am inclined to think that it is not. At any rate, before the Estimates for next year are presented I will do my best, in conjunction with the Board of Inland Revenue, to inquire fully into this matter, and I hope that I shall be able to make a satisfactory statement. As I only had my attention drawn to this matter on Friday last, I am not prepared to make a full statement at the present moment, but I admit that the facts require further explanation. I hope the House will be satisfied with this statement, and allow me the necessary time to make inquiries. With regard to the other questions raised, they refer to the cost of the staff in Ireland and Scotland respectively, and I am afraid that it is not possible for me to enter into a detailed explanation of the duties of every officer mentioned, or the reason why more are employed in one place than the other. The staff is selected with a view to the duties that have to be performed, and we take care that we do not have more staff than there is work for, and the extra staff employed in Scotland is due to extra work.
  MR. CREANprotested against the system established in Ireland of creating crime where no crime exists. He knew that this was the case, because he had conversed with some of the constables at the places where bogus seizures
  1558
  had been made. Those who were making these bogus seizures were not only swindling the Treasury but they were blackening the character of the country, where they were supposed to carry out the law impartially. The truth was that they were not honest and proper seizures at all, for those who concealed things could easily find them. He thought it would be well if the Secretary to the Treasury extended his inquiry so as to find out whether the rewards were genuine or not. He felt sure that many of the rewards were bogus ones, and he did not think they would be justified in voting this sum that night, because it was practically a premium on dishonesty. He thought the Secretary to the Treasury had made his promised inquiry in order to get the Vote through. This money was squandered in order to create crime where crime did not exist before.
  Second resolution:—
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I again desire to enter my protest against the absence of the Postmaster General in this House, and against the absence of any direct representative of the Post Office in the House of Commons. No doubt my hon. friend who represents the Post Office in this House has shown great intelligence and courtesy, but we are face to face with this fact, that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had never been in the Post Office in his life before he took up his present position. Therefore he knows nothing about the Post Office, and upon three occasions last week he had to ask for notice of questions which a direct representative of the Department would have been able to answer at once. The great importance of the Post Office is shown by the fact that the Department employs 175,000 persons, and its revenue exceeds £17,000,000. There are hundreds of cases of complaints which it is necessary to bring before the attention of the Postmaster General, but under the present system it is impossible to reach him except by means of a long correspondence. As I have told the Committee before, during the past five years

  1559
  only three questions have been addressed to the Postmaster General in the House of Lords, while some thousands of questions affecting that Department have been asked in the House of Commons. I wonder what would be the position of affairs if we had no representative of the War Office or the Admiralty in this House, and I maintain that it is of equal importance that some direct representative of the Post Office should represent that great Department in this House. There is no Member of the House of Commons who does not realise the importance of having a representative in the House of Commons directly connected with the Post Office. It is perfectly well known that if this question is allowed to be considered entirely apart from party politics a resolution for the direct representation of the Post Office in this House would be carried unanimously. This is the state of affairs which exists under the present system. My hon. friend who at present represents the Treasury possesses undoubted ability, but he is quite unable to answer any ordinary point without referring to the Post Office, and that is a state of things which we ought not to tolerate in this House, considering the enormous importance of the Post Office. I wish to move that the salary of the Postmaster General or the Vote be reduced by a sum of £100 in order to test this question.
  I shall now proceed to point out two or three grievances in regard to the Post Office which will, I think, illustrate the utter inability of the Postmaster General to make reforms even of the smallest description, and I will endeavour to show how necessary it is that the House of Commons should assert its authority in matters of this kind. I have so often brought these questions before the House that I am almost ashamed to repeat them. For every one of the receipts given for a 6d. telegram, which does not cost a farthing, the Post Office charge 2d. It is almost incredible that any Government department would dare to make a charge of this kind. No successful merchant or business man would do so. The late Postmaster General made an appeal to the Treasury to abolish this charge, but that appeal was made in
  1560
  vain. I think that an annoying and irritating charge of this character should be abolished at once, for it would only cost the Treasury about £120 a year. My next point is in regard to the question of postal orders. It is not generally known that the profit on lost postal orders amounts to considerably over £10,000 a year—I think it amounts to £15,000, but they credit the Post Office with £10,000 a year.
  MR. WEIR: It is £15,000.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: That being the case, you would imagine that a great Department like the Post Office would deal liberally with the public in regard to postal orders. This, however, is not the case, and there is a rule to the effect that any postal order not presented within three months is subject to fines. The result is that in a very short time the fines amount to so much that the postal orders are not worth presenting. A gentleman from a bank in Ireland sent me a postal order for 1s. which had been mislaid since the year 1890. He had presented it in Dublin, but the Post Office officials told him that if they cashed it he would have to pay them 1s. 4d. in fines. In regard to having a greater variety of amounts in the value of postal orders, I know it is a rather complicated subject, but I do complain of the inability of the Postmaster General to issue a sufficient number of varieties of amounts, because this causes great annoyance to the public. The public often pay more for postal orders for 19s. 6d. than for postal orders for £1. I particularly regret the inability of the Postmaster General to issue a postal order for a guinea. With regard to the extension of postal orders, it is remarkable that, although you can get them at Gibraltar and Hong Kong, the Post Office will not extend postal orders to Australia and other colonies, notwithstanding the fact that frequent petitions have been presented to the Postmaster General upon this subject. My chief complaint is that the charges are considerably in excess of the charges in any other country in the world. If I send 5s. to France I have to pay 6d. for the money order, but a Frenchman can send 5s. to London for 1d. In each

  1561
  case we send the money orders through the respective post offices of France and England. This ought not to be tolerated. Frequent complaints have been made, and the Postmaster General has announced his inability to deal with the matter. There are scores of cases which show that the British Post Office is absolutely incapable of dealing with these matters, and the annoyance to the people is very great indeed.
  There is another important matter in this connection which will appeal to hon. Members of this House. It is a fact that you cannot send a few pence to this country from any country in the world to purchase a periodical or a newspaper without the recipient being subject to a fine. A man wrote to me from Africa the other day stating that he would like to have sent 6d. as a contribution to some charitable object, and he complained that to send that 6d. from his colony to this country would cost him 9d. for the order. There are hundreds of cases daily arising where people want to send to this country for books or catalogues, and it is impossible to send a few pence for this purpose. The remedy for this is a very simple one. There should be one room at the Post Office, and at the principal post offices in this country, where stamps of the Empire and of foreign countries could be exchanged for a small commission. An arrangement of this kind would be a very great convenience to the people. I do not wish to detain the House upon this question, and it would take me till to-morrow morning to describe the whole of the details. I wish, however, to point out that in regard to the great city of London the time has arrived for an alteration of the whole office in various directions. I think the time has arrived when we should have three classes of postmen—the first-class, the second-class, and the third-class. The first-class postmen should be sent out on the first delivery with letters, the second-class postmen with newspapers, and the third-class postmen with parcels. The effect of this arrangement would be that every house within an area of seven miles would have the letters delivered earlier every morning, as they were at present in all the great cities of the kingdom. What do we see now
  1562
  early in the morning? About half-past eight we often see the postman heavily weighted with a huge bag of newspapers and letters and parcels all mixed up together. The whole thing is absurd. If you have first-class postmen to go out first with the letters, quickly followed by the second-class postmen with the newspapers, and the third-class with the parcels, then you would have an earlier and a more intelligent delivery by the first-class postmen, and I think a reform of this kind would work very well indeed.
  I shall not to-night describe in detail the present condition of affairs and the waste of expenditure which goes on in this great Government department. I think it is, however, a great disgrace to this country that we have not at the present time in connection with the Post Office a printing department. In most countries the Government office print all their own stamps and postcards and other things, and I have been informed on good authority that a saving of from £25,000 to £30,000 a year could be effected if the Government had a printing office of their own. The arrangements in regard to the delivery of postcards and parcels require looking into, and one of the ablest men in the Post Office has told me that a saving of £280,000 a year could be effected by a rearrangement of the Post Office administration in London alone. I will not go further into details upon this occasion, and I will content myself by merely entering a protest, because it would be absurd to expect any changes or improvement while the present administration is continued. In order to test the question of the desirability of having a direct representative of the Post Office in this House, I beg to move this reduction. If the Government will not make this a party question I feel sure that the result will be that it will be found that the whole House of Commons is in favour of a change of this kind.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out '£5,528,810,' in order to insert '£5,528,710' instead thereof."—(Mr. Henniker Heaton)
  Question proposed, "That '£5,528,810' stand part of the resolution."
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I have listened with much pleasure to the most interest-

  1563
  ing exposition of public grievances against the Post Office contained in the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury. Without respect to party, I think we are all thankful to the hon. Member who has just sat down for his effort in the past in connection with reforms in the postal department. I rose for the purpose of calling attention to another aspect of Post Office administration. The House of Commons must not forget that much of the success of the Post Office is due to the efficiency of the men employed in the various departments, to whose complaints the First Lord of the Treasury has turned a deaf ear. Last week, when this Vote was under discussion, the Leader of the House stated that there was no real grievance existing amongst the Post Office employees, and in the course of the debate it was stated that the outcome of the Tweedmouth Committee, which recently sat to determine into those grievances, had been practically to make the conditions of employment under the Post Office much more favourable to the employees. I will not attempt to-night to enter at any length into the many details of the numerous grievances which Post Office servants complain of. There is, however, one aspect of their demands which is entitled to the serious consideration of the House of Commons. I endorse the suggestion which my hon. friend has made as to the need for a permanent Committee to deal not only with the conditions of employment in the Post Office, but also with other matters affecting the administration of the Post Office. The employees of the Post Office request from the House of Commons the appointment of a special Committee to investigate their grievances, and to formulate such remedies as the circumstances demand. May I point out that the Tweedmouth Committee was a Departmental Committee, and the servants were not represented on it. From a Departmental Committee it is almost impossible to secure a decision of any breadth or width. It is like allowing a jury of malefactors to try their own case, and under such circumstances we can anticipate what the finding will be.
  Let me give one illustration of the sort of minor grievances under which Post Office servants are still labouring. Take, for example, the case of the rural postmen.
  1564
  They were recommended by Lord Tweedmouth's Committee to be paid a scale of wages whereby they were able to advance to 18s. and 20s. a week and higher, but of late the Post Office has been departing, from that recommendation, and instead of appointing rural postmen under the scale it has been appointing them at fixed wages of 16s. a week. That is to say, instead of a man being encouraged to perform his duty adequately, and with the prospect of an early increment in his wages, he has no such outlook, and, instead of the wage being as the Tweedmouth Committee recommended, under the new method of treating the rural postmen the maximum is 16s. a week. A matter of small detail, but still an irritating one, is the way in which those men are paid for Sunday work and Christmas and other holidays. Formerly they were paid so much per hour for the time they were employed, in delivering letters on these particular days, but now they are paid not so much per hour, but so much per mile covered in the delivery. Well, on the face of it, these arrangements are stupid. In one mile there might be fifty or sixty houses, and in another there may be 500 or 600 houses. It is obviously impossible to cover the ground in the same time where the houses are numerous, and it is desirable, looking to the circumstances under which the rural postmen work, that the old system of payment by time instead of by mileage should be resorted to. I understand that a case was submitted to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury some time ago, and that it was proved to him clearly how this new system worked out. I have to ask to-night whether he is in a position to state what the result of his consideration of the case has been, and whether the rural postmen in this respect may anticipate any change.
  These are a few illustrations of some of the minor grievances which irritate a body of useful and intelligent employees, and I would desire to point out, with all respect to the House, that, whilst the servants of the Post Office have no desire to inconvenience the community by any cessation or stoppage of work on their part, still if the House and the Government persist in turning a deaf ear to their claim for an impartial

  1565
  investigation of their grievances these men will not be to blame if in the end their patience and forbearance give way and the whole of our postal system is disorganised by some big labour dispute. I therefore hope that the Government, through the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, will not to-night again take up the non possumus attitude adopted by the First Lord of the Treasury of threatening these Post Office servants with disfranchisement because they are doing what every Member of this House is doing—seeking to protect his own interest in a constitutional fashion. It is an insult to these men, and I should like to see the Government that would attempt to disfranchise the civil servants of the country. This House stands in relation to these civil servants just as the board of directors of a private company do to the men they employ. These men have a right to come to us at election times or other times and state their grievances, and to ask us to assist them in securing redress. To threaten them with disfranchisement for constitutional action of that kind, as was done on Friday evening, was unworthy of the First Lord of the Treasury. These, briefly, are some of the points upon which the postmen feel keenly, and upon which they demand inquiry. I trust that to-night we shall have some encouragement given to these men to go on performing their duty by having the prospect held out to them of getting their legitimate grievances inquired into in the proper way.
  MR. BROADHURST: At present, as for some years past, we have no means of communication whatever with the Post Office except by a Treasury messenger. I have no cause of complaint with the manner in which the previous and the present Secretary of the Treasury have done their work, but the House of Commons has a right to direct access to the Department, which is one of the most important, affecting as it does the welfare of the poorer classes of the community. There are with regard to the Post Office undoubted grievances. We ought to have a direct, sure, and certain means of communication between this House and the heads of this great Department.
  1566
  The beginning and almost the end of our difficulty in this matter is that we have no direct representative of the Department in this House. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member will divide on this question, and that the Secretary to the Treasury will make representations to the Government in connection with this matter. I know that the Post Office grievances are great, and one might almost say they are acute. We shall never have satisfaction in this matter until we have the head of the Post Office sitting in this House. I sincerely trust that immediate steps will be taken, so that we shall have the representative element which is desired. It is an absurd idea to have the Postmaster General in the House of Lords. There is no trade, no commerce, no anything represented there, except the brewing interest, which is not a large commercial interest. We are representing the industries of the country in this House, and yet we are only treated with a messenger to take occasional communications from this House to the Post Office, however well that work is done. It is no reflection on those who have been the go-betweens up to now, but it is not respectful to the country, and certainly not respectful to the House of Commons. I sincerely trust that the hon. Member for Canterbury, who has done such marvellous service to the country in postal reform, will press the question to a division.
  MR. JOHN DEWARsaid that two years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, who was Financial Secretary to the Treasury then, promised that there would be an improved delivery of letters all over the country, including the remote parts of Scotland and Ireland. On that occasion an Amendment was withdrawn when the promise was made. The Postmaster General had since then written that a bi-weekly service could not be granted on account of the expense. He thought that no part of the country should have to submit to a weekly or a fortnightly delivery of letters. In certain rural districts they did not ask a daily delivery, but a better service should be provided than at present.
  MR. GILHOOLYcalled attention to the inadequate postal

  1567
  service provided at Baltimore, an important fishing station in the south of Ireland. Letters from Cork were detained at Skibbereen for a day, although the trains proceeded to Baltimore. He wished to know whether this matter was going to be remedied. He also asked whether the postal service could not be improved at other important fishing stations. It had been proved by Royal Commission that Ireland was cheated of two and a quarter millions a year; and surely when they asked for an expenditure of only £6 or £7 a year it ought not to be grudged. He wished to know from the hon. Member whether he was going to remedy this grievance, and what they were going to expect from the Government in the way of killing Home Rule by kindness.
  MR. LOUGH: When this Vote was before the Committee the chief discussion occurred on the question whether the hon. Gentleman in charge of Post Office matters would see his way to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the grievances of the Post Office employees. The hon. Member refused to grant that Committee; but I do not think that it will be possible to continue that refusal if the Postmaster General does not give a more sympathetic consideration to definite cases of abuses or grievances brought before him. I myself have been in correspondence with the Postmaster General for eight months on a particular subject, but have been unable to get any satisfaction from him. It is not my wish to trouble the House with petty details, for I consider that the House is the worst tribunal in the world to deal with these sort of questions. They could much better be dealt with by a Special Commission, or some other authority which could deal gently and kindly with the men and their grievances. But after four hours discussion there was a blank refusal of such a Special Commission or authority. The grievance to which I wish to allude lies in a very small compass. Everyone in the House desires to see the Sunday labour of the Post Office servants restricted as far as possible. In carrying out this very desirable reform a few old servants in the Post Office in London—not more than twenty in all—who have been carrying on Sunday duty for thirty
  1568
  to thirty-five years, have been deprived of that Sunday duty, and their pay has consequently been reduced from £15 to £20 a year. The men get the Sunday rest, and they do not object to the reduction of their pay; but they are entering on the last three years on the pay on which the amount of their pensions will be calculated under the ordinary rule, and the consequence will be that their pensions will be materially reduced. Now, they have asked the Department to consider their case as special. Some of them have worked for thirty-five years, and they ask that their pensions, when due, shall not be calculated on the three years in which the pay has been compulsorily reduced, but on the three years preceding. Does that not seem reasonable? They may have to lose £13 a year in pensions because the Post Office have made this change. This is a business matter, and it, could be quite easily dealt with; but the Department insists on putting a very harsh interpretation on some red-tape rule, and leaves these men under the rankling feeling that they are being hardly dealt with.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid that the wise policy of the First Lord of the Treasury in instituting light railways to the West Coast had called for a great increase in postal facilities, and especially for a Sunday delivery at the fishing towns. It was true that in some places the postal facilities had been increased, but not sufficiently for the development of the fisheries. He hoped the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would not only take note of the places mentioned by the hon. Member for West Cork, but would take into consideration the necessity of increased postal facilities for the whole coast district generally. There was a point of more general interest to which he wished to direct the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. There seemed to be a totally different system in regard to the established force of postmen and the unestablished men in England, Scotland, and Ireland. And, as usual, wherever there was a difference of system in the public service between the three countries, Ireland got the worst of it. [HON. MEMBERS: No, no.] Yes; he spoke from experience.

  1569
  He found that the proportion of established postmen in England to unestablished was as three to one; in Scotland as two to one; and in Ireland the postmen were chiefly unestablished. He knew that the established force always got the best of it in pension and pay. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would make inquiry into it and remedy this matter.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: One is very reluctant indeed to occupy the time of the House of Commons on petty matters of postal administration in the small hours of the morning. But the fact that we are driven to discuss a vast concern such as the Post Office, employing 170,000 people, and spending an enormous number of millions at such a time, is evidence that the Department is not managed in the best possible way. Although I am disinclined to keep Members out of their beds, I wish to say one or two words before the division. The fact that we have various grievances continually brought up—although there is certainly one with which I do not agree—is to me proof positive that we ought to devise some more reasonable method of disposing of the grievances of the postmen, and a better method of dealing with the complaints of the commercial public against the Post Office. The hon. Member for Canterbury has proved the necessity for the direct representation of the Post Office in this House. I venture to say that some of the grievances which we have heard of, as to the mismanagement of the Post Office, would not be heard of by way of needless questions and speeches if we could get in contact with the representative of the Post Office in this House. I have only asked six questions in ten years, and I hope I take as much interest in some departments of administration as hon. Members who speak for the Post Office officials. I am not specially concerned with the Post Office; but in other Departments I can see the Minister, and by a conversation over the tea table or in the smoke room we can save endless questions and avoid needless waste of time which are caused by the want of a direct representative of the Post Office in the House of Commons. If the First Lord of the
  1570
  Treasury wants to save the time of the House, let him have the Postmaster General in this House. I venture to say he could save half an hour or an hour almost every day by such a change. The hon. Member for Canterbury comes here year after year and makes up a powerful indictment against the mismanagement of the Post Office, and its flagrant inconsistencies; and the public are with the hon. Member, and against the Post Office. Why is this? It is simply because the Secretary to the Treasury, however energetic, and however willing he may be to discharge the duties of his dual post, cannot get close to the heads of the Department or be intimate with the endless detail of postal work. If the Postmaster General and the hon. Member for Canterbury were locked up in a room for five or six hours, and fought out the matters in dispute, with an impartial umpire looking through the window, nine out of ten questions put in the House would not be required, and much inconvenience to the public would be avoided. There is another matter. I am under the impression that the Secretary to the Treasury is the last-individual in the world to be selected to do the work here of the Post Office. The Treasury ought to be the watchdog of economy and finance; and it should be the duty of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to look after expenditure so as to secure greater value for the taxpayers' money. Instead of occupying his time in this important duty of economic watchdog, the Secretary to the Treasury is made the departmental drudge of the Postmaster General to the detriment and exclusion of his supervisory Treasury duties.
  Now, Sir, I desire to have from the House an expression of opinion on one or two points connected with the Post Office. Our mail carts are a scandal and a disgrace, and the horses are a disgrace to any Government that claims to be humane. I feel very keenly on these points. I do not wish to worry, the Secretary to the Treasury with innumerable questions about dirty mail carts or horses that ought to be in the knacker's yard, or drivers who seem to be clothed from the salvage sales of old clothes dealers in the East End of London. I

  1571
  do not wish to put questions to the hon. Gentleman on these subjects, but if the Postmaster General were in this House I would point out to him how the County Council horse their Fire Brigade, how they clothe their firemen, and park constables, and by direct argument, and I hope good reasoning, I could show him a more excellent way of managing the mail cart service than he now practises. I could give him many excellent reasons for an improved distribution of letters, books, and newspapers and the practical and profitable extension of the Post Office service. I am convinced that the public as well as the staff are discontented, and the time of the House of Commons will be wasted in the future even more than it now is, because the Secretary to the Treasury may make up his mind that the House of Commons is determined to improve the Post Office. In these days of foreign competition and the necessity for rapid transit, the public are looking to the Post Office as a means of meeting some of that competition by the conveyance of light articles, which the Post Office will not undertake to carry. Therefore I claim that the Postmaster General should be in this House, so as to be in touch with well informed and representative opinion. I also claim that when we have the Postmaster General in this House we shall also have a small Committee appointed from both sides, and without distinction of party, to be joined to the Postmaster General to help him to manage this vast Department. I would make the hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury one of that Committee. Five or six Members would be associated with the Postmaster General, and instead of the hon. Member for Canterbury or the hon. Member for Battersea delaying the House of Commons at twenty-five minutes to one in the morning over necessary but unimportant details and grievances they should be closeted with the Postmaster General once a week, or once a fortnight, or once a month, and nineteen out of twenty Post Office questions which now take up public time would be dealt with by that Committee—questions not only affecting the employees, but also matters with reference to the extension of the
  1572
  Post Office generally would be considered. I know what the bureaucrats will urge. I know what the ossified officials at St. Martin's le Grand will say. They will say that it would kill discipline. It would do no such thing. Discipline is impossible without confidence, and the present system breeds mistrust. I can give a parallel instance. We have in London a fire brigade consisting of 1,200 men. They are admittedly organised on a military basis; that is, that the chief of the fire brigade does what he likes with his men in the technical duties they have to discharge, and the County Council does not interfere with him. He has full discretion, not only in regard to the discipline of his men, but also with regard to their administrative management. An executive committee of the Council is joined to the chief of the fire brigade, and when any of the men have a grievance they have a right to approach that committee, either through their chief or directly, and the fact that last year only three men desired to approach the committee is an indication that discipline can be maintained by that system, which also gives the chief of the fire brigade the assistance of a committee in the technical, practical, and economical administration of the fire service to an extent which would not be possible if he alone were responsible, as the Postmaster General is, for the Post Office. I believe that one of these days such a Committee will be appointed for the Post Office, and the sooner it is appointed the better for the present condition and the future improvement of the Post Office. I shall have to reiterate that view, because I want the House of Commons to believe that it is the only solution of the problem, the only way of obtaining the confidence of the men and giving satisfaction to the general public.
  My last point is this. It will be said these Standing Committees will not work. I do not believe it. Take the case of the Navy. Whenever the Navy makes a blunder over Belleville boilers, or anything else, who are the people to put it right? The House of Commons throws over the permanent officials and experts and gets three or four practical engineer Members from its own ranks to show the permanent officials how not to perpetrate similar mistakes in future. When the War Office does not manage its cam-

  1573
  paign with military precision in South Africa, who are appointed to show them a more excellent way? Why, a Committee of business men from both sides of the House, joined with military men, who show the War Office what should be done. What I want is that the Post Office should be shown how to avoid mistakes, just as are the Navy and the Army. If such a Committee is good enough for the War Office and the Navy in times of difficulty, blunder, and mismanagement, it ought to be good enough for the Post Office to prevent mistakes. Therefore I ask the serious consideration of the House of Commons to the view that I now express, that there should be a small Committee appointed by the House of Commons to assist the permanent officials in each of the great spending departments, which when an unreasonable claim is put forward would resist it, but when a legitimate grievance is brought forward would support it with all the weight of knowledge and deserved sympathy. Pending the appointment of that Committee, the next alternative is that the Government should see the folly of having the Postmaster General in another place, and that he should be brought as soon as possible into the House of Commons. If the Secretary to the Treasury is made Postmaster General, we shall stand up and criticise him with greater frankness and more justification, because he will then have the whole responsibility, and we will not let him off as we do now, nine times out of ten, because we know that Dr. Jekyll is in the House of Lords and Mr. Hyde in the House of Commons. The Secretary to the Treasury is not responsible, and until he is made responsible he can put us off, as he has done to-night, with great courtesy and plausibility, but with little knowledge. We want the man whose hand is on the machine, and to whom we can bring responsibility home, and if the hon. Member who moved the reduction gets to a division I shall support him.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Several questions have been mentioned to-night, two of them of great scope and importance, the others being questions of detail. The majority of them have been used to illustrate the thesis
  1574
  which the hon. Member for Canterbury and the hon. Gentleman opposite, who desire to see a House of Commons Committee to inquire into Post Office matters, put before the House, and which was brought forward not so much to get an answer at this time as for the purpose of showing what is the effect of having the Postmaster General in another place. There are two questions of detail which I am bound in courtesy to deal with as shortly as I can. Two hon. Gentlemen from Ireland spoke about the better delivery of letters in places in that country, and in particular in connection with the fishing trade, to develop which considerable efforts have been made. The Government are naturally interested in the question, and hon. Members will find us not unfriendly in regard to what may be necessary in that connection. At the same time, I must say, as I have already said, that we must have regard to the amount of business which there is to be done, and to the amount of revenue obtainable, and the proportion which one bears to the other. We cannot, with the best goodwill in the world, agree to give all the postal facilities which may be required by every individual village or town, without having regard to the cost of that service and the revenue to be derived from it. The hon. Member for West Islington complained that he had been in correspondence with the Postmaster General for eight months without getting satisfaction. I am afraid we could not give the hon. Gentleman satisfaction except by doing everything he wished, and that would not be possible in most cases. The hon. Member referred to certain postmen in London who have to do extra duty on Sundays. The amount the men received in respect of that duty, which is in the nature of overtime pay, becomes part of their pensionable emoluments.
  MR. LOUGH: How can it be described as extra duty when it has been going on for thirty years?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is a duty for which the men have volunteered and which they are anxious to retain. They volunteer for it every Sunday in the year, and the Postmaster

  1575
  General felt it necessary to interfere not only in the interests of the men, but also of the postal service, and to put restrictions on the amount of Sunday labour which any man might do. I think it is not in the interests of the individual or of the service that a man should, week in and week out, work seven days.
  MR. LOUGH: Did not the Postmaster General arrive at that decision only last year?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Gentleman informs me of that, I accept his statement. It is said that these men have been regularly engaged on this work. They volunteered for the work and were prepared to do it Sunday after Sunday, and the Postmaster General accordingly issued an order preventing any man from doing any more than a reasonable amount of work. That had the effect of reducing the immediate emoluments of these men in proportion to the decreased work, and to that extent will reduce their pensions. The hon. Gentleman says that that is a great hardship; but no man has a right to claim overtime without regard to its effect on himself and the service, or to the discretion invested in the Postmaster General. Then the hon. Gentleman says, Why should not these men be pensioned on the basis of another three years? They have not been doing this extra work, and therefore are not entitled to an extra pension, and we should be breaking the law if we did that. I am therefore sorry I cannot promise to do what the hon. Gentleman asks.
  I now come to the larger question brought forward by the hon. Member for Canterbury and the hon. Member opposite. The hon. Member for Canterbury is well known for the interest he takes in Post Office questions, and he is honourably associated with Post Office reform. There are many improvements which he still thinks might be effected in the service, and he seems to think that it would be a specific for every grievance if the Postmaster General sat in this House. I am afraid that that would not satisfy my hon. friend or remove all cause of complaint. The fact of the matter is that the Post Office business is very difficult and complex.
  1576
  It consists to a very large extent of details which require a great deal of attention to master, and I am not by any means certain that from the administrative point of view, as my right hon. friend who is now President of the Board of Agriculture stated on the previous occasion, it is not a positive advantage for the Postmaster General to have the greater freedom and the larger leisure which a Member of the other House has. In any case, I venture to put it to the House that the process of forming a Government and selecting the persons most fitted for each office is already a sufficiently difficult task, and that the House will be making that task infinitely more difficult if it lays it down that this or that particular office must necessarily be held by a Member of this House. I hope the House will not add any such restriction. Then the hon. Member for Battersea said that if the Postmaster General was to be represented in this House the worst person to choose for that purpose was the Financial Secretary. I confess I do not agree with him. [An HON. MEMBER: It is not a personal matter.] Of course, if it had been a personal charge, I would not have made this remark; but I am treating the matter differently, and am not speaking of it as a personal matter at all. The Post Office and the Treasury are necessarily brought into very close contact. It is one of the complaints of the hon. Member for Canterbury and other hon. Gentlemen interested in Post Office reform, or perhaps I might say change in post Office methods of management, that the control of the Treasury is too direct and too far reaching, and that above all, as we were told the other night, it is ignorant and unsympathetic. What better cure could anyone devise for that state of affairs than making the representative of the Treasury responsible for the Post Office in this House? If it be the case that the Treasury has delayed and thwarted Post Office reform—which I do not admit—I say there could be no better remedy or no better means of putting a strong check on the Treasury than by making the representative of the Treasury also the representative of the Post Office, and therefore the scapegoat for its misdeeds. I think it must be obvious to hon. Gentlemen that the

  1577
  fact that the Financial Secretary has to answer for the Post Office in this House forces upon him an interest in Post Office work, and brings him into contact with the complaints and demands of the public, which under other circumstances he would not be likely to possess. Under our present system the Treasury has to exercise some control over the spending and revenue departments, and it is not altogether a misfortune that the Financial Secretary should have to answer for these matters in the House of Commons. My hon. friend says he objects to Treasury control, but if the Treasury did not occasionally, so to speak, focus different demands and compare the urgency of one with another, if there were not some department to exercise this control over the spending departments, I think that the complaints of hon. Gentlemen as to the increase of taxation would be even louder than their present complaints of the Treasury.
  The other large question was that raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. He desired to see a Committee of this House appointed to examine into alleged Post Office grievances. The hon. Member said that it was true that a Committee had sat on the matter, but he called it a Departmental Committee, and he said it was similar to a jury of malefactors trying their own case. Just let me remind the House that the Chairman of that Committee was Lord Tweedmouth. There was nothing peculiarly official about him—I say it, of course, with all respect. Another Member was Mr. Llewellyn Smith, Labour Commissioner of the Board of Trade, and there were three other officials. I do not think it would be possible to select a stronger or more impartial Committee, or a Committee more competent to carry out the very far-reaching investigation entrusted to It. The hon. Gentleman talked as if this Committee were mainly composed of officials, and that, therefore, it had some peculiar interest in keeping down expenditure, and so on. But a civil servant at the head of a great department has no personal interest, such as a manufacturer would have, in cutting down wages. His inclination rather would be to give way for the sake of peace and quietness. What I wish to call the attention of the
  1578
  House to is that no grievance has been brought before the House either to-night or on Friday night which was not carefully examined by the Tweedmouth Committee, and which was not remedied if that Committee recommended that it should be remedied. All the recommendations of that Committee have been carried into effect.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that the point of his statement was that rural postmen were not being appointed in accordance with the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee and were only being paid 16s. per week.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member does not understand the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee. If he will give me a specific instance I think I will be able to show him the bearing of the Report of the Committee on the matter. I say no fresh grievance has been brought under our notice. It is therefore not a new case which a Commission, if appointed, would have to try. It would be the old issue, which has been already decided. We are now asked to constitute a new court of inquiry and if the House consents to that there will be no end, as long as a single request is not granted, to these demands. There will still be complaints as to the character of the tribunal, still requests for further inquiries, and there will still be the same kind of pressure placed on Members of the House of Commons. I beg the House to remember after all what is the position of the Post Office employee. He is in many respects a very favourable specimen of the working man, and what he gets he gets at the expense of the whole body of the taxpayers, including the working men, many of them less favourably situated. He gets good wages for the work he has to do, he gets a stripe allowance which amounts to 6s. after twenty-five or thirty years service, he has a right to a pension at the age of sixty or if incapacitated in work earlier, and he has holidays and sick leave on full pay extending to a maximum of six months. Is it to be wondered at that with these terms of employment offered there is no difficulty whatever in filling any of these places? On the contrary, there is great demand for them. Every

  1579
  hon. Member knows from his own experience how many applicants there are who desire to enter the Post Office service. I do not think postmen would be so ill-advised as ever to act upon the threat held out by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil to the effect that if the House of Commons could not see eye to eye with the men and did not obey their behests they would cause a stoppage of the whole postal system of the country. If they ever did that, I think they would find that there was a public opinion roused against them stronger than anything of which they have any conception. It is only if they are moderate and reasonable that they can expect to have public opinion on their side. If they were to adopt measures of that kind, regardless of the cost or inconvenience they would inflict upon their countrymen, I think it is not the business of the country or the general public, but the ill-advised men themselves who would be the greatest sufferers.
  In conclusion, I have only two words to say, and they apply both to Members of this House and to postal servants. A great deal has been said about the inaccessibility of the Postmaster General. One hon. Member after the discussion on Friday came to me and said, "Why do you not do as we do in the business firm with which I am connected? If any man has a grievance, all he has to do is to go to the general manager and put it before him. Why can you not do that in the G. P. O.?" I said, "That is exactly what the postal employees can do." The Postmaster General has expressed his readiness to receive representatives drawn from any class of men to state their case in regard to the work in which they are employed and the conditions of their service. In the same way I venture to say to hon. Members of this House that they will always find the Postmaster General most ready to meet them and to hear any point they may wish to put before him if they prefer a personal interview. I have only to add that the Postmaster General himself would do his utmost if, instead of asking questions in this House, hon. Members wrote to him, to see that they got their answers at the earliest possible moment. We have now discussed this Vote at considerable length, both on Friday last and
  1580
  again to-night, and I hope the House will consent to an early division.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The hon. Gentleman has made an, appeal to the House to come to an early division upon this Vote. He said that on Friday last these matters were discussed at some length, and that they had been again, discussed at some length to-night. That is quite true, but I rise for the purpose of emphasising the complaint of the hon. Member for Battersea of the action of the Government in insisting that important matters in connection with a great public spending Department should be brought on at this hour of the night. I am very reluctant, to prolong this debate unduly, but I do say that when, we have 670 Members of this House, each of whom represents a district largely interested, as it must be, in the whole administration of the Post Office Department, it is rather a large order to ask us to dismiss the entire subject in the course of a few hours on Friday, and a few hours at this time in the morning. The practice of bringing matters of this kind before the attention of Parliament at this hour is a bad one, and if it is necessary to have these late sittings I say that the late sittings should be devoted to the discussion of matters other than the great spending departments of the country, such as the Post Office. Upon this point I will only say that the time given us for the discussion is quite inadequate. Unfortunately, I was not able to be here on Friday last. If I had been present I should have taken the opportunity of bringing forward a great many matters connected with the administration of the Post Office in Ireland However, I had not that opportunity, and certainly at this hour of the night I should not receive either the attention of the Financial Secretary or the consideration of the House if I attempted, to go into details in regard to those matters. It is not fair on the part of the Government to put Members into the position, if they want to discuss what they consider to be faults, drawbacks, and flaws in Post Office administration, of having to sit up the whole night in order to do so. The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Cork put a question to the Financial Secretary with regard to the locality which he represents,

  1581
  but the hon. Gentleman did not condescend to give any reply or explanation on the point brought forward. There are many Irish Members on these benches who could, if they had the time, bring forward what they rightly consider to be shortcomings in reference to this Department. But if they rose to do so now they would be greeted with cries of "Divide," and they would receive no better treatment than was accorded to the hon. Member for West Cork. We cannot discuss these matters in the form of question and answer, and if we attempt to do so we are at once told that the Irish Members are asking too many questions. I say you should give us a few hours at a reasonable time. We shall have no further opportunity whatever of asking, in the form of a speech, a single question with regard to the administration of the Post Office. I deliberately characterise t as a perfectly monstrous piece of mismanagement on the part of the Government that the House of Commons should be asked at nearly half-past one in the morning to pass, with practically no discussion, this enormous sum, which covers, one might almost say, the whole cost of the Post Office administration of the country. If there are complaints outside in the ranks of postal officials the reason is largely to be found in the fact that those who are acquainted with the grievances, and would like to state them to the House, are not given a proper opportunity for doing so. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury spoke of the Post Office officials as if they were a body of men anxious to bully the House of Commons, to dictate to the Government, and to insist upon every single thing which they demanded being at once granted. He seemed to imply that if those demands were not granted the men would take measures of the most extreme description, and measures calculated to upset the convenience of the whole country. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is justified for one moment in speaking of the Post Office officials in that way.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that what I said was the exact opposite of that.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg your pardon.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I said I did not believe the Post Office officials would take that course. I referred to the suggestions made in the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and I said that I did not believe the Post Office officials would do that.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I made no suggestion of the sort. What I said was that if the House of Commons did not pay attention to the claims of these men their patience might give way.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I do not at all attribute to the Financial Secretary any statement to the effect that the Post Office officials contemplated a general strike, but I beg respectfully to be allowed to adhere to my description of the references made by him to those officials as references which seemed to imply that the men were a sort of dictators, that they desired to bully Parliament, and that unless what they demanded was granted at once they would take extreme steps. My view is—and every fair minded man must admit it—that the exact opposite is the case. Post Office officials consider that in certain respects they have not been properly treated. After all, there is no body of public servants in any branch of State administration the members of which do not from time to time seek to better their position or to have remedied grievances from which they consider they are made to suffer illegitimately and unnecessarily. Why, therefore, should not the Post Office officials be allowed to do so in a reasonable way if they consider it necessary and proper? The hon. Gentleman says they are paid good wages. I do not deny it. I do not deny that they have some advantages in the public service, but the hon. Gentleman must admit that that is no reason whatever why they should be deprived of the right of putting forward in a legitimate way the grievances and drawbacks from which they consider they are unnecessarily suffering. As far as I know the Post Office officials in Ireland, that is all they have ever done and they have done it at all times in a reasonable and moderate way.

  1583
  The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary says that the case of the employees was tried by the Tweedmouth Committee not long ago, and cannot now be reopened. I say that their case was not tried fairly. I do not question the strict impartiality of the Tweedmouth Committee, but from the description given by the Secretary to the Treasury I do say that it was not a Committee capable of fairly considering the claims of the men on account of the manner in which it was constituted. The hon. Gentleman said that there was only one Post Office official on the Committee, and that was quite true. The rest of the Committee, however, were Government officials, and everybody knows perfectly well that when a Committee composed exclusively of Government officials sits down at a table to consider the grievances put forward by the rank and file of any branch of the public service there is sure to be, consciously or unconsciously, an official bias against the employees. The tendency of those officials will be to uphold the views of the heads of the Department, and they would rather incline against the views of those who were putting forward the grievances of the employees. That is what took place before the Tweedmouth Committee which did not have a member upon it who could be described as directly or indirectly representing the men. That is what the Post Office employees complain of, and I think it is a most reasonable request that the whole matter of their grievances should be submitted to a Commission in which they will have the most implicit confidence by reason of the fact that they will have upon that Commission one or two gentlemen who will represent their views. That is the kind of Commission asked for, and undoubtedly the Tweedmouth Committee was not one of that kind. I think this demand is perfectly justified by the circumstances.
  I wish to make one reference to the Postmaster General. I am not going to say whether it would be to the benefit of the public service that the Postmaster General ought to be in the House of Commons, or in what has been described as "another place." I do say, however, that it is a remarkable thing that, as far as my memory carries me back, I believe I am right in saying that a great majority
  1584
  of the Postmasters General have always been in the House of Commons. I can say without fear of contradiction that the very best Postmasters General we ever had, including the late Mr. Fawcett, did sit in the House of Commons, and they were in a position to answer the questions put forward by hon. Members in regard to the Post Office Department. Those are facts which the hon. Gentleman opposite may set off against the advantages he has put forth in regard to the Postmaster having a seat in another place, wherever that may be. If it is necessary to have a peer as Postmaster General, there is one thing which I think it is his bounden duty to do as the representative of a great Department, and that is that upon occasions like this, when the Vote for his Department is being discussed, and when the views of all sections and parties are being put forward, the very least he can do is to come and take his seat in the gallery here and listen to what is said in the way of complaint. If he was not in a position to rise in this House and answer straight off the questions put to him, as they are now put to the Secretary of the Treasury, then, at least, on hearing the debate his Lordship—[Ministerial laughter]—hon. Gentlemen opposite are evidently not too sleepy to be able to laugh, and I do not know exactly what class of constituencies they represent. I do not suppose that they represent any great section of the democracy, but if they do, and if they will go to their constituency and put the views I am expressing before them, they will find that a great number of their constituents will agree with what I have said.
  After all, a Peer who is at the head of one of the greatest Government Departments in this country, and who is paid by the taxpayers of this country the sum of £5,000 a year.—[An HON. MEMBER: No, no! His salary is £2,500.] I should have thought that any Peer would have turned up his nose as such a small salary as that. At any rate, a member of "another place," who is the head of one of the greatest Departments in this country, and who is not above taking pay from the people of this country for looking after that Department, might at least, for the time being, have the humbleness to come, once in a way,

  1585
  down to this House, and listen to the complaints of the representatives of the people whose money he is taking and putting into his own pocket. [Ministerial cries of "Divide, divide!"] Hon. Members opposite always cry "Divide" when they hear anything particularly true. When we have a discussion such as this, and such as that which took place last Friday on the Post Office Vote; when we have the Member for Canterbury getting up in this House and urging those reforms which everybody must thank him for urging—even then the Postmaster General will not come to the gallery and listen to the debate. But if the hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland got up to make a speech about Irish landlordism, they would always see the Postmaster General there, more especially if there was anything being dealt with in connection with the Irish land question, and if the hon. Member for South Tyrone was about. Sometimes I forget that he is a member of the House of Lords, and I refrain from looking upon him with the proper amount of respect with which I always ought to look upon a member of the House of Lords. At any rate, I put it forward with all the earnestness I can that, while I do not wish to disparage the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, who is most anxious to do the best he can in the position in which he finds himself, I say we have a right to demand that the head of this great Department should at least attend in the House of Commons, and listen to what we have got to say.
  It is always a bad thing to turn out the heads of any great Department at the same time. We have got a Secretary to the Treasury who is new to the Post Office. I have no doubt that he will acquit himself creditably when he has been there some time, but he is new to the work. The two principal heads responsible for the working of this great Department are practically new to the work, and I would like to know why the Government did not leave the present President of the Board of Agriculture in the Post Office Department? Why did they not leave him there, or, better still, why did they not make him Postmaster General, when everybody knew that he knew far more about it than any
  1586
  other member of the Government, because he had administered that Department for five years in this House as Secretary to the Treasury? We have got a brand new Secretary to the Treasury, and we have got an Irish landlord for Postmaster General, who sits in the House of Lords. The Post Office Department is not administered as it should be, and if the time of this House is taken up upon questions in reference to the Post Office hon. Members who ask questions should not be blamed, but the Government ought to be blamed, because they do not give to hon. Members a proper opportunity of discussing this great question at a reasonable time.
  MR. O'MARAsaid he joined in the protest made by his hon. and learned friend against the scant attention which had been paid to the grievances which had been brought forward. [Ministerial cries of "Divide, divide!"] He desired to call attention to the fact that Irish officials in the Post Office were very much underpaid as compared with the same class of officials in Scotland. [Ministerial interruptions and Nationalist cries of "Police, police!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. O'MARA: The population and the postal business of Ireland were nearly the same as in Scotland, and some explanation was required as to why half as much again was paid to postal officials in Scotland as was paid in Ireland. In Ireland there were 3,000 postmasters and sub-postmasters, and altogether they were paid a less total sum than 2,300 postmasters and sub-masters employed in Scotland. That was a point which required some explanation. Ireland was treated unfairly in regard to salaries and promotions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 139; Noes, 77. (Division List No. 239.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Keswick, William

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Langley, Batty

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Doughty, George

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawson, John Grant

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Emmott, Alfred

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lockwood, Lt-Col. A. R.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Finch, George H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Bristol, S

  Austin, Sir John

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lowe, Francis William

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Balfour, Maj. K R (Christchurch

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Garfit, William

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Bigwood, James

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

  M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.),

  Bill, Charles

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  M'Crae, George

  Black, Alexander William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Bond, Edward

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Brassey, Albert

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Brigg, John

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Milton, Viscount

  Burns, John

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

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Butcher, John George

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Caldwell, James

  Gretton, John

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Carlile, William Walter

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hain, Edward

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Davonport)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Moss, Samuel

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hardy, Laurence, (Kent, Ashf'd

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Mount, William Arthur

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Chapman, Edward

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Murray Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Heath, James Staffords, N. W.)

  Myers, William Henry

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Herman-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Norman, Henry-

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Holland, William Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Parker, Gilbert

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Partington, Oswald

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Penn, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Percy, Earl

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Price, Robert John

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Priestley, Arthur

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Purvis, Robert

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

  Randles, John S.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

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

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carrie

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Rea, Russell

  Spear, John Ward

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas Thomson

  Strachey, Edward

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

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Stroyan, John

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

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

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

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings)

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

  Round, James

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Tollemache, Henry James

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

  Seely, Chalres Hilton (Lincoln)

  Ure, Alexander

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Valentia, Viscount

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Ambrose, Robert

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

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Bell, Richard

  Kennedy, Patrick James

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

  Boland, John

  Lambert, George

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Malley, William

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Mara, James

  Caine, William Sproston

  Lloyd-George, David

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lundon, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Cremer, William Randal

  MacDermott, Patrick

  Reddy, M.

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Govern, T.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Delany, William

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mooney, John J.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murnaghan, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Duffy, William J.

  Murphy, John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Dillon and Mr. Weir.

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Question put and agreed to.

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Garfit, William

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry).

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Goschen, Hon. George J.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Arrol, Sir William

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Nichol, Donald Ninian

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Purvis, Robert

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pym, C. Gay

  Balfour, Maj. K R (Christchurch

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Randles, John S.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Hain, Edward

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bond, Edward

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Ridley, Hon M. W. (Staleybr'ge

  Brassey, Albert

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hope, J. F. (Sh'ffield, Brightside

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton)

  Seeley, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln).

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbyshire)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Keswick, William

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks).

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm)

  Lawrence, J. (Monmouth)

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

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Lawson, John Grant

  Spear, John Ward

  Channing, Francis Allston

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

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Chapman, Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stroyan, John

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

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lucas, Col. F. (Lowestoft)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Crossley, Savile

  Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cams.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Majendie, James A. H.

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

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Malcom, Ian

  Wortley, Rt Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Doughty, George

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfries.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

  Finch, George H.

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morrell, George Herbert

  NOES.

  Abraham Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

  Hammond, John

  Murphy, John

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N

  Boland, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Caldwell, James

  Hope, John D. (Fife, West)

  Norman, Henry

  Campbell, John (Armagh S.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kennedy, Patrick James

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

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

  Crean, Eugene

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Malley, William

  Delany, William

  Lough, Thomas

  O'Mara, James

  Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lundon, W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Dillon, John

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Partington, Oswald

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Crae, George

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Govern, T.

  Price, Robert John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mooney, John J.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Gilhooly, James

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Reddy, M.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

  Moss, Samuel

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Murnaghan, George

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  1588

  1589

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Sullivan, Donal

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Weir, James Galloway

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Spencer, Rt Hn C R. (Northants)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Question put accordingly, "That '£5,528,810' stand part of the resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 136; Noes, 81. (Division List No. 240.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt Sir A. F.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Mount, William Arthur

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Garfit, William

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Arrol, Sir William

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bain, Col. James Robert

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Purvis, Robert

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Randles, John S.

  Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

  Hain, Edward

  Rankin, Sir James

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Bond, Edward

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Brassey, Albert

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.)

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

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

  Keswick, William

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire)

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lawson, John Grant

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm)

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Spear, John Ward

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wor'c

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Chapman, Edward

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stroyan, John

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Collings, Rt. Hn. Jesse

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Valentia, Viscount

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lowe, Francis William

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire)

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

  Doughty, George

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Finch, George H.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cullinan, J.

  Gilhooly, James

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Delany, William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Boland, John

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Caldwell, James

  Dillon, John

  Groves, James Grimble

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hammond, John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Duffy, William J.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Horniman, Frederick John

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

  Reddy, M.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Norman, Henry

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Levy, Maurice

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

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Lundon, W.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

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

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Sullivan, Donal

  M'Crae, George

  O'Malley, William

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  O'Mara, James

  Weir, James Galloway

  M'Govern, T.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth).

  Moss, Samuel

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Henniker Heaton and Mr. Lough.

  Murnaghan, George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Murphy, John

  Price, Robert John

  MR. A. J. BALFOURclaimed, "That the main Question be now put."
  Main Question put accordingly, "That
  this House doth agree with the Committee in the said resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 140; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 241.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Garfit, William

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bain, Col. James Robert

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Groves, James Grimble

  Purvis, Robert

  Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christchch

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Pym, C. Guy

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Hain, Edward

  Randles, John S.

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

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'x)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'donderry

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bond, Edward

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm.

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Brassey, Albert

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ritchie, Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln

  Cavendish V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Kenon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Keswick, William

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

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

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Lawson, John Grant

  Spear, John Ward

  Chapman, Edward

  Lee, Arthur H (Hanfs., Fareh'm

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset

  Charrington, Spencer

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stroyan, John

  Collings, Rt. Hn. Jesse

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lowe, Francis William

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Crossley, Sir Saville

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B (Cambs

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E R. (Bath

  Doughty, George

  Malcolm, Jan

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Finch, George H.

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstw

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morgan, Hn Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  NOES.

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

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Mara, James

  Ambrose, Robert

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Boland, John

  Leamy, Edmund

  Partington, Oswald

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lundon, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Price, Robert John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  M'Crae, George

  Priestley, Arthur

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Reddy, M.

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Govern, T.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Delany, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Redmond, Wm. (Clare)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Robson, Wm. Snowdon

  Dillon, John

  Moss, Samuel

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murnaghan, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Duffy, William J.

  Murphy, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Gilhooly, James

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norman, Henry

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh'e

  O'Malley, William

  Further consideration of third resolution deferred till Thursday.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir William Walrond.)
  Put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Two of the clock.