Commons Sitting of 29 March 1901

Preamble
The House met at Eleven of the clock.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, without amendment.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, having returned—
MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1901.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  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.:—
  Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Dearne Valley Junction Railways) Bill.
  Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL 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.:—
  North British Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  HORLEY DISTRICT GAS BILL AND CRAWLEY GAS BILL.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Horley District Gas Bill and the Crawley Gas Bill that they have power, if they think fit, to consolidate the said two Bills, or any part or parts thereof respectively, into one Bill.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
  Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  PAISLEY GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  THAMES AND SEVERN PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Macclesfield, Ripon, Todmorden, Trowbridge, Ware, Wellingborough (Public Purposes), Wellington (Salop), Widnes. Wisbech, and Workington, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders, made by the Board of Trade under the Electric' Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Macclesfield, Ripon, Todmorden, Trowbridge. Ware. Wellingborough (Public Purposes), Wellington (Salop), Widnes. Wisbech, and Workington," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]
LONDON BRIDGE WIDENING BILL.
  DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
    TEES VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for supplying with gas the parish of Arlesey and other places in the county of Bedford." Arlesey Gas Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to convert the capital of the Newcastle

209
upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Company; to empower the Company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill [Lords].
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to increase the number of the Council of the Borough of Folkestone, in the county of Kent; and for other purposes." Folkestone Corporation Bill [Lords].

ARLESEY GAS BILL [Lords].
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATES-HEAD GAS BILL [Lords].
    FOLKESTONE CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  BEER BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Rotherham; and Peterborough; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Fenton (three); Longton (No. 1); Gark Hall; Longton (No. 2); Polton; Outfield; Loanhead; Rosewell; Newbattle; Wallyford; Carberry; Staveley; Brownhills; Hanley (No. 3); Hanley (No. 5); Hanley (No. 1); Hanley Deep Pit; Nostell; Haigh; St. Helens; Flimby; Ellenborough; Bullgill; Gillhead; Buckhill; Seaton Moor; Robin Hood; Lepton; Clayton West; Old Silkstone; Birley (No. 1); Wortley and Farnley; and Kirkintilloch Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  Petition from Rotherham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Cambridge, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Fenton (three); Longton (No. 1); Gark Hall;
  210
  Wallyford; Carberry; Edinburgh; Loanhead; Brownhills; Hanley (No. 5); Hanley (No. 3); Hanley (No. 1); Deep Pit, Hanley; North Staveley; Haigh; Nostell; Robin Hood; Seaton Moor; Buckhill; Gillhead; Bullgill; Flimby; Ellenborough; Saint Helens; Outfield; Clayton West; Lepton; Lye; Two Gates; Old Silkstone; Birley (No. 1); Wortley and Farnley; and Cakemore Collieries; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Shipley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Pickering; Dearham; Workington (three); Maryport; Netherton; Hermiston; West Croydon; Leicester; Mexborough; Oulton; Rothwell; Stanley-cum-Wrenthorpe; Ham; Hedgman; Pentre Estyll; Pickering; Sunday School Union; Islington; Cockermouth; Llanllyfni; New Maiden; Hatherleigh; Okehampton; Hackney; and Shore-ditch; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Cawdor; Naidu Landward; Lossiemouth; Drainie; Glenluce; Thurso; Edinburgh (two); Tain (two); New Spynie; and Kings" kettle; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the parishes of Hemsworth, Ackworth, and Badsworth, in the West Riding of the county of York (Brackenhill Light Railway Order, 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the borough of Morley and the urban districts of Drighlington,

  211
  Gildersome, and East and West Ardsley, in the West Riding of the county of York (Morley and District Light Railways Order. 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the deviation of a Light Railway authorised by the West Hartlepool Light Railways Order, 1897, and for other purposes (West Hartlepool Light Railways
  [Deviation, etc.] Order, 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Salop from Cleobury Mortimer to Ditton Priors (Cleobury Mortimer and Ditton Priors Light Railway Order, 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Essex between Kelvedon and River Blackwater (Kelvedon, Tiptree, and Tollesbury Light Railway Order, 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the county of Lancaster from Ormskirk to Southport (Ormskirk and Southport Light Railways Order, (1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Kent from Hollingbourne to Faversham (Maidstone and Faversham Junction Light Railway Order,
  1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  BREWERS' LICENCES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 28th March; Mr. Austen Chamberlain]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No.
  111.]

  FLEETS (GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 12th December, 1900; Sir Charles Dilke]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No.
  112.]

  EAST INDIA (ROYAL INDIAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE).
  Copy presented, of Papers relating to Remodelling of Course of Instruction and Retirement of certain of the Professors and Lecturers; and Report of the Board of Visitors, dated 25th March, 1901, and Minutes of Evidence taken before them [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—INQUIRY INTO CONDUCT AND OPERATIONS.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state if in the promised inquiry into the conduct of the war will be included the hiring of transports; the price paid for them; the length of many of the passages; the food supplied to the troops; the alleged unfitness of some; and especially why, at a critical time, when speed was of such importance, the fast mail steamers were not requisitioned, as per the subsidy contracts, many of which could have carried a large number of troops without any alterations.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not think that anything will be excluded by the reference from the consideration of the Commission to inquire into the conduct of the war, but I confess that I do not think their task will be a very light one. This is a short sprig of a very small branch of that very large investigation.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us when the inquiry will take place, will it be a genuine inquiry, and will it take place at a time when the public interest has not decreased?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot imagine anything which would so rapidly

  213
  decrease public interest as these very minute points being brought forward.

  SEDITIOUS LIBELS AT THE CAPE.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state when the trial of Mr. Albert Cartwright, editor of the South African Daily News, on a charge of seditious libel will take place; and whether he is to be tried by the Special Treason Court constituted by the recent Act of the Cape Colony Parliament, or under the ordinary law.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The only information I possess on this subject is that the preparatory examination took place in the Cape Town Police Court, but I have telegraphed to inquire.

  HEILBRON AFFAIR.
  MR. ALLEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has official information to the effect that a convoy of sixty wagons, with food, mails, and 200 boxes of small arm ammunition, and 900 rounds of 15-pounder ammunition was despatched from the railway to Heilbron on 2nd June with an escort of only
  140 infantry, and was captured by the Boers; that General Colvile expressed his opinion that the escort was inadequate; and that he did not receive the telegram informing him of the convoy's departure till 20th June.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): A convoy was despatched with an escort of 163 infantry on the 2nd June and was captured by the Boers. General Colvile did express an opinion as to the inadequacy of the escort, but the convoy had already started and could not be stopped, fie was aware of the intended despatch of the convoy on the 2nd June. He reports that he received no telegram informing him that it had started till the 20th June; telegraphic communication was much interrupted at the time.

  PLAGUE AT CAPE TOWN.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of
  214
  State for War whether, in view of the increase of plague at Cape Town and the danger of importing the disease into this country, he will direct that all military invalids and soldiers arriving at English ports in ships on which any case of plague, has occurred should be isolated and kept under observation for a sufficient period before being allowed to go to their homes or to military camps.
  MR. BRODRICK: Instructions to this effect were issued on the 22nd instant to all concerned.

  PEACE NEGOTIATIONS WITH GENERAL BOTHA.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received from Lord Kitchener, since his last answer on this question, any further report of the interview between him and General Botha.
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir.

  MAFEKING SIEGE—THEFTS OF GOVERNMENT FOODSTUFFS.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Staff Sergeant-Major J. S. Loney, who, during the siege of Mafeking, was tried by court-martial, pleaded guilty to the theft of Government foodstuffs, was sentenced to reduction, discharge with ignominy, and five years penal servitude; that, during the final attack on Mafeking, Loney was released and took a gallant part in its defence; and that he is at present serving his time at Portland; and whether, having regard to these facts and also to the fact that before joining Baden-Powell Loney was a warrant officer with an excellent character and fifteen years service, during ten of which he had no entry against him, a mitigation of the sentence may be granted.
  MR. BRODRICK: This warrant officer stole and sold Government food at a time when the whole of the inhabitants of Mafeking were on rations and undergoing a siege. I cannot undertake to reconsider the case.

  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is now able to state the proportion of members of the Yeomanry cavalry, of the Volunteer force, and of ex-members of the Regular or Militia forces in the second levy of the Imperial Yeomanry.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. and gallant friend the information at present, as the Returns have not yet been received.

  ARMY REORGANISATION.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, before the special discussion on the proposed Army reforms takes place, he will furnish a Return or Memorandum giving the House information respecting the 120,000 men constituting the organised force to be held available for field service over sea, as set forth in the Return on to-day's Paper entitled Army Reforms.
  MR. BRODRICK: The numbers which make up the 120,000 men are as follows:—

  All ranks.

  3 Army Corps

  108,777

  3 Cavalry Brigades

  7,491

  Line of Communication Troops

  4,000

  Total

  120,268

  I cannot assent to my hon. friend's Return, as the details are numerous, and our staff is already heavily worked.

  MARK IV. BULLETS.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the 50,000,000 Mark IV. bullets, of which 4,500,000 were recently broken up, were manufactured in conformity with the rules adopted by the Hague Conference; and on what date were the bullets contracted for.
  MR. BRODRICK: Mark IV. bullets were adopted into the Service before the declaration of the Hague Conference. The order for this ammunition was given in June, 1898.

  DEFECTIVE NAVAL GUNS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the result of the recent inquiry into the bursting of guns on board one of His Majesty's ships of war.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): There have been no cases of guns bursting on board His Majesty's ships in recent years. The only instance resembling a burst occurred on board the "Royal Sovereign," when a portion of the muzzle of a six-pounder gun was blown off. The Ordnance Committee is at the present time investigating the cause of this accident.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: The case I referred to was that of the guns of the "Thunderer," which were at first stated to have burst, an inquiry being ordered. I suppose they did not burst. Still, there was an inquiry.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Had I known that the right hon. Baronet alluded to that case I would have obtained the information.

  MALTA—LANGUAGE QUESTION.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will grant a Return of the Memoranda and Correspondence relating to the language question in Malta subsequent to June, 1899, and in continuation of the Return previously granted and ordered to be printed on 21st July,
  1899.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I propose shortly to lay before Parliament further Papers in continuation of the Return referred to by the hon. Member.

  INDIAN RAILWAYS—BENGAL COAL INDUSTRY.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether complaints havereached him that the coal industry in Bengal is cramped by the inability of the East India Railway to supply sufficient wagons to carry the coal from the mines to consumers, and for shipment; and whether, to

  217
  secure a better service, of wagons on that railway as well as a general extension of profitable lines, the Government of India can arrange to make the expenditure on them independent of the general administrative finances under borrowing powers such as were granted some years ago and then withdrawn.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Some representations as to the insufficiency of the rolling-stock of the East India Railway for the conveyance of coal reached me about a year ago. A short time previously large additions to the rolling-stock had been sanctioned by the Government of India; further additions were sanctioned later in the year; and, so far as I am aware, all the requirements of the Company have now been met. Though all capital outlay for railway purposes raised upon the security of the revenues of India must be under the control of Government, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the adequate equipment of lines in working order should be a primary consideration in Indian railway administration.

  SLAVERY IN ZANZIBAR.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will be able within a short time to present to the House further Papers relating to slavery and the slave trade in the Sultanate of Zanzibar, in continuance of those issued in. April, 1900, and whether such Papers will include a statement of the reasons which have led His Majesty's officials to estimate that there are only half as many slaves in the two islands as were believed to exist in 1897, and to conclude that further abolitionist measures are not necessary; and whether His Majesty's Agent and Consul General will shortly issue a Report on the condition of the British East Africa Protectorate.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): Papers will be laid after the recess; they will include all the information which has reached His Majesty's Government on the subject.
  218
  His Majesty's Agent and Consul General has been so short a time in the Protectorate that he has not yet had time to prepare a report, but he will be asked to do so.

  DEMISE OF THE CROWN—POSITION OF OFFICE-HOLDERS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Ex-echquer whether he can inform the House what is the total of the penalties that have been incurred by Ministers who were reappointed to their offices by the present King should the view of the existing law suggested by Mr. Attorney General be correct.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): When I first saw the question I hoped the hon. Member had discovered for me a new source of revenue. I may tell him, however, that the answer is nil.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether he is aware that, under the provisions of 54 George 3, cap. 16, the seats in Parliament of persons continuing in office under successive Lords Lieutenant of Ireland are not to be vacated; and whether there is any analogous provision in the existing law relating to the reappointment of Ministers by a new Sovereign.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): The answer to the question in the first paragraph is in the affirmative; to that in the second paragraph, that lam not aware of any; but I may remind the hon. Member that by the Statute of Anne no re-appointment can be necessary until six months after the demise of the Crown.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if he has seen the London Gazette of 24th January, in which I find this statement:—"The Right Hon. Arthur James Balfour was, by His Majesty's command, sworn as First Lord of the Treasury," and whether that does not constitute a new appointment.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I should say not, Sir.

  POLICE PENSIONS.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the late decision of Justices Channell and Bucknill in the case of ex-Police Constable Upperton against the Metropolitan authorities, under which it will become obligatory on all corporations and other police authorities to pay the retiring pensions of their police constables at the rate of 365¼ days per year instead of 364 days, or fifty-two weeks per year, whether steps will be taken to enable all police pensioners who have been retired under the same Act to recover back payment at the same higher rate from the various bodies under which they served.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): So far as the Metropolitan Police are concerned, all pensions granted previous to the decision referred to have been revised in accordance therewith, and the arrears have been paid. As regards other police forces, it is a matter for the various police authorities, who, I have no doubt, will take care that the law as now declared is carried out.

  CENSUS RETURNS.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the difficulty managers of hotels and similar large establishments will be under in procuring the return for the Census, the enumerators will be authorised to accept particulars as inscribed in hotel registers of persons who, though known to have occupied rooms on the night of the 31st instant, have not presented any returns for the enumerators.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): It will be the duty of the resident manager or proprietor of a hotel or similar establishment to fill up the columns in the Census schedule for all the persons staying in the establishment on the night of Sunday next. I am afraid that the particulars in the hotel registers would generally not give the information desired.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT—LOAN REPAYMENTS.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the replies he has received from local authorities throughout the country in response to his circular asking for information respecting the precise difficulties which stand in the way of carrying out the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, he can see his way to recommend the Government to extend the period of repayment of loans for housing schemes.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have nothing to add to what I have already said on this subject. Very few replies have as yet been received from the local authorities with whom I have communicated.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the replies will be laid before the House?
  MR. WALTER LONG: No; certainly not. The inquiry is one of a departmental character, and therefore I could not undertake to lay the Papers on the Table.

  GOVERNMENT VETERINARY INSPECTORS.
  MR. W. M'KILLOP: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state how the situations of travelling inspectors in the Veterinary Department of the Board of Agriculture are obtained, and what qualifications are necessary; and can he explain why the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture was allowed to leave his post and to go to South Africa as Secretary to the Hospital Commission, more especially when swine fever had not yet been stamped out, and foot-and-mouth disease had again broken out in England.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): We employ in connection with our work under the Diseases of Animals Act (a) veterinary inspectors and (b) inspectors. Both are nominated by the President of the Board for the time being. The former require veterinary qualifications for the performance of their duties,

  221
  and they have hitherto been selected by the chief veterinary officer and their names submitted to the President. The inspectors require to possess good business habits and address, and to be capable of securing the proper observance of our orders with firmness and tact. The officer apparently referred to in the second paragraph of the question is an assistant secretary. He was selected. I understand, by the Government in July last, because it was thought that his combined military and civil experience rendered him specially qualified for the service required. Owing to the extra exertions of the remaining members of the staff, which were freely given, the business of the Department was not prejudiced by his absence for three months, which period included his ordinary holiday.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS—APPEALS AGAINST DISMISSAL
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can now approximately indicate a date for the introduction of the Bill to afford to teachers of public elementary schools a method of appeal against wrongful dismissal from employ.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): My right hon. friend the Vice-President of the Board of Education wishes me to say that he is detained at the Board of Education, but the answer to the question is in the negative.

  RIFLE RANGES AT POLITICAL CLUBS—YOKER (DUMBARTONSHIRE) CONSERVATIVE CLUB.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that a rifle range is provided at a Conservative Club recently opened at Yoker, Dumbartonshire; and whether similar facilities for rifle practice will be afforded to the various branches of the United Irish League in Scotland and other political organisations.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I have no knowledge of the fact stated in the first
  222
  paragraph of the hon. Member's question. As neither the provision of rifle ranges nor the fostering of political organisations is within the province of my Department I fear I am unable to answer the second paragraph.

  FORT GEORGE WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Inverness-shire published last year shows that water taken from a well at Fort George Station was found to be so impure as to be quite unfit for use; can it be ascertained whether the Highland Railway Company have taken any action in the matter; and is the station at Fort George now provided with wholesome water.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Board of Trade are always glad to use their good offices with respect to any subject falling within their powers, but I feel sure that the hon. Member will see on reflection that this is a matter lying entirely outside the province of this Department.

  EDINBURGH POST OFFICE REVISION.
  SIR LEWIS M'IVER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the answer given on 10th May, 1900, to the effect that the scheme of revision for the sorting branch of the Edinburgh Post Office would very shortly be decided; and, seeing that on
  12th December, 1900, it was stated that a portion of the scheme had been sanctioned by the Treasury and carried into effect, but that certain questions of principle, with regard to higher appointments, which affected the service generally, had been held over, but which it was hoped would be disposed of before long, whether he can now say what progress has been made in arriving at a settlement of these questions.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Post-

  223
  master General is not yet in a position to come to a final decision upon the questions referred to, as he is still in communication with the Treasury upon the subject; but he hopes that a settlement will be shortly arrived at.

  INVERNESS-SHIRE POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that in some districts of Inverness-shire the delivery of letters is effected only once a fortnight, whilst there are others in which the delivery is effected only once a week; and, in view of the fact that most of these townships contain from 50 to upwards of
  100 inhabitants, will he have some inquiry made with a view to a more frequent postal service.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will inform the Postmaster General what are the districts or townships in Inverness-shire to which he refers, the Postmaster General will have special inquiry made with the view of ascertaining whether it is possible to afford a more frequent delivery of letters to the places in question.

  HARRIS MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has received a communication from a public meeting, recently held at Stockinish, Harris, the necessity for a mail steamer service between Loch Stockinish and the mainland; and will the Postmaster General consider the expediency of establishing the proposed service, especially in view of the fact that it would not only expedite the delivery of letters for Stockinish, but would also materially assist the conduct of the postal service for the fourteen townships between Scadabay and Flodibay, Harris.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has received the extract forwarded by the hon. Member from a letter relative to a public meeting recently held in Stockinish, Harris, at which a resolution was adopted as to the
  224
  desirability of arranging for a mail steamer to call at Loch Stockinish. He is not sanguine that such a service could be established, as when the question was last considered, in 1897, it was found that if the Portree and Dunvegan steamer called at Loch Stockinish the arrival of mails at places beyond would be delayed, and also that the contractor objected to make the call on the ground that the entrance to Loch Stockinish was dangerous. The Postmaster General will, however, make further inquiry in the matter, and communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  PORTARONAN BOAT SLIP.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the attention of the Congested Districts Board has been called to the necessity for the erection of a boat slip at Portaronan, Malin Head; whether he is aware that this port is frequented and used by deep sea men; that there is no accommodation for the landing of fishing boats and for the removal of the fish from the boats at present; and that in consequence quantities of
  fish are lost in being taken from the boats to the shore; and can he say whether this port has been visited lately by a member of the Congested Districts Board, or by any of their officials, for the purpose of reporting to the Board as to the cost and the necessity of a boat slip; and, if so, what was the report.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Representations have been made to the Board to the effect mentioned in the first and second paragraphs. The answer to the third paragraph is in the affirmative. A committee of members of the Board will visit the place when a suitable opportunity presents itself.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT—ASSISTANT SURVEYORS.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the professional qualifications necessary for candidates for the position of assistant surveyors, in order to obviate the necessity for an examination; and can he explain on whose authority and why were the

  225
  subjects of this examination altered on the passing of the Local Government Act.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The qualifications have been described in detail by an Order of the Local Government Board, published in February last. I have forwarded a copy of this Order to the hon. Member. In answer to the second paragraph, I would refer to the provisions of Section 83, Sub-sections 4 and 9, of the Act of 1898. The Civil Service Commissioners demurred to conducting these examinations, and the Local Government Board was requested to discharge that duty by the Lord Lieutenant. If the hon. Member has any representations to make on the syllabus I shall be prepared to consider them.

  ROXBOROUGH ROAD SCHOOL.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how much money is now in the hands of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland on account of the Roxborough Road School endowment; from what source it is derived; to what purpose, or purposes, it is legally applicable; what became of the rents paid by the tenant for the ten years from 1880 to 1890; whether, during that period, the tenant hold under an agreement which bound him to keep the premises in repair; and whether there is any way now to recover that money for the endowment; and can he say when these premises were last inspected on behalf of the Commissioners of Education; and, as they are public property in which the city of Limerick has an interest, will he see that the present tenant is kept to the terms of his agreement, and does not allow the building to go into disrepair.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The moneys referred to in the first query consist of a sum of £163 10s.
  1d. cash, and £63 1s. 6d. stock, all derived from the rent payable by the present tenant of the school. The Commissioners are not in a position to state to what purposes these moneys are applicable. A sum of £210 was received by way of rent between 1880 and 1890. Of this, a sum of £188 17s. 6d. was expended by the Commissioners on repairs. The tenant
  226
  is bound to keep the premises in good repair, reasonable wear and damage excepted. He appears to have expended on the premises, out of his money, a sum of £160 in the same period. The buildings have not been inspected on behalf of the Commissioners since 1892. The present tenant is bound by his agreement to give up the premises in as good condition and repair as he received them.

  IRISH LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the amount paid by the Treasury in discharge of its liability to the Irish Local Taxation Account for the grant-in-aid wrongfully paid in 1898 out of that account, by passing a Supplemental Vote last July for the amount so paid, is now standing to the credit of the Irish Local Taxation Account in Dublin Castle; and will the Treasury make an Order for its payment to the different asylums for the maintenance of patients for the three months intervening between the change from the old calendar year to the new financial year, during which period the entire cost of maintenance fell on the local rates.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The amount of the Supplementary Vote taken in July last has been paid into the Local Taxation Account in the Bank of Ireland, and is available for the various purposes mentioned in Section 58 of the Local Government Act,
  1898. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the Treasury issue a statement for the information of Irish Members?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I shall be very glad to attempt to explain the matter again if the hon. Members care to have my views on the subject when the Vote comes on.

  APJOHN'S ESTATE.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, under the 40th section of the Land Act of 1896, steps have been taken to sell to the tenants of the late Michael Marshall Lloyd Apjohn their several

  227
  tenancies on the townlands of Garrison, Nicker, Drominboy, and Ballyvoneen; can he say how far negotiations have been carried; and will he use his best endeavours to see that said sale will be carried out.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The case of this estate was before the Land Judge on the 7th February. An adjournment was granted until June, in order that a rental might finally be settled with a view to the issue of a request for an inspection by the Land Commissioners under the 40th section of the Act of 1896.

  LADY DE BURGH'S ESTATE.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Land Commissioners, Messrs. Lynch and Wrench, made an order in respect of the values of the various tenancies on the townlands of Drumsally, Dromalta, and Dromcloher, in the parish of Cappamore, county Limerick, on the estate of Lady De Burgh, with a view to have those lands sold to the tenants under the 40th section of the Land Act of 1896; and, having regard to the fact that the tenants and the mortgagees and others interested in the sale have all agreed to the proposed terms, can he say what is now preventing the sale from coming to an issue, and will he take steps that on the earliest opportunity the matter may be brought to a completion.
  MR. WYNDHAM: An Order was issued in January last by the Land Judge for the sale of the lands in question to the tenants under section 40. I understand that the procedure of making the offers is now being carried out.

  IRISH HEAD CONSTABLES.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many "P" head constables have been examined for the rank of district inspector since the rule came into force of working with "P," as above those who passed the educational examination; how many of those men were clerks, and how many of those were
  228
  clerks at the Castle; and how many of the men who were clerks have been successful at those examinations; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in connection with Mr. Singleton; and can he state how many times this gentleman has presided at the Board of Examiners.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number of head constables possessing the "P" qualification who have been examined for the rank of district inspector is 59. Only one of these men held the position of clerk, though not at the Castle, and he was unsuccessful. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. Mr. Singleton has presided at three examinations.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: What is meant by the mysterious "P."?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I believe it means an examination for the rank of District Inspector.

  CASE OF MRS. MURRIHY, OF TARMON, CLARE.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Murrihy, of Tarmon, county Clare, a widow, who was evicted; and, seeing that she was sentenced to one month's imprisonment and to find bail for twelve months, or to remain another month in gaol, and was convicted under a practically obsolete Act, will he take steps to have her at once released.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mrs. Murrihy, on the 9th February last, persistently followed a man and molested him by opprobrious exclamations. She was prosecuted under Section 7, sub-section 2, of the 38th and 39th Vict. cap. 86. But that is the very Act for the protection of Trades Unions, the application of which to agrarian disputes in Ireland was so warmly advocated by some hon. Members from Ireland in an Amendment to the Address. Any representations in favour of the woman's release from custody should be addressed in the usual way to the Lord Lieutenant. I may add, however, that further proceedings are pending against her for similar conduct on the 25th February.

  PEMBROKE (IRELAND) URBAN COUNCIL.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the Report on the accounts of Pembroke Urban Council by the Local Government Board auditor, who refused to grant a certificate on the ground that the abstracts did not represent the position of affairs; whether he is aware that the Report revealed that loans were put to credit of current revenue; that moneys lodged by contractors as security were similarly treated; that false debit balances were shown in the accounts, and that other sums on deposit were ignored; that the sum collected as poor rate had not been all paid over to the county council at the end of the financial year; and that the debit balance had been wrongly stated, while the indebtedness of the council had increased during the year by £16,151 11s. 11d.; whether the Government will take steps to further investigate and set right the financial affairs of this council; and whether they will oppose the Bill promoted by this council for extension of its borrowing powers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The general effect of the Report was as stated in the second paragraph. The auditor will duly complete the audit as soon as the irregularities in the accounts to which he called attention are set right. I think it only right to mention, however, that a resolution has been passed by the finance committee of the council as to the appointment of a skilled and independent accountant, in order to meet the requirements of the Local Government Board, and that this resolution will be dealt with by the council at its meeting on Monday next.

  ROSCOMMON CONSTABULARY.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the county inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary resides outside the county of Roscommon, and that his office, headquarters, and staff are in a neighbouring county; and, seeing that
  230
  representations on the subject have been made by a number of the local boards of Roscommon, whether it is intended by the authorities to give effect to these representations by requiring the county inspector of Roscommon and his staff to reside within that county.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are as stated by the hon. Member, it is the intention to give effect to the representations of the local bodies in question as soon as the proposed new arrangements can be carried out.

  DISTRICT COUNCILLOR JOYCE.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of District Councillor Joyce, who has been imprisoned without hard labour for a political offence; and whether such a penalty renders him unable to sit and vote as a district councillor.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The person referred to was not convicted of a political offence, but of conspiracy to intimidate. As his sentence of imprisonment did not carry with it hard labour, he would not appear to be disqualified for being a district councillor.

  WEXFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Messrs. Felix Adams and Patrick Walsh, both members of the Wexford District Council, were disqualified as such by the Local Government Board because they were tenants of labourers' cottages; and, seeing that the Local Government Board have recently addressed a communication to the district councils stating that no legal disqualification attaches to a person by reason of his being a tenant of a labourer's cottage, and that the aforesaid gentlemen have sought to be reinstated on the Wexford District Council, whether he will advise the Local Government Board to relieve the Wexford District Council of the difficulty in which it is placed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A bench of magistrates in Petty Sessions having decided that tenants of labourers' cottages were disqualified for the office of rural district councillor, the Wexford Council declared the offices held by the persons named to be vacant, and subsequently co-opted two other persons in their stead. Having regard to the recent decision of the King's Bench Division, it is open to the council, if they wish, to choose Messrs. Adams and Walsh to fill the next vacancies on the council, provided, of course, they possess the necesssary qualifications.
  MR. CULLINAN: In view of the injustice done these gentlemen, will the right hon. Gentleman see that they are reinstated in their membership?
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no power vested in the Local Government Board to do that.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is not this another illustration of the improper interference of the Local Government Board?
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is a case of non-interference.

  LAND ACT, 1896, SECTION 40.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that when an estate is put in the Land Judges' List for application of the 40th section of the Land Act of 1896, no direct notice is sent to the tenants, and that the only notice they receive is the notice which appears in the law lists of the daily papers; and whether steps will be taken to have direct notice served on the tenants.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. ATKINSON,): Where any question is raised or doubt is found to exist as to whether the 40th section applies to the particular estate, special notice is sent to some of the principal tenants on the estate informing them of the objection which has been raised, and naming the date when it will be considered. The course suggested in the question would
  232
  largely increase the costs of sale which must be borne by the estate, and, in the opinion of the land judge, is unnecessary.

  POYNTZPASS PETTY SESSIONAL BENCH.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that though the Roman Catholics constitute nearly half of the population in the petty sessions district of Poyntzpass, county Armagh, there is not a single Roman Catholic on the bench, and that the resident magistrate, the petty sessions chairman, the dispensary doctor, the postmaster, and four postmen out of five are all Protestants; can he state how long it is since a Roman Catholic sat on the bench in Poyntzpass; and can he hold out any hope that the alleged grievances of Roman Catholics in respect of the above matters will soon be remedied.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no official cognisance of post-office appointments. The dispensary medical officer was appointed by the Board of Guardians. With regard to the religious composition of the petty sessions bench, the lieutenant of the county will consider any recommendations that may be made to him.

  HAMILTON SYNGE ESTATE, ARMAGH.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that twenty-two tenants on the Hamilton Synge Estate, Tullinaval, county Armagh, served originating notices in April, 1899; that their cases were listed, and came before Mr. Edge, at Newtownhamilton, on 19th July, 1900, when they were adjourned at the instance of the receiver, Mr. Meares, who guaranteed to have all requests under Section 40 of The Land Act, 1896, issued at once; that these cases were again adjourned by Judge Ross in November, 1900; and seeing that, though the requests under Section 40 have been issued, the Land Court has not yet sent down two valuers to inspect the holdings, whether he can state when these valuers will be sent; when the cases will be heard; and

  233
  whether, if not heard before the proposed sale, a reduction in valuation will be made by the Court valuer in proportion to the reduction the tenants would probably have received had their cases come before the Sub-Commission in due course.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In these cases the Land Commissioners, by Order made in November last, adjourned the fair-rent applications pending the result of proceedings under the 40th section of the Act of 1896. The estate is at present being inspected with a view to enable two of the Commissioners to report to the land judge in accordance with the requirements of this section. It would not, in the opinion of the Commissioners, be expedient to carry on the proceedings for fixing judicial rents concurrently with proceedings under Section 40.

  IRISH HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS—FRANCISCANS' COLLECTION.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Historical MSS. Commission propose to publish all the valuable historical MSS. in the collection of the Irish Franciscans, or only that portion of them referred to in the late Sir John Gilbert's Report (Appendix to Report 4, Historical MSS. Commission), and whether the documents recited by Sir John Gilbert are being published in extenso; if he is aware that MSS., some of them in Irish, are included in the MSS. of the Irish Franciscans which have never been examined by any representative of the Commission, including, among other papers, Father Wadding's Correspondence during the Confederation of Kilkenny, and if these MSS. will be published in a subsequent volume to the one now about to be published; and if the Commission will make use of the copies and translations of these documents made by the Franciscan Fathers or on their behalf.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Commissioners on Historical Manuscripts intend to publish abstracts or copies of all the historical manuscripts belonging to the Irish Franciscans in Dublin, whether previously noticed by Sir John Gilbert or not; but only such
  234
  of them as are of special importance will be printed at full length. The Commissioners are only aware of one letter in Irish in Father Wadding's correspondence and of one other letter in that language in the rest of the Franciscan collection. These two letters will, of course, be published in their Report on the manuscripts. Use has been made in the preparation of the Report of any copies and translations which the Franciscan. Fathers have kindly placed at the disposal of the inspector under the Commission engaged on the work.

  GREAT NORTHERN OF IRELAND RAILWAY—POYNTZPASS LEVEL CROSSING.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Great Northern Railway Company, Ireland, allow their trains to remain on the level crossing in Poyntzpass for fifteen or twenty minutes at a time to the obstruction of the traffic; and, seeing that this practice is one of many years duration, whether he will take steps to ensure the construction of a footbridge at least, so that persons may pass through the town without danger or delay.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no recent information on the subject of the hon. Member's question, but will cause inquiry to be made. The Board of Trade have not in any case power to order the construction of a footbridge at this crossing.

  POYNTZPASS POSTAL STAFF.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the postmaster in Poyntzpass, county Armagh, Ireland, is a Protestant, and that four out of the five postmen are also Protestants; whether he can state the salaries of each of these postmen; and whether, seeing that the Roman Catholics constitute about one-half of the population of the district, he will see that their claims are not overlooked when future vacancies occur in the above posts.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is not aware

  235
  what is the religion of this sub-postmaster or of the postmen under his control, as that is a matter with which the Department is in no way concerned. There are only two established postmen attached to the office, and their wages are 16s. a week each.

  ARMY REORGANISATION.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will now place upon the Paper the terms of the resolution relating to the new Army programme of the Government.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the Secretary of State for War will be able to lay the terms of the resolution on the Table before the House separates for the Easter recess.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is to be any business on Tuesday besides the motion for the adjournment of the House.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the most convenient plan for Tuesday will be to have a morning sitting at 2 o'clock in order to take the motion for the adjournment over the Easter holidays. Of course there will be a 9 o'clock sitting, if the House desires it, to carry on private business; but there will be no Government business on Tuesday except the motion for the adjournment, unless, as I do not anticipate, we are unsuccessful in obtaining the Second Reading of the Army Bill on Monday.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. He has stated that the Demise of the Crown Bill is to be taken on Monday. I would respectfully urge that this Bill raises a very serious constitutional question—namely, whether in certain cases an appointment by the Grown should carry with it vacation of seat in the House of Commons. According to one view of the law, therefore, this Bill will be for present Ministers an indemnity Bill; and I would ask whether it is desirable to push forward such a
236
serious and controversial question on the day before the holidays; and whether it would not be better to postpone the Bill until after Easter.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that the Bill involves the grave constitutional question which the hon. Member describes; and I think that the House ought to be able very well to decide such a matter on Monday.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman will not entertain the idea of postponement?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is, as far as I can see, no adequate reason for postponing it.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
  That they have appointed a Committee consisting of seven Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons, pursuant to Message of this House, to consider the various charitable agencies now in operation, and the funds available for relieving widows and orphans of soldiers and sailors, with a view to ensuring that the funds supplied by local and private benevolence are applied to the best advantage in supplementing a scheme of Government pensions for widows and orphans of soldiers and sailors who have lost their lives in war.
  PRESENCE OF THE SOVEREIGN IN PARLIAMENT.
  That they have appointed a Committee consisting of five Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons, pursuant to Message of this House, to consider the accommodation available in the House of Lords when the Sovereign is personally present in Parliament, and the advisability of substituting Westminster Hall on such an occasion for the House of Lords.
NEW BILLS.

  HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES (REPAYMENT OF LOANS).
  Bill to extend the period for the repayment of Loans raised for the provision of

  237
  Workmen's Dwellings, and to confer further borrowing powers on local authorities, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hay, Mr. Bull, Mr. Duke, Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Mr. Flower, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Remnant, and Mr. H. S. Samuel.

  HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES (REPAYMENT OF LOANS) BILL.
  "To extend the period for the repayment of Loans raised for the provision of Workmen's Dwellings, and to confer further borrowing powers on local authorities," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 18th April, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]
  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Light Railways and Tramways in Ireland, and to assimilate the Law relating thereto in Ireland to that in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. O'Doherty. Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Archdale. Mr. Condon, Mr. Lonsdale, and Mr. Carvill.
  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT RILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Light Railways and Tramways in Ireland, and to assimilate the Law relating thereto in Ireland to that in England." presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 1st May, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]
  NATIONAL GALLERY (PURCHASE OF ADJACENT LAND).
  Bill for the acquisition of certain Land near the National Gallery in London, and for purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Akers Douglas and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.
  NATIONAL GALLERY (PURCHASE OF ADJACENT LAND) BILL.
  "For the acquisition of certain Land near the National Gallery in London, and for purposes connected therewith," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 18th April, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]
  WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF SOLDIERS AND SAILORS JOINT COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That two Members be added to the Select Committee on Widows and Orphans of Soldiers and Sailors:—Mr. Archdale and Colonel Nolan.—(Sir William Walrond.)

  SUPPLY [3RD ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1901–2.
  1. £1,023,100, Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid that the sum asked for was the largest which had ever been presented under this Vote. To this must be added another amount of much more than two millions for works under the Naval Works Act. The hon. Gentleman was called upon to administer on behalf of the Government an enormous sum, and he heartily congratulated him, and sympathised with him as well, on the great responsibility which rested upon him. The works under the Act were of very great importance, and the House was naturally anxious for the fullest information about them. He should like to know when the Naval Works Bill would be introduced, and whether the fullest opportunities for discussion would be given. If he received an assurance that ample opportunity would be afforded for full debate, then he would not on the present occasion detain the Committee with any observations on naval works, for he would very much prefer to discuss that after the Civil Lord had made the customary statement in introducing the Naval Works Bill.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBasked for some explanation of the proposed expenditure on the boom defences of Southampton. Were not the Southampton Waters already adequately protected by the torpedo establishments at Spithead and the Needles? He would like also some information as to what was being

  239
  done with the coaling arrangements at Simons Bay. He was told that there were only six lighters there, the biggest of which held but seventy tons, while the tug for moving them alongside was condemned as far back as 1894. In fact, she could not do her work in anything like a breeze. Were the Government and the Admiralty sufficiently alive to the deficiencies in this matter? Further, he wished to inquire if the dredging had been completed at Wei-hai-wei, and were the Admiralty satisfied that sufficient had been done in this matter. Finally, he had to ask what progress had been made for improved coaling facilities at the Falkland Islands.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he found on reference to the Votes that whereas at English dockyards they were spending hundreds of thousands of pounds, at Haulbowline they only proposed to spend some £4,000 odd. The disparity was very great, and it was rendered all the more remarkable by the fact that the money spent at Haulbowline was distributed over a number of years, and expended very slowly, whereas the money voted for the English dockyards was got rid of with much greater rapidity. He was not complaining of the action of the present Board of Admiralty with regard to Haulbowline, because it had shown a more generous spirit than its predecessor. Seeing that at Chatham, Sheerness, Portsmouth, Devonport, and Pembroke the Vote for works, buildings, etc., amounted to over half a million sterling, the very fact that only £4,200 was to be given to Haulbowline illustrated the niggardly spirit in which the spending authorities of their great Departments dealt with Ireland. Passing on to the Vote for hospitals, he found that at Plymouth it was proposed to expend some £65,000 and at Portland £03,000, but at Haulbowline only £13,000 was to be laid out, and that in spite of the fact that large numbers of His Majesty's ships entered Queenstown harbour and quite recently there had been outbreaks of smallpox, which had rendered it necessary to send some of the men into the hospitals there. He did hope that the £17,000 which it was proposed now to spend at Haulbowline would be spent with dispatch, and that there would be
  240
  no unnecessary delay in the matter. Then he came to the question of armaments, and here again there was another striking contrast. At Portsmouth £47,000 was to be spent, but the Vote for Bantry Bay was only £2,700, and of that only £700 had yet been laid out. That again illustrated the manner in which the Admiralty treated this question when stations in Ireland were concerned. They had in the Cork post office a still further illustration of this, for the rebuilding of that establishment had been spread over three years, whereas an ordinary contractor would have done the work in six months. He hoped that the Admiralty would make up their mind to push the work forward more rapidly, and treat Irish stations on an equal footing with English stations.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,)said that the Naval Works Bill would be brought in later in the session, but the exact date must be left to the decision of the Leader of the House. He hoped, however, that it would be introduced without much delay after the House assembled. Of course, it was not for him to give pledges with regard to the conduct of business, but he was perfectly certain there would be ample opportunity afforded for a full debate. The occasion of the introduction of the Naval Works Bill might be the most convenient time for discussing the great and important works which were included in the Bill. With reference to the position of Southampton, he might point out that it was almost a part of the great naval port of Portsmouth. Circumstances might arise when the Fleet would have to make temporary use of Southampton Waters; and it was for naval purposes and not for commercial purposes that this new defence was provided. Simons Bay and Falkland Islands were portions of great questions which were now receiving the most careful consideration with reference to the coaling of the Fleet. The work at Simons Bay was in progress, but it did not come under this Vote, and a fuller statement on that subject would be made later. The Falkland Islands were under consideration. Some of the work was being put out to contract,

  241
  progress was being made. The object of spending money at the Falkland Islands was to secure that the position should be made available for coaling the Fleet. Replying to the hon. Member for North Cork, he admitted that the figures quoted by the hon. Member with reference to the expenditure at Haulbowline and Bantry Bay were less than those relating to the great dockyards in England. He assumed, however, that the hon. Member intended to take them in a proportionate sense, and would not expect to have so much money spent at a small dockyard as at a large one.
  MR. FLYNN: I pointed out that the disproportion was so enormous.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid he quite took it that the hon. Member's argument was based on the question of proportion, but he might also inform him that in addition to the sums he had quoted, £12,000 was being expended at Haulbowline, and no less than £63,000 was included in the Naval Works Act for other work in Ireland. He thought that would remove practically any cause of complaint. Altogether a sum of £75,000 was now actually being spent by the Admiralty in Ireland. It should be remembered that in devoting money to Haulbowline as they were now doing they were doing it with the prospect of making still greater use of that dockyard in future years, and of spending a still greater sum on ship repairing and building there. The money they were now voting might be taken as an earnest of what was to be spent in Ireland in the future. With regard to works at Bantry Bay, the hon. Member had complained of the slowness with which the money was being expended, but he would like to point out that it would be impossible to push forward the work with greater rapidity without importing a large quantity of labour from other districts. He did not imagine the hon. Member would desire that, and the Admiralty were acting under the belief that the ordinary population of Bantry would really derive more advantage from a slow and continuous expenditure than
  242
  if thousands of pounds were laid out in one year.
  MR. KEARLEYreferred to the question of the rifle range for the Marines at Plymouth. The present accommodation was quite inadequate, and a long way from the town. Last year it was stated that the War Office had acquired a range on Dartmoor, and that the Admiralty had asked that Department to negotiate for a site which should be available for the rifle practice of the Marines. It was understood that there were great difficulties, presumably connected with the landlord element, in the way, and the hon. Member then in charge of the Vote suggested that the time had arrived when the War Office should proceed by Provisional Order. Had the arrangement for this most urgently needed rifle range site been concluded? The hon. Member expressed his approval of the expenditure at various dockyards in the erection of new workshops, and hoped the machinery would be of the most modern description. In some yards the machinery was much behind the times, and it was impossible for work to progress as rapidly as the country desired unless the machinery was up to date. At Devonport two docks had been widened to accommodate second class battleships, but unfortunately the width was not sufficient to accommodate battleships of the size now being built. The era of so-called second class battleships had passed away, and the hon. Member, therefore, suggested that by certain alterations the docks at Devonport could and should be made available for the class of ships now being built.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB, in reference to the item for booms to close the port at Southampton, thought it was the first time such a charge had appeared on the Navy Estimates. The business of the Navy was to keep the ports open, and the access to them clear. Southampton was an inner port in a completely and almost over-defended area, and in that respect differed from other ports. He should be glad if the matter could be explained.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,):

  243
  said this was no new departure; the boom arrangement had existed for some time at Southampton. The money was taken to repair a portion which had been destroyed by fire. It was impossible to regard Southampton as a port not involved in military matters. In connection with the present war, nearly the whole of the troops had gone from Southampton, while if any attack were made which involved Portsmouth harbour, Southampton harbour would be equally exposed; and certainly the hon, and gallant Gentleman the Member for Great Yarmouth would be the last willingly to divorce military from naval operations. It was almost inconceivable, if this country was engaged in any military operations, that the embarkation or debarkation of troops would not be going on at Southampton Water, which it would be the duty of the Navy to safeguard. Therefore, although there might be objections to the principle of applying boom defence to the defence of harbours, if the principle was adopted at all, Southampton was eminently a place at which it should be applied.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERthought the charge for booms was rather an Army than a Navy charge. There were two Votes affecting Hong Kong. It was an acknowledged fact that the defences of Hong Kong were in a hopelessly bad state, and it would be interesting to have details of this expenditure. Something certainly ought to be done towards making Hong Kong more defensible now that it had become one of our most important strategic positions in regard to China, A considerable sum appeared to have been spent on dredging in Portsmouth harbour. But a very serious question arose. The entrance to the harbour was very narrow, and the more dredging operations took place the larger became the basin inside, with the result that the dredging had already increased the current in the mouth of the harbour to a dangerous extent. The Admiralty would not be acting wisely if they carried on these operations too largely without widening the aperture for letting the water in and out with the rise and fall of the tide.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOONasked whether Stanley harbour was being
  244
  fortified, and urged the advisability of connecting it by cable with the Cape.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that the matter of the rifle range for the Marines was entirely in the hands of the War Office, and he believed the negotiations were not yet completed. He understood that a great number of small owners were concerned, but he had no absolute information on the matter generally. In regard to the Devonport docks, they had there at present one dock capable of taking the largest battleship, and new docks which were being constructed would take such ships. It was not felt necessary, therefore, to widen the present docks. In reference to the question of dredging at Portsmouth, that matter was being very carefully watched. There had been dredging above low water, but the volume had not been so largely increased, and this would accelerate the current at Portsmouth Harbour. This dredging had not been done to any dangerous extent. The question of providing guns at Hong Kong was a matter in which the War Office solely was concerned.
  Resolution agreed to.
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed. "That a sum, not exceeding £359,500, be granted to His Majesty to defray the expense of various Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1902.
  MR. FLYNNasked for some information in regard to the travelling allowance per diem to seamen and Marines. He presumed that the travelling expenses of naval marine officers should be something respectable. What was the amount allowed? Was it so much per day, or so much per hundred miles while travelling from one station to another? Not long ago he saw a steamer travelling to Ireland from Portsmouth with a number of Marines on board bound for Cork. They got in a train on the Great Western Railway, and he was assured that they were only allowed sixpence per day for supper for all the night, and the miserable breakfast they got in the morning. The result was that they were turned out on the

  245
  quay at Cork more dead than alive. He did not think soldiers travelling all night and having to provide breakfast next morning should be paid the miserable sum of sixpence per day travelling allowance. With regard to Roman Catholic chaplains for the Navy, they were anxious to know if the hon. Member for West Belfast had anything to add in reference to Roman Catholic chaplains being attached to squadrons or services on shore being provided for. A large number of Roman Catholic sailors who joined the Navy were anxious to receive the ministrations of their own faith. So great was the need in this matter that those connected with the Navy at Cork Harbour had established some kind of a guild to provide for these services for the sailors by private subscription. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would have some additional information to give to the Committee in addition to what he gave last week. There was one other matter, to which he referred with some reluctance, and that was the trip of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York to Australia. There was not a proper opportunity afforded a few nights ago when the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil asked how it was that the sum required for this trip was taken without the previous sanction of the House of Commons. He objected to this upon principle, and when the question was asked as to who was responsible for this expenditure being undertaken, the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied. "I am responsible." There was a question of principle involved in that, and the Admiralty should have got the sanction of the House of Commons to such a large expenditure before incurring it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to violate this principle. Fie was quite aware that this trip was contemplated during the reign of the late Queen, and was suggested more or less by her. But neither the Admiralty nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked for the money, and he objected to the idea that because the expedition had been commenced the money was to be voted sub silentio. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to undertake such a responsibility without the previous sanction of the House.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the hon. Member was under a misapprehension. The expedition had not been undertaken without the sanction of Parliament. A sum of £35,000 for this expedition was voted by the House on the Supplementary Estimates. If the item was struck out of the present Vote the expedition would have to be recalled, but the constitutional point which had been raised had been fully met. With regard to Roman Catholic chaplains, this Vote did not deal with the payment to chaplains on board ship or those attached to naval institutions. The other matter mentioned by the hon. Member was that the subsistence allowance of sixpence a day was only given to seamen and Marines travelling, from port to port. If the hon. Member could give him the particulars of a specific case he would investigate it. Within the last few days he had had occasion to examine the question of subsistence allowance both for men and boys on journeys from port to port, but he did not find that the facts corresponded with what the hon. Gentleman had suggested had come under his notice.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid there was one matter on this Vote which had not been mentioned; he meant the Vote for naval attachés. The increase was very large indeed, and he was entirely favourable to it. But no statement had been made as to the character of the new arrangements. What chiefly interested, him was the necessity which undoubtedly existed for appointing really able men as military and naval attaches. If the hon. Gentleman would mention to the First Lord of the Admiralty the interest felt in the House in regard to the personality of the attachés, he would do a good service. It would be practically admitted that in the past the appointments had been of various degrees of merit. These appointments were of the highest possible importance, but that importance depended entirely upon the character of the men selected.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he wanted to refer to the question which had been mentioned the previous week, namely, the grant to warrant officers of the Distinguished

  247
  Service Order. Would the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether the warrant officers would receive any medal at all, and whether this Vote comprised the medals that were going to be issued in connection with the South African and Chinese campaigns. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might say whether, since the previous week, the Admiralty had come to any conclusion as to the distribution of the Distinguished Service Order to warrant officers, or, if they were not to receive the distinguished Service Order, what decoration they might expect.
  MR. FLYNNasked if the same rate of pay applied to seamen, the Marines travelling from one ship or station to another, partly by sea and partly by land, as was given to soldiers. He had seen seamen and Marines travelling between Bristol and Cardiff. The boat did not leave Milford till the morning, and could not get to Cork till eight o'clock at night. All that the men were allowed was 6d. for supper and 6d. next day for breakfast. He had asked the officer in charge, who told him that 6d. a day was all that the men got for subsistence. That was a most disgraceful and utterly inadequate allowance.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that unless the men were borne on the ship's books he was not responsible. In regard to what had been said as to naval attachés, it was of the highest importance that the officers appointed to represent the Navy should be selected with the greatest care. It would tend to make the selection of first-rate officers easier if the emoluments were increased. These emoluments were being increased, and the remainder of the increase in the Vote was due to the fact that a fourth naval attaché had been appointed. The hon. Member for Devonport had asked if he could make a statement now in regard to decorations for warrant officers in the South African War and the Chinese campaign. He regretted he could not do so. He should be loth to make any statement until the announcement could be made in a complete form, not only as to the honorary distinctions to be granted, but also as to the question of emoluments. These two questions
  248
  would have to be dealt with in a different way, and when a decision had been arrived at by the Admiralty, he would be happy to inform the hon. Member.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked whether the large increase in the Vote for naval attachés was for salaries and expenses in addition to their pay, for he supposed that they got their pay under another Vote. The hon. Gentleman had spoken about some of the salaries being increased and of the appointment of a fourth attaché. Did that mean that there were only four naval attachés altogether?
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he noticed under head A an increase of £6,000, with reference to passage money and the conveyance of officers, seamen, and Marines. He wanted to know how that increase arose, and what proportion was paid to officers, seamen, and Marines respectively.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he could not give the hon. Member the actual details, but the increase in the Vote was due to the fact that more officers and men had been sent out this year for reliefs to South Africa and others had been brought back and had received passages by mail steamers. With regard to the naval attachés, the present arrangement was that these officers received a consolidated rate of pay, and they were also granted, of course, certain travelling allowances, and special allowances for special work. As to their distribution, there were at present two attachés in Europe, with headquarters at Paris and Berlin. There were also
  two naval attachés whose duty it was to obtain information with regard to naval progress in the United States and Japan.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that they ought to have had a schedule showing the different rates of passage money for the different classes, and whether the rates varied with different steamship companies.
  MR. FLYNNsaid there was an item of £2,500, loss by exchange and discount on bills drawn by the accountants on

  249
  the China and East India stations. Considering the number of rupees given for an English sovereign, there ought to have been a gain instead of a loss.
  CAPTAIN NORTONasked the right hon. Gentleman if he could state the various rates for pilotage and towing of His Majesty's ships. Was this system by tonnage or otherwise?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was afraid he could not answer the latter question off-hand. He referred hon. Gentlemen to the statute which governed the question of the reduced charges for men, and to the very elaborate details with reference to the particulars and allowances. Pilots were to a large extent dispensed with in His Majesty's ships, but there were some small items for pilotage. The bulk of the sum, however, was for towing.
  MR. FLYNNcomplained that no answer had been given to the important
  question he put. The hon. Gentleman could without referring to any schedule merely give an approximate idea of how much of this sum was for railway and steamboat fares and how much was for the maintenance of the men when travelling on service. As the explanation of the hon. Gentleman had been so unsatisfactory, he moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Flynn).
  MR. WARNERsaid that when the hon. Gentleman referred to the "statute" he no doubt referred to the Army Annual Bill, which put the allowance at 6d. a day. He contended that that sum was far too small.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 87; Noes, 195. (Division List No. 111).

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Allen, Charles P (Glouc, Stroud

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Dowd, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Harwood, George

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

  Black, Alexander William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Blake, Edward

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

  O'Malley, William

  Boland, John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Boyle, James

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Caine, William Sproston

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Reddy, M.

  Caldwell, James

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Cameron, Robert

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lambert, George

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leng, Sir John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Crean, Eugene.

  Lundon, W.

  Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan Gower

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Ure, Alexander

  Crombie, John William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Cullinan, J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Delany, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Murphy, J.

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Duffy, William J.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dunn, Sir William

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Mr. Flynn and Captain Norton.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  O'Doherty, William

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Austin, Sir John

  Hain, Edward

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Parker, Gilbert

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Partington, Oswald

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Henderson, Alexander

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Higgin bottom, S. W.

  Purvis, Robert

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Hobhouse, Hy. (Somerset, E.)

  Randles, John S.

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Rankin, Sir James

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Horner, Frederick William

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Rea, Russell

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

  Renwick, George

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

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

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Rigg, Richard

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

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Kimber, Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Charrington, Spencer

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawson, John Grant

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Colomb, Sir J. Chas. Ready

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Leighton, Stanley

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Levy, Maurice

  Spear, John Ward

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C R (Northants

  Cust, Henry John C.

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

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Strachey, Edward

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stroyan, John

  Dewar, John A. (Invernesshire

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Macdona, John dimming

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Duke, Henry Edward

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Shef'ld

  Duncan, James H.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Wallace, Robert

  Edwards, Frank

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Malcolm, Ian

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Emmott, Alfred

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Faber, George Denison

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigton

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset).

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Milton, Viscount

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Montagu, G (Huntingdon)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

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

  Garfit, William

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

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

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'mlets

  Mount, William Arthur

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Gorst, Rt Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Hayes Fisher.

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

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. KEARLEYdrew attention to the item of wages of the Metropolitan police employed in the dockyards, and asked if it were intended to make the same concession to the police of Devonport as had
  252
  been made to the Metropolitan police. That concession had been made in consequence of the high rents the men had to pay in London. It was a matter of common notoriety that the rental conditions prevailing at Devonport were even higher than those prevailing in London. The last

  253
  Census Returns had called attention to the enormous overcrowding in the town, and showed that a very large percentage of the people were housed in a single room. If the police of Devonport did not get this concession granted to them it would be most unfair. Of course they knew that Devonport was a landlord's monopoly pure and simple. He agreed that the population had no means of extricating themselves, but that was no reason, when a concession was made on a definite basis, that it should not be extended to another place suffering under precisely the same conditions. He begged to move the reduction of this item by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item S be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salaries of the Water Police"—(Mr. Kearley.)
  CAPTAIN NORTONasked whether any portion of the amount for contingent expenses could be used for lodging allowance, or whether anything had been given to these men in the shape of lodging allowance. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that an increase was given to the Metropolitan police force as a special allowance for lodging-house accommodation. It was manifestly unjust that a similar allowance should not be made to the men at Devonport. With regard to the water police, he wished to know whether it was the case that when they succeeded in rescuing a person from drowning they received no compensation whatever, whereas if the individual was allowed to drown and they succeeded in getting out the corpse they were allowed something.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked whether the hon. Member was speaking of the police on the Thames within the Metropolitan area, or the police under the control of the Admiralty.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he was alluding to the water police. He presumed they were under the Admiralty if they were in the Admiralty Vote.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the Admiralty had nothing to do with the pay and allowances of the water' police. They were sent down by the authorities of the Metropolitan police for service under the Admiralty in the dockyards, and the Admiralty paid the sum demanded by the authorities of the Metropolitan police with the sanction of the Treasury.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the Amendment before the Committee raised a question of principle, namely, that an allowance ought to be extended to the men at Devonport. When the question was last before the House the First Lord of the Admiralty promised to inquire into it. The hon. Gentleman representing the Admiralty had not attempted to discuss the question or to give any official answer to the case that had been made out. The hon. Gentleman said this was a question for the Metropolitan police authorities. The authority immediately responsible for this was the Admiralty, If his hon. friend divided the Committee on the question he should feel bound to support the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 128: Noes, 173. (Division List No. 112.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Burns, John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Delany, William

  Asher, Alexander

  Caine, William Sproston

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Caldwell, James

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry

  Cameron, Robert

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Duffy, William J.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bell, Richard

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Duncan, James H.

  Black, Alexander William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Dunn, Sir William

  Blake, Edward

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Edwards, Frank

  Boland, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Emmott, Alfred

  Boyle, James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Crombie, John William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Cullinan, J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lough, Thomas

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Rigg, Richard

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Grant, Corrie

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mooney, John J.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Murphy, J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Harwood, George

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Strachey, Edward

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tennant, Harold John

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

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Doherty, William

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Donnell, J. (Mayo, S.)

  Ure, Alexander

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

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

  Wallace, Robert

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Dowd, John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lambert, George

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Partington, Oswald

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Leamy, Edmund

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Leng, Sir John

  Price, Robert John

  Levy, Maurice

  Rea, Russell

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Mr. Kearley and Mr. Warner.

  Lloyd-George, Herbert

  Reddy, M.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Kimber, Henry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawson, John Grant

  Austin, Sir John

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareh'm

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Col Charles W. (Evesham

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Faber, George Denison

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Fielden, Edw. Brocklehurst

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

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

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bhownaggre, Sir M. M.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Garfit, William

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Gordon, Maj. Evans- (Tr.Hmlts

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middle'x

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bullard, Sir Harry

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

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

  Butcher, John George

  Hain, Edward

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Milton, Viscount

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

  Harris, F. L. (Tynemouth)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire-

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

  Henderson, Alexander

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamst.)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brights'de

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Horner, Frederick William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Houldsworth, Sir William Hy.

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  256

  257

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sackville, Col. S G. Stopford-

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Parker, Gilbert

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E (Notts.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Shaw-Ste wart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Smith, H C (Northmb. Tyneside

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Spear, John Ward

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Purvis, Robert

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

  Randles, John S.

  Stroyan, John

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Rasch, Major Frederic Came

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Renwick, George

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Hayes Fisher.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISasked whether the amount for telegraphic communications covered wireless telegraphy, as it had been stated that very important experiments had been made.
  THE CHAIRMANruled that, as the item dealing with this matter had been passed, the subject could not now be discussed.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISthen alluded to the contributions in aid of charitable and religious institutions, and asked what institutions were referred to. There were also contributions in aid of sailors' homes. These were excellent institutions, saving sailors from the temptations which beset them on shore, and tending to preserve their reputation and character, and that only £1,000 should be given to such institutions was parsimony in a direction in which it was not desirable.
  MR. LOUGHdirected attention to the large amount required in connection with the special journey of the "Ophir" to Australia. There were £126,000 for hire, and
  £56,000 for the fitting up, and the fittings were actually to be sold on the return of the ship for £.3,300. It was very desirable that some, explanation of that great difference should be given.
  MR. KEARLEY, referring to an item for the hire of foreign interpreters, and commenting on the fact that the bulk
  258
  of the young fellows entering the Navy had no knowledge of any language other than their own, suggested that the Admiralty would be taking an admirable step in connection with the training of their officers if, instead of troubling about the classics, they insisted that no cadet should be taken into the Navy who had not a good colloquial knowledge of, at all events, German and French. In regard to the training of carrier pigeons, he asked for information as to where the operations were being carried on, and the place to and from which the pigeons were being trained to fly. At Dover he had seen a consignment of pigeons landed from Germany, in the custody of German officials connected with the Army or Navy, and those birds were released at Dover to fly back to Kiel or wherever else they had come from. The Committee were entitled to know whether the Admiralty had similar facilities granted to them with regard to flying pigeons from Germany to England.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER, who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to state that contributions were made from naval funds only to institutions directly connected with the interests of the Navy, and were usually limited to
  £50 for each institution. It would no doubt be satisfactory to many if the Admiralty were to give largely to deserving institutions, but the need must be proved before further funds could be asked for. With regard to the "Ophir," the hon. Member for West Islington was wrong in supposing that the £3,300 was for the whole of the fittings. About three-fourths of

  259
  the fittings would not be required after the conclusion of the voyage, and the contractors were willing to take them back at a fixed price. As to the increase for telegraphic communication, it was due to telephonic connection at the principal dockyard ports.
  MR. LAMBERTwished to know the principle on which the £340 now asked for was distributed for religious institutions. If it was between all the religious institutions in the land the amount was very inadequate. It was very important that there should be an equable distribution between the different denominations, and that no invidious distinction should be made between Nonconformists and Church bodies. Precisely the same remark applied to allowances to ministers of religion. With regard to the hire of foreign interpreters, it was admitted on all sides that it was better to have a knowledge of modern languages than of Latin and Greek; and it would certainly be a great advantage for naval officers themselves to be able to speak languages instead of employing interpreters. It was impossible to carry on a really satisfactory conversation through an interpreter, as he was always likely to put his own gloss on the matter.
  CAPTAIN NORTONasked whether the Committee were to understand that these contributions in aid of religious institutions were for the purpose of encouraging or developing religion. If that was the object the amount was totally inadequate. If, however, the contributions were merely doles to certain religious institutions, the Committee were entitled to know whether any undue preference was given to any one sect over another. In regard to the contributions to sailors' homes, he asked how many of those homes there were, and how much was given to each. Surely the home at Portsmouth received more than £50, as it would be manifestly unfair to give only that sum to such a home, doing so much work, and to give an exactly similar amount to some small institution which did comparatively little. As to the hire of interpreters, were those interpreters in out-of-the-way places and for languages not usually studied? It would
  260
  also be interesting to know whether any incentive was given to naval cadets and officers to perfect themselves in modern languages. In most other navies the officers before they entered the service were encouraged to learn at least English as one language, and special facilities were given to enable them to visit other countries for the purpose of passing as interpreters. A somewhat similar system prevailed with regard to our own officers in the Army, especially those attached to the Indian Army with reference to the learning of Russian. Was there any such system in connection with the Navy? In view of the vast development of the Russian navy, the fact that Russia had now an outlet in the Pacific, and seeing that our Fleet in Chinese waters had been increased, some incentive ought to be given to our naval officers to study Russian. Twenty years ago positively not a single officer in the Army knew Russian, and at the present moment he believed only one officer in the Navy had a knowledge of the language. If any misfortune happened to that particular officer we should have to depend upon an interpreter, who, in all probability, would be a Polish Jew, to negotiate between ourselves and the Russians upon any matter connected with the Navy. The training of carrier pigeons also was a matter of considerable importance. It was known that quite recently a pigeon-loft had been erected at Aldershot, and a distinguished officer placed in charge thereof. In Continental centres pigeons had been used for some time and found of the greatest value, and certainly they could be used with much advantage in the event of naval warfare between ourselves and any Continental Power. He therefore asked whether there was a proper loft for the training of these pigeons; if so, where; and also whether there was any intention of extending the practice, so as to provide a complete system of pigeon carriers throughout the British Isles.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the Committee might rest assured that the small sum of
  £350 for contributions to religious denominations was not spent in propping up any particular denomination. Small contributions were given in large dockyard towns in assisting

  261
  institutions connected with the places of worship attended by the sailors, and one denomination was not favoured more than another. With regard to the hire of interpreters, he believed that a considerable portion of the amount was with reference to interpreters in Chinese, and he could hardly suppose, the hon. Member would suggest that naval officers should qualify in that language. It might be possible to encourage the study of French and German among hoys before they entered the "Britannia"; but it was one of the misfortunes of the naval service that it was not possible to give enough leave to junior officers to enable them to study foreign languages abroad. Facilities were afforded for the study of Russian, and a gratuity of £150 was paid to any officer who would qualify as an interpreter in Russian. This year steps had been taken to improve young officers in regard to their knowledge of foreign languages.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid the Secretary to the Admiralty did not state whether opportunities were afforded these officers to study Russian in Russia, as well as granting them £150. No man could acquire a, good knowledge of Russian without six months residence at Moscow. ["Oh, oh."] He was speaking from experience, and he knew that no man could get anything like a knowledge of the Russian language without spending six months in some portion of the Russian Empire. It was absurd to offer £150, because living was so dear abroad. If the only incentive to learn Russian was the granting of a bonus of £150 after a man had succeeded in passing a most difficult examination, this inducement was practically a, dead letter.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he understood that the answer given by the hon. Gentleman applied to places of worship largely frequented by Marines and seamen. There was an item of £7,300 in the Vote given to ministers of religion. He wished to know whether the sum given to ministers of religion was distributed in the same way as the sum given to religious and charitable institutions. Was it given in a proportionate manner, and without regard to any particular denomination?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that at the ports frequently or occasionally visited by men-of-war money was granted to ministers of various denominations, some of the ministers belonging to the Church of England, others to the Roman Catholics, and some to the Nonconformists. Altogether some 200 or 300 grants were made, varying in amount from £25 to
  £200. He had no reason to believe that the sums granted were, inadequate. With regard to interpreters, while facilities were given to officers on half-pay to study foreign languages abroad, the duties of the naval service were such that it was very rare indeed that naval officers, especially junior naval officers, could go to foreign countries.
  CAPTAIN NORTONasked if it was at all likely that any naval officer occupying the position of a naval commander could go to Russia to study Russian under such circumstances.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERreplied that it was not at all unlikely. They did it in the Army, and he hoped advantage would be taken of this offer in the Navy.
  MR. JOHN WILSONdesired to know on what principle the money granted to ministers was allocated. Was it distributed according to the number of men who attended the services?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that in some cases the money was allocated in accordance with the number of men who attended a particular place of worship, and in some cases according to the services of the minister. If the hon. Member desired to see the list of these ministers he should be very pleased to allow him the opportunity of doing so, and he would give him any further information which he desired. They were spread not only throughout the United Kingdom, but all over the world, and the money was distributed without regard to any particular denominations.
  CAPTAIN NORTONasked if the Secretary to the Admiralty could state whether it was true or not that at the present moment there was not a single commander in the Navy qualified to act as an

  263
  interpreter in Russian. Some further incentive should be given to officers of all ranks, and they should be placed in the same position as the officers in the Indian Army, who were allowed to draw their full pay, their bonus, and their travelling expenses during the whole time they were away in Russia studying that language. Seeing the importance of officers possessing a knowledge of Russian at the present time, he wished to know whether the Admiralty were prepared to offer the officers in the Navy similar advantages in regard to the study in Russian to those at present offered to the officers in the Indian Army.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid the hon. Gentleman had not told them directly that no denomination was favoured under his scheme. If the sailors went to the Established Church, surely they did not want to give an other salary to the minister. If the sailors went to a Nonconformist place of worship, then there would be an excuse for adding something to the very small salaries which Nonconformist ministers received. They did not want any favouritism displayed, and if the Admiralty were going to endow any particular denomination they would object to it in the strongest possible way. He wished to know by whom the grants were made, He felt that unless he was able to get a satisfactory assurance from the hon. Member on these points he should have to take the sense of the House about giving a new endowment to a particular religious denomination.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISpointed out that the Secretary to the Admiralty had not given any information with reference to the training of carrier pigeons. The hon. Member for Devonport raised that question, and he showed that the German

  AYES.

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

  Black, Alexander William

  Cameron, Robert

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

  Blake, Edward

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Boland, John

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Asher, Alexander

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Boyle, James

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Burns, John

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Crean, Eugene

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Caine, William Sproston

  Crombie, John William

  Bell, Richard

  Caldwell, James

  Cullinan, J.

  Government gave every possible facility to this system, He wished to know whether the Government were going to afford similar facilities in this country. It was a question of the most important nature, because our international relations were now of a kaleidoscopic character and we ought to be fully prepared. With regard to languages, he knew that a great many Russian officers spoke English, and he thought this language ought to be encouraged more amongst English naval officers.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid that as a protest against the vague manner in which the questions he raised had been answered, he would move to reduce the Vote by £40.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item I be reduced by £40, in respect of Contributions in Aid of Religious Institutions."—(Mr. Lambert.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid there was only one Church represented on His Majesty's vessels, and that was the Established Church. Therefore the amount voted under this Vote to chaplains was a new form of endowment of the Established Church, and should be so treated.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: This Vote has nothing to do with chaplains on hoard ship.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has mistaken the item, which relates to contributions made to religious and charitable institutions.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Aves, 130; Noes, 183. (Division List No. 113.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Price, Robert John

  Delany, William

  Leamy, Edmund

  Rea, Russell

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Leng, Sir John

  Reddy, M.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, John E (Waterford)

  Duffy, William.).

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lough, Thomas

  Rigg, Richard

  Edwards, Frank

  Lundon, W.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Emmott, Alfred

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Schwarm, Charles E.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mooney, John J.

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murphy, J.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Strachey, Edward

  Gilhooly, James

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Tennant, Harold John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wallace, Robert

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Harwood, George

  O'Doherty, William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  White, Luke (York, E. K.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Dowd, John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

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

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

  Wilson, Fred. W (Norfolk, Mid.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Partington, Oswald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Phillips, John Wynford

  Mr. Lambert and Mr. Kearley.

  Joyce, Michael

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Kitson, Sir James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Garfit, William

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. F.

  Gordon, Rt Hn J E (Elgin & N'irn

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gordon, Maj. E. (T'wer H'mlts.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

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

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athol'e

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (M'dx)

  Austin, Sir John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cross, Herb, Shepherd (Bolton)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

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

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Henderson, Alexander

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Ban bury, Frederick George

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Horner, Frederick William

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon Sir Charles

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Bignold, Arthur

  Dimsdale, Sir J. Cockfield

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Bigwood, James

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col W. (Salop.)

  Bull, William James

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Kimber, Henry

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W'm.

  Butcher, John George

  Faber, George Denison

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn F M ward

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lawson, John Grant

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

  Finch, George H.

  Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareh'm

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  266

  267

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Smith, H C (Northumb Tyns'ide

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Spear, John Ward

  Macartney, Rt Hon W G Ellison

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Parker, Gilbert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Peel, Hn. William Robert W.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Penn, John

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tomlinson, William Edw. M.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Plammer, Walter R.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Valentia, Viscount

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

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

  Purvis, Robert

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Damfriessh.

  Randles, John S.

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Meysey Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Rasch, Major Frederick C.

  Wilson, Arthur S. (York, E. R.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Renwick, George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Richie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

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

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Hayes Fisher.

  Nicholson, Wm. Graham

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Original Question again proposed.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he understood that the Government would be not unwilling to meet them in reference to certain Estimates if they granted facilities for the passage of Votes 10, 11, 13, and 15. Vote; 5 was a labour Vote, in which, as a South London Member, he took very special interest, for it contained a very hard case of some 300 men who were employed by the Government at a wage of only 20s. per week, out of which they were obliged to pay some 9s. per week for rooms. This was a scandal to any Government, and he took it that this Vote would not be placed after Votes 8, 9, and 12, but that Vote 2 would be taken first.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER'Sreply was inaudible.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he did not wish to prolong the discussion in regard to naval interpreters, but the answer he had received had been most unsatisfactory. He expressed the hope that increased facilities would be given to naval officers to acquire Continental languages.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if the question of the Catholic chaplains in the Navy could be raised
  268
  on Vote 11, or whether it would be more properly taken on Vote 12.
  THE CHAIRMANdid not think the question of Catholic chaplains in the Navy could be raised on the Vote under discussion, as what was proposed was to give a sum of money to ministers of religion on shore.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid be wished to put it to the Secretary to the Admiralty that if it were good policy to have religious services for sailors of all denominations, it was part of that policy that the Estimates should contain an allowance for chaplains on shore. He had been told by men connected with the Navy that the service ashore was not altogether of the kind which met the spiritual needs and habits of the sailors. For that reason, it was very difficult to get the sailors to leave their ships and go to service on shore. Therefore, if the Secretary to the Admiralty had to choose between having a chaplain on shore and a chaplain with a place on board ship, and chose the former, he would be making an unwise decision, and one not in consonance with the feelings and habits of sailors. This was a question on which his countrymen felt very strongly. It had been raised for a quarter of the cen-

  269
  tury, and no solution of it had yet been found.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the Vote was not for any services held on His Majesty's ships. It was simply for allowances, either by grant or contribution, in respect to attendance on the services of ministers who were not connected in any way with the Royal Navy.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDaccepted the statement of the hon. Gentleman, but said he would take an, early opportunity of calling attention to the fact that not a single penny was given to any minister except ministers of the Church of England. He had not the slightest objection to ministers of the Church of England receiving allowances; but it was unfair that the Roman, Catholic and the Nonconformist ministers received no allowances. He would also raise the question, of the rank of Catholic chaplains on board ship and on, shore. The Catholic priest on, shore did not get the same rank as the Protestant clergyman.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he had no desire to go to a division, for the hon. Gentleman had met them very fairly; but they must have some explanation in regard to the question of interpreters. The hon. Member for the Stroud Division of Gloucestershire had told him that he bad spent six months in Russia, and that the result was practically nil; and, therefore, unless some special incentive was given to officers to study languages, the result would be that in Chinese matters they would have no officer capable of interpreting in Russian, He hoped the hon, Gentleman would do everything possible to give an incentive to either halt pay or full pay officers to study languages.
  MR. ALLENsaid that the hon. Member for West Newington had exaggerated a little but was in the main correct. He had worked very hard at Russian at home, and then went out to Russia, where he studied for six months, working eight hours a day, and living with a Russian family the whole time. At the end of that period he found that, while
  270
  he could get along well enough with reading novels and the newspapers, he could not read documents or anything of that kind. His experience was that nobody could go to Russia and learn Russian to an extent that would be really useful under twelve months solid hard work.
  3. £790,900, Half-Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay.
  4. £340,600, Civil Pensions and Gratuities.
  5. £219,000, Medical Establishments and Services.
  6. £10,200, Martial Law, etc.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he wished under this Vote to refer to the ineligibility of Marine officers to sit on courts-martial when afloat. They had the privilege when ashore not only to sit on courts-martial but even to act as president; but, notwithstanding the fact that the Marine officers constituted one-fifth of the personnel of the Navy, they had not that right when serving afloat. This matter was brought before the House many years ago by Sir John Pope Hennessy, who was assured by the First Lord of the Admiralty of the day that the mutter would be remedied, He, in fact, went out of his way to emphasise his definite promise by saying that the Naval Lords of the Admiralty recognised the justice of the claims of the Marine officers. He was aware that it was said that if this claim were to be conceded the doctors and the paymasters would demand the same privileges, He had nothing to do with that. All he asserted was that the Marines were a large and effective force in the Navy, and thought by some to be the best body of men in the service of the country; and it was monstrous that they should be excluded from this privilege, and it bred a great amount of discontent. The seaman part of the Navy entertained a pre judice against Marine officers sitting on courts-martial; they would exclude everybody from enjoying any privilege which they enjoyed. They had also the greatest possible objection to giving the engineer officers the position they ought to take; but he did not raise

  271
  that point specifically at this moment, although engineer officers were precluded from sitting on courts-martial. He appealed to the hon. Gentleman, and to any fair-minded man in the House, as to whether this privilege should any longer be denied to the Marine officers, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be able to give a pledge that this injustice would be remedied.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he entirely supported the view that Marine officers who were combatant officers, and who were equal in every respect, except that of handling the ships, to the naval officers should be eligible to sit on courts-martial on board ship. It did not follow that any admiral at sea would be compelled to appoint a Marine officer on any particular court-martial, but Marine officers should be eligible to sit according to their rank, He well remembered the distinct pledge given by a former First Lord of the Admiralty that this would be remedied. He wished to take exception, to the use of the word "prejudice," on, the part of naval officers, by the hon. Member for Devonport. Whatever prejudice there might have been in the past there was none now. Looked at from every point of view, to concede this function to the Marine officers would be to the advantage of the public service. He would remind the Committee, more over, that the Marine officers, whether infantry or artillery, were the only officers instructed in the principles of law. He knew how keenly this matter was felt in the service, and, in the interests of the efficiency of the service and the well-being of the Fleet, he hoped it would be remedied.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTONsaid that Marine officers not being eligible to sit on courts-martial at sea, involved not only an, injustice to the Marine officers, but to the men. The Marines would have much greater confidence in the equity of the courts-martial if their own officers were allowed to sit upon them.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the hon. Members who had spoken had put very forcibly their arguments in favour of the concession. It happened
  272
  that at present officers of the Royal Marines were qualified to sit on courts-martial ashore, but not afloat. In his opinion, if ever the Admiralty were to change their views with regard to this subject, it appeared to him that it would be preferable that the Marines should take their places on courts-martial as officers of the Navy, and not merely as assessors representing the Marines, there being, as far as he was aware no such want of confidence in the existing courts as had been suggested by the junior Member for Devonport.
  7. £100,600, Educational Services.
  8. £65,800, Scientific Services.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1901–2.
  9. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £119,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Establishments for Military Education, which will come in course, of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902."
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERpointed out that no one representing the War Office was present, and asked whether, under the circumstances this Vote might he postponed.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERasked whether, seeing the difficulty in which the Committee was placed, it would not be better to postpone the Vote until the questions which it was desired to raise could be, answered by some representative of the War Office.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY ((Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Gentleman appreciates what has happened. The arrangement between the two sides of the House has produced, as it sometimes does, an amazing drying up of the fountains of eloquence, with the result that Votes have been obtained with regard to subjects which to all appearances would have kept the Committee many hours in discussing. This is very satisfactory and gratifying, but my right hon. friend

  273
  the Secretary of State for War, not expecting this happy consummation, has gone to the War Office to carry on his exceptionally laborious duties. I have, however, telephoned for my right hon. friend, and expect him to arrive in a few minutes; so if hon. Gentlemen do not mind putting their questions, I will take them down and my right hon. friend will be able to answer them when he comes.
  CAPTAIN NORTONdisclaimed any desire to take an unfair advantage of the absence of the Secretary for War. He desired to point out that a stereotyped sum of £550 was put down for promoting efficiency in languages. This was exactly the same sum as had been voted last year, and he regretted that the War Office had not seen fit to offer an increased incentive to our officers to study modern languages. At the present time we were suffering severely in South Africa from the lack of knowledge on the part of our officers of the Dutch language. He contrasted the difference between the expenditure of this country in this May with that of continental countries, and urged that facilities should be given to officers to learn the language of every country with which we were likely to beat war.
  MR. RICHARDSsuggested that the War Office ought to go a, little further, and in Army schools I acuities should be given to learn foreign languages. It was, he said, absurd to suppose that the ridiculous sum of £550 was sufficient for a nation like this to spend on such a subject. The War Office had not grasped the importance of the question. Every year more men of superior education entered the ranks in the hopes of obtaining a commission, and every facility should be given in the Army schools for men to acquire, at all events, a knowledge of French and Gorman. Possibly it would be a little
  difficult to learn Chinese in London, although, no doubt that could be accomplished with great trouble. Something might be done also for the non-commissioned officers, with great deal of advantage to the Army and themselves, by a more modern system of what in civil life was called secondary education for the young men
  274
  who were training for Army school-masters. He hoped there would he less of the hide-hound idea of the War Office in putting down this stereotyped sum. The hon. and gallant Member had referred to the absolute lack of knowledge of Dutch among our officers in South Africa, but he had always noticed that it a man learnt a language there was no recognition of the fact. He hoped when the Army Estimates were gone into next year special attention would be given to these subjects.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsuggested that some system analogous to that in force in India should be adopted. Certain bonuses were given when a certain standard of efficiency was reached in the various languages of India. That system had, so far as India was concerned, given very beneficial results, and should be adopted here with regard to European languages.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman pleads the same cause as he did when the Navy Estimates were before the House, and I have considerable sympathy with the views expressed, and I have no doubt that it would be of advantage to both the naval and military Services if there were more knowledge of foreign languages among the officers. But the English are not a nation much given to learning foreign languages. I think my hon. friend goes rather too far in suggesting that Chinese is one of the languages which our soldiers ought to learn, for the reason, as I have been informed by gentlemen familiar with Chinese trade that the common means of communication even among the Chinese themselves is by what is known as pidgin English. When we come to French and German it is a different matter, but I notice my right hon. friend has now returned to the House, and he will deal with the subject as affecting his Department.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that when he raised this question last year considerable sympathy was expressed from the Treasury Bench. He noticed, however, that the amount in the Estimates remained as before, and no move whatever had been made in the mutter, so

  275
  far as he could see. It was a very important matter, and he hoped something would be attempted before the Estimates came up for discussion next year.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)said He would consider well the subject before presenting the Estimates
  next year. In the press of many matters since be came into office this particular Vote had not engaged his attention.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 179; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 114).

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Hayes Fisher.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Dowd, John

  Boland, John

  Leamy, Edmund

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

  Boyle, James

  Lundon, W.

  O'Malley, William

  Burke, E. Haviland

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Cogan, Denis J.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Reddy, M.

  Crean, Eugene

  Murphy, J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cullinan, J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Delany, William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Doogan, P. C.

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

  Sullivan, Donal

  Duffy, William J.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

  White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Doherty, William

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  10. £218,200, Miscellaneous Effective Services.
  11. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not, exceeding £1,485,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge for Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals, and the In-Pensioners thereof; of Out-Pensions; of the maintenance of Lunatics for whom Pensions are not drawn; and of Gratuities awarded in Commutation and in lieu of Pensions, of Rewards for Meritorious Services; of Victoria Cross Pensions; and of Pensions, &c., to the Widows and Children of Warrant officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, and Men, &c., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902."
  MR. KEARLEYwished to raise the question of the pensions granted to the widows and orphans of those who had fallen in active service in South Africa. This was an important new departure on the part of the Government. It had for the first time recognised its responsibility towards the dependents of those who had sacrificed their lives in the service of the State. He was sure the country viewed with great pleasure this new departure, and they would vote the money with the greatest satisfaction, because the country had become aware of the fact that in recent years much suffering had happened to the widows and
  278
  dependents of those who had fought courageously for us in various parts of the world, and for whom no provision had been made by the State in the past. With regard to the amount the Government had detailed to the various ranks he had nothing whatever to say. Seeing that it was taxpayers' money, he thought a provision of 5s. per week, and 1s. 6d. per child, for the widow of an ordinary soldier or sailor was as much as could reasonably be expected. The pensions rose according to the rank or rating of the man who lost his life. He could not understand why the pensions were being withheld so long. A Committee had recommended that the pensions should be paid as from 1st April, but they were being withheld until 1st July. Even then the pensions were only to be given to the widows and orphans of those who were on the married establishment; the widows and orphans of men who married off the strength, that was (he supposed) without permission, were to be ignored so far as the Government was concerned. This was inexplicable. What was to become off these widows and orphans? The husband and father fought for his country, and the country would not recognise the distinction which the War Office was trying to make. If these widows were to be handed over to the tender mercies of the Patriotic Commission, Cod help them! The past history of the Commission had been exposed and condemned by every newspaper throughout the land. When

  279
  money got into the Commissioners' hands it stopped in that stagnant pool and its circulation ceased. The Soldiers' Effects Fund should be applicable to the pensions which the War Office proposed under this Vote. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War whether in future the money belonging to that fund should not be handed over to the Patriotic Commission for administration.
  THE CHAIRMAN: You cannot discuss that on this Vote.
  MR. KEARLEY, said he was sorry he could not proceed with that subject, because this was the only opportunity for raising it. During the debate, on the Address in reply to His Majesty's Speech, when an Amendment was moved, they were debarred from raising the question. The hon. Member asked the Secretary for War to give the reasons which had influenced the War Department to come to the decision that the widows of men who married off the strength of the regiment were not to get the benefit of this Vole. They were probably the most numerous of the whole lot. He was sure the country would be painfully shocked when it realised that these widows were to be left to look for assistance to outside funds. He hoped it was not too late now to come to some other decision.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that as a soldier he agreed that some distinction should be made between the widows and orphans of men borne on the establishment of regiments and those who had married off the strength. But surely the latter should have some allowance, if not the same allowance as the widows and orphans of men who had been on the strength. He did not mean that they should be placed exactly on a par with the widows and orphans of men whose conduct had been exemplary, but he thought some consideration should be shown to them. The whole history of the Patriotic Fund was that the Commissioners of the fund had made no effort to help those who properly came on the fund. So he hoped something would be done for the widows and orphans of those who, although they married off the
  280
  strength of their regiments, had also died in their country's service.
  MR. DUKEexpressed the hope that the Government would do more for the survivors of the men who had married off the strength. The men had sacrificed their lives for the country, and a generous view ought to be taken of the cases of those whom they had left in a state of destitution. The number of men who married off the strength was very great. If a man gave his life for the country the question of discipline should be sunk and something should be done in a spirit of generosity. He suggested also that the pay of a man who had been killed should be continued to his widow until she became entitled to the pension she was to receive.
  MR. LEVYstated that in the House of Lords on Monday last Lord Monkswell asked—
  "whether any alterations had been made since the commencement of the South African War in the dates and system of awarding pensions to soldiers disabled by wounds and sickness due to active service; and whether His Majesty's Paymaster General, as Chairman of the Board of Chelsea Commissioners, could give any information on the subject."
  In reply to that question the Duke of Marlborough said—
  "that it would be very unfortunate if there were any wounded soldiers going about the country who were not adequately provided for. Previous to the South African War—for example, the campaign in Egypt—soldiers who were wounded, and consequently discharged from the Service, received an award from the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital at a rate which they considered to represent the permanent loss in the earning power of the individual as a result of his wound. In the case of private soldiers who were partially able to earn, the rates varied from
  6d. to 1s. 6d. In the case of soldiers who were quite unable to earn, the rates were from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. These pensions, when granted, became permanent. Since the commencement of the South African War no alteration had been made in the rate of the pensions to wounded soldiers in the Royal Warrant. That was to say, no wounded man, partially disabled, could get more than 1s. 6d., and no man who was totally disabled could get more than 2s. 6d. But the Commissioners had unanimously decided to make a somewhat new departure, and, in nearly every case, to grant the maximum amount of pension at once."
  The hon. Member said he had had many instances brought to his notice in which

  281
  men had been in receipt of one shilling a day. That seemed to be in direct contradiction to the statement by the Duke of Marlborough. He thought a statement should be made to the House showing exactly what these men were entitled to. Referring to the non-effective Vote for officers and men, he said he thought that, unless some greater provision was made for the men, the scheme to increase the number of men in the Army would be a serious disappointment to the House.
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member who introduced this subject put one or two questions with regard to the widows of men who have died in the war. I know full well how great is the sympathy of the House for the men who have lost their lives in the war, and for those whom they have left behind them. The Government has for the first time in our history recognised the claims of these widows by giving pensions to the widows of non-commissioned officers and men. In taking that step they have been fully justified by the feeling of the country. But hon. Gentlemen have trenched on rather a difficult question by proposing that this advantage should be given, not merely to those who are married on the strength, but also to those who are married nut on the strength of a regiment. That point has been very carefully and sympathetically considered by the Government. The Government are the guardians of the public purse in this matter, and the charge which is likely to accrue will be a very heavy one. But there is also something besides that. It is not the desire of the Government that the great majority of soldier's who join at the age of eighteen should marry at an early age and have families dependent upon them. In the first place, a soldier's pay
  does not properly allow of it, and, secondly, he has to move at any moment from his station and go abroad, and a large number of families would mean a serious impediment. On the other hand, if these families are left behind it will entail the greatest possible misery and privation to those who become dependent on soldiers who can only spare a very small amount out of their pay. If we were to go back on our decision with
  282
  regard to pensions, to give them only to those married on the strength, we should be encouraging to a very great extent this kind of improvidence, and when we sent the men abroad we should have to give separation allowances to their wives and families. That would be an enormous charge to contemplate. Then there is another difficulty. There are three classes, I believe, who at this moment are entitled to separation allowances. The first are the men of the Reserve who are married, the second those who are married on the strength, and the third those who have married in anticipation of going into the Reserve and have been kept on by the terms of service until the end of the war. My constituency abuts on Aldershot, and I can say this, that when the Reserves were called up in November of 1899, it being found that separation allowance was being granted and also that money was being granted from charitable funds to the wives of those who went on active service, a very large number of marriages took place, in the cases of Reservists who were not already married, within a day or so of embarkation. There were a considerable number of cases in which men who sailed on 7th November had married on 25th November or 26th November, and whose wives claimed at once to have the allowance. I think the step proposed would be very unwise, more especially as there are charitable funds which are available for the limited number of widows, as they are at present, who married men off the strength. With regard to the administration of the Patriotic Fund, I had the pleasure of silting on a Committee with the hon. Member respecting that fund, and. I was in favour, as the hon. Gentleman was, of more generous distribution of the fund. It was found that the administration of the fund was economical in the first degree, and that the money went straight to those for whom it was intended. But we thought that a larger class might be included, and the inquiry about to take, place will deal with that point. There is no doubt whatever that those widows who cannot be provided for by the Government, owing to the regulations giving the allowance only to those on the strength, can and will be provided for by the Patriotic Fund. I think the House

  283
  would be unwise to insist on provision being made out of public funds on their behalf. The rules and regulations have not yet actually been got out, and will not be got out by the 1st April. Therefore 1st July has been adopted as the most convenient date. I really do not think that the provision which Parliament is asked to make for the widows of those who have fallen in the war is an illiberal one. Certainly my own desire has been to get this subject settled on an efficient and proper basis, remembering, as I do, that there is the strongest disposition on the part of Parliament, after these Votes have been given and when abuse has been found to have occurred, to find fault with the Government for not having foreseen the point at which they should have stopped. I hope in this particular case, having in view the extreme undesirability of putting in the way of our soldiers the temptation of making improvident marriages in the hope of getting separation allowances, the Committee will rest satisfied with the arrangement the Government propose.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and, forty Members being found present—
  MR. LEVYasked whether the Secretary of State for War could not see his way clear to make adequate arrangements whereby those men who were returned from South Africa partially or totally disabled should not have to eke out an existence on the mere pittance of one shilling a day. Many of these men had wives to keep, and it was a scandal that those men who had fought our battles in South Africa, and who had been incapacitated, should be compelled to live on charity. He noticed that the amount put in the Estimates for non-effective officers was something like £800 more than it used to be. It was the first duty of the Government to make ample provision in their Estimates for those soldiers who were incapacitated in the war, and who were thus prevented from earning their own living. He had seen in his own district many men who had been totally incapacitated, and they told him that all they got was one shilling a day. He should be very glad if the
  284
  Secretary of State for War would state whether it was not possible to make some reasonable provision for these men.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he could not allow the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to pass without some comment. The decision of the War Office in respect to the case of soldiers who married off the strength had been arrived at, they were told, as a question of policy. The question of justice and common humanity was left out of consideration altogether. The widows of men who had lost their lives in the service of the country were not to receive pensions, because, as a matter of policy, it would be inexpedient to encourage men to marry.
  MR. BRODRICK: Does the hon. Member suggest that the whole Army should be allowed to marry off the strength?
  MR. KEARLEYreplied that the right hon. Gentleman was simply begging the question. At the present time we were recognising the claims of some widows who were no more entitled to recognition than in the instances he had raised. At present the War Office recognised the claims of the widows of Reservists who married a day or two before they sailed for South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman said that if they recognised the claims of the widows of those soldiers who had married without consent, that would be encouraging others to do the same. The real question was whether these widows were to have uniformity of treatment, and that question had been evaded by the speculative theories put forward by the Secretary for War as to what might happen if these widows were recognised. Did the Government propose to throw these women and children on the world to pick up promiscuous charily? If that was so, he had no hesitation in saying that such a decision would not receive the approval of the country. A great number of Reservists, when they discovered that funds were being raised, married a day or two before going out to the war. Did the right hon. Gentleman suggest that those men married in order to get the paltry sum which was offered them? It was a feature of this

  285
  war that many of their officers married just before they went away. Did the right hon. Gentleman allege that they married with some ulterior motive? The Secretary for War had told them that the number of the class of widows for whom he was pleading was very few, and sooner than bring them into this Vote the right hon. Gentleman preferred to make them an exception in order not to encourage young soldiers to marry. It the House of Commons were left to decide the question there would not be a vote against including in the pension list the whole of these widows. The right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to endeavour to whitewash the Patriotic Commissioners. He was free to admit that the Committee which sat on the administration of the fund found no abuses in regard to expense of management, and so on; but they did find that the Commissioners had hoarded instead of administering the funds at their disposal, and he hoped the day was not very remote when those funds would be taken out of their hands altogether. He wished to know what was to be the medium through which this payment to the widows was to be made. Were the payments to go through the Army and Navy officials, or through some other outside body? They bad perfect confidence in the War Office and the Admiralty administering the pensions, but if it was to be delegated to the Patriotic Commissioners, there would be a, good deal of objection. When these men went away a year ago amid the cheering crowds, everybody declared that their widows would not suffer, and that the country would look after them. Now that the war fever had died out they were asked to accept the decision that the unfortunate widows and orphans of those who married off the strength were to be cast upon the world to pick up such sustenance as they could in the day of their trouble.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL, speaking as an old soldier, said he had no doubt whatever that it would be a most dangerous thing for the Secretary of State for War to class the widows of those who had married without leave with the widows of those who were married with leave. It would be a most serious thing to induce a lot of young fellows,
  286
  just before going out to the war, to marry their sweethearts. At the same time, he felt most strongly that cases might arise which the commanding officer of a regiment should have the power of bringing before the Patriotic Fund or some fund of that kind with a view to the unfortunate widow of a man who had married without leave receiving proper treatment.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid it had been suggested that some distinction should be drawn between those who had married on the strength and those who had married without leave. The issue was now narrowed down to this—that the widows of the men who had married without the permission of their commanding officers and had then gone out to South Africa and had died were to be left to die in the workhouse.
  MR. BRODRICKdissented.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman shook his head, and perhaps he thought that outside charitable organisations would make some provision for them. The Member for Devonport had been for years contending that the Patriotic Commissioners had not done their work satisfactorily. What they asked in the name of the country was for some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the funds subscribed by the public for the support of those whose relatives died in South Africa should be handed over to some body distinctly under the control of this House, so that there should be money available for pensions for the widows and orphans of those who, though they had transgressed the rules by marrying without leave, were entitled to consideration at the hands of the country. The sum of
  £160,000, representing the unclaimed balances due to the relatives of deceased soldiers who had died in the service, was handed over to the Patriotic Commissioners, who hoarded it up for future use instead of distributing it. The country was enthusiastic with the men who went out to South Africa, and they were distinctly led to believe that those they left behind would be provided

  287
  for. If those outside funds were properly administered they would then have the distinction which was asked for, and that would be quite sufficient to deal with the case of the widows of those soldiers who were not on the strength.
  MR. BRODRICK: There appears to be some misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I told the Committee an hour ago that the Government could not undertake to recognise the claims of those who had married off' the strength on the same basis as those who had married with leave. The hon. Member for Devonport has made a most impassioned speech, but be does not appear to have grasped the nature of the answer which I gave. I added frankly that I think their claims are claims to be recognised by the Patriotic Fund, and that I know the Patriotic Fund will recognise them.
  MR. KEARLEY: Under what compulsion? Will the Government undertake to see that they do administer the funds?
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Gentleman's mistrust of this body carries him too far. It is a body composed of trustees of undoubted position, many of them members of this and the other House of Parliament, and all of whom have shown that their only desire is to administer the fund so that they shall have security that all those who are upon it shall receive the pensions given to them to the end of their lives. The hon. Member thinks the Commissioners have been a little too conservative, and so do I, but the pressure that the House of Commons can exercise has been put upon them to induce them to take up a less conservative attitude. As far as the Government are concerned, our position is this—we have undertaken the charge of all those who married on the strength and those who married with a reasonable expectation that they would shortly come into the Reserve, and have gone into the Reserve since they went out to South Africa. I have brought all these men under the rule. But I cannot admit that we can consider the widows
  288
  of those who married off the strength in one category for one purpose and in another category for another purpose. What I do say is that those who married on the strength will receive pensions from the Government, and that those who married off the strength will be provided for by the Patriotic Fund, and I will take care that any influence I can bring to bear will be exercised in the direction of their being treated with the generosity and sympathy which we all desire to see exercised.
  MR. KEARLEYasked if the right hon. Gentleman would consult the Government as to the desirability of making a small contribution to the Patriotic Fund, to enable the House to discuss the doings of the managers of that fund.
  DR. AMBROSEsaid he wished to make
  an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of two women who were not widows. On the previous day, in his capacity as a medical man, he had visited these women, whose husbands were at the front. One of these women had five children a sixth being dead. He could assure the Committee that if they could only realise the situation of dire distress in which these two women and their children were, they would hurl the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War from the Treasury Bench if he refused to give assistance. Someone had asked if the doctors would attend gratuitously women and children in such cases. He had done so, although entirely opposed to the war, for the past twelve months, and was, therefore, in a better position than other hon. Members to tell the Committee of the dire necessity in which many of these poor people were. They were living from hand to mouth, though they got a little assistance now and then from ladies from the West End. They talked about the Patriotic Fund, but why did not the Government step in and help? What had been done with all the money collected by the Telegraph and other journals? The way that money had been dispensed was ha disgrace to London.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Gentleman was discussing a War Office matter, which did not come under the Vote before the Committee.
  DR. AMBROSEsaid he would not proceed to discuss the distribution of the money collected, but he protested against the cold-blooded treatment meted out by the War Office to the wives and children of men who had given their lives to their country, ever since Crimean days.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid the Government could not guarantee to give a separation allowance to women who had married off the strength, and who were not entitled to it.
  MR. PHILIPPSsaid he did not care twopence whether a woman married on the strength or off the strength. If a soldier married without leave, let the right hon. Gentleman deal with him in his own way and punish him, but if that soldier went to the front and was killed his widow and children ought to get a pension from the State. They had heard a good deal about getting recruits and about reforms at the War Office, but here was the right hon. Gentleman making speeches saying that if a soldier married without leave his widow, if he were killed, might, with luck, and if there were funds in the hands of the Patriotic Commissioners, get a small allowance. That was all very fine, but he maintained the widows ought to be provided for by the country. However great the taxation was going to be he believed the representative of the taxpayers of the country would be perfectly prepared to vote
  the money to all the sufferers from the war. A good deal of money had been voted that was not popular, including the large amount to buy Salisbury Plain. He did not think anything the Government had done was so unpopular as to vote that money and not to provide for the relief of widows from the war. He knew be would he reproached in his constituency unless he protested against money not being voted for these widows. And he believed that
  290
  every Member of the House, including the Irish Members, would be ready to vote money for the widows of the men who had died for their country. It was by such actions as this of refusing pensions to widows that the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of all his eloquence, was making the war unpopular in the country and bringing down a reproach on the nation.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that the Irish Members had always voted against the war, but when it came to punishing, not the soldier who had married off the strength, but the innocent wife who was left alone when her soldier husband died, their feelings of indignation were roused. Surely it was stretching red tape too far to refuse gratuities to innocent sufferers. This cast-iron discipline was being carried too far in allowing the widows of the gallant men who had died of wounds in battle or from disease in South Africa, and their poor fathers and mothers, to be left to the cold charity of the workhouse He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter; and grant justice to the widow's and orphan children.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that surely the right hon. Gentleman would consider the suggestions that had been thrown out. The question of exercising discipline over a man who had married without leave was quite different from that of making a certain allowance to the widow of a man who had died for his country.
  THE CHAIRMANrose to put the question; whereupon—
  CAPTAIN NORTON: As the right hon. Gentleman does not appear willing to meet this question. I beg to move to reduce this Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That a reduced sum of £1,484,900 be granted for the said Service."—(Captain Norton.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 76; Noes, 127. (Division List No. 115.)

  AYES.

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

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

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Malley, William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Mara, James

  Austin, Sir John

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bell, Richard

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Black, Alexander William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Blake, Edward

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Boland, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Russell

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Reddy, M.

  Caldwell, James

  Leamy, Edmund

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Lundon, W.

  Rigg, Richard

  Cogan, Denis J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Dermott, Patrick

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

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cullinan, J.

  Murphy, J.

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Delany, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

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

  Duffy, William J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Dunn, Sir William

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Connor, T, P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Doherty, William

  Captain Norton and Mr. Kearley.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Dowd, John

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morton, A. K. A. (Deptford)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gordon, Maj. E. (T'rHamlets)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Eldon Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (M'dd'x

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Harris, F Leverton (Tynemouth

  Bignold, Arthur

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Randles, John S.

  Bigwood, James

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bill, Charles

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Renwick, George

  Brookfield, Col. Montagu

  Kimber, Henry

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.

  Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cautley Henry Strother

  Lawrence, William F.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limebouse)

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

  Lawson, John Grant

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Lee, Capt A H (Hants. Fareh

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Chamberlain. J. Austen (Worc.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Charrington, Spencer

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

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

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Macdona, John dimming

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir M. M.

  Wason, John Catheart (Orkney

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

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

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Morgan, Dav. J. (Walthamst'w

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  292

  293

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Wolff, (Gustav Wilhelm

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Hayes

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

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  12. £188,500, Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate Allowances and Gratuities,
  MR. FLYNNsaid that the Vote was a very important one, and there were various questions his hon. friends desired to raise on it; but, in view of the fact that there was an important Irish Bill (the Roman Catholic Disabilities Removal Bill), which was supported by the Irish Members, on the Order Taper, they did not desire to discuss the Vote in Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is only fair to remind hon. Members that the invariable practice on a Friday evening devoted to Supply is for the Government to move the adjournment of the House after the Votes have been disposed of.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was really serious in proposing to move the adjournment of the House at ten o'clock, and thereby preventing a large number of Members from discussing a Bill which was on the Order Taper and in which they score interested. They had been keeping very late hours recently in the House, the closure had been frequently applied, and there had been no end of statements from the Government as to the necessity of rushing Supply through the House of Commons. The Irish. Members were now prepared to allow the Vote before the Committee to pass, in order that they might have an hour, or even half an hour, to lake the sense of the House on the Bill on the Order Paper. The right hon. Gentleman, however, coolly told them that he intended to move the adjournment of the House at ten o'clock, and cut the Irish Members out from getting the Second Beading of a Bill which had been before the House year after year for many years, and which the right hon. Gentleman would
  294
  admit engaged the interest, not only of the Irish Members but of millions of His Majesty's subjects.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the question to which he is addressing himself is not the one before the Committee. He must put himself in order.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was quite aware that, technically, he was not in order. He would not discuss the matter further, but he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to allow it to go forth to the millions of people interested in the Bill that at ten o'clock at night the Irish Members would not be permitted to take the sense of the House on it.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman rightly understood him. The Irish Members were willing to allow the Vote which they had a perfect right to discuss to pass in order that they might get on to the next Order of the day.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope hon. Gentlemen will understand that the course I have stated as the course which the Government feel bound to adopt has nothing whatever to do with the merits of the Bill. That is my view, and I know hon. Members will believe me. Whether they think it is desirable or not, that course is in adherence to general principle, and to general principle alone. Hon. Members will remember that under the Supply Rule Fridays are allocated to Supply, and although Bills may be put down Members interested in them go away knowing they will not come on for discussion. Further hon. Members should remember that on Friday, being a Government day, we should put down Bills ourselves Bills of great general importance—it we did not feel that no Bills ought to be taken on Fridays. I am sure, therefore, that

  295
  hon. Members will feel with me that if the Government allowed private Members' Bills to be taken on a day which did not belong to them, it would be asking the House to accept a principle unjust in itself and most inconvenient. As far as I know anything about this Bill, there is nothing to object to in it. Its general principle, at all events. I would not have any objection to, but if the Bill were the one of all others I desired should be passed, I should still think it my duty as Leader of the House to observe the general rule which, on the whole, is a rule of expediency and for the proper order of debate, and to support the Government in declaring that on Fridays no business but Supply should be taken.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I hope it will be consistent with the rules of order to pursue this matter. The Government say that Fridays are allocated to Supply alone, and that they abstain themselves from putting down Government Bills because they intend the entire sitting to be devoted to Supply. On this occasion all the Supply put down has been practically granted. [AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.] Technically I am correct. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that he has received facilities, and that a considerable amount of Supply has been voted. With regard to the particular Bill on the Order Paper, the right hon. Gentleman says, as far as he can observe, he sees no objection to it in principle. We now find ourselves in the position of having practically finished Supply, and still having two hours before the time for the adjournment. The next Order is a Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman takes no objection, and is it not a great hardship, to put it no higher, that we cannot have the few minutes necessary for the passing of the Second Rending of this Bill? I am most anxious not to outstep the limits of order, but I may be allowed to point out in one sentence what this Bill is. As the law stands at present, absurd restrictions exist against the existence in Ireland and England of religious orders. These religious orders, such as the Franciscans and the Jesuits, cannot by law live in the country or own property, and I do
  296
  not think that there are half-a-dozen Members of the House, whatever their political opinions may be, who will not admit that that us an absurd state of law and ought to be abolished. I suggested to my hon. friend who has charge of the Bill that if the Bill were reached he should not trouble the House with a long speech, but should simply move the Second Reading. If there are objections in detail to this Bill, they can be dealt with in Committee, and all we ask is that, having let Supply go through, we should be given an opportunity of taking the Second Heading of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says he cannot do that because it is against precedent. I would ask him, if he takes that view so strongly, can he afford us some hope or give us some undertaking that the small modicum of time necessary to discuss the principle of this Bill will be afforded to us at another period of the session? If he will undertake to close Government business sonic night in time to enable us to take I he Second Reading of the Bill, then we will not pursue the matter further now. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that. I am afraid it will be necessary for us to discuss this Vote, and also the question of the adjournment, which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will move after the Vote is carried. I would make a conciliatory appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and would ask him, in view of the character of the Bill, and that opposition to it is confined probably to two out of the 670 Members of the House, whether he would not make some small concession to us and give us an assurance that on a future occasion we should have half an hour, or less, in which to discuss the Bill. If he will do that, we will at once withdraw the claim we now make. I would earnestly appeal to him in the interests of that wide tolerance which I believe exists in the minds of the great majority of the Members of the House, to afford some small opportunity of dealing with this question, which, although it may not press very hardly on these religious orders, because the evasion of the law is winked at, is still regarded by the people of Ireland as a badge of inferiority and a relic of the bad old days when their religion was prescribed by law.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that this discussion is irregular. The Committee now seems to be discussing the merits of the next Order on the Paper. The Vote before the Committee must he disposed of one way or the other.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I think the right hon. Gentleman might be allowed to reply.
  MR. WOLFFsaid he did not wish to say anything about the Bill itself, but at all events it was understood by a great many hon. Members that on Friday nights no business except Supply would be taken. He knew one hon. Member, his hon. friend the Member for South Belfast, who would have been present it he had had any idea that the Bill would be brought forward. His hon. friend and other hon. Members went away under the impression that only Supply would be taken.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that before the right hon. Gentleman replied perhaps he might, without discussing the merits of the Bill or infringing the rules of order, be permitted to point out a precedent for the course the right hon. Gentleman was asked to take. Last session† on a Government day business was disposed of at an earlier hour than was expected. The next Order was the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children Bill. The Government moved the adjournment, but they were appealed to to allow the Bill to be dealt with, as it excited considerable interest in the House, and in answer to that appeal the Government withdrew the motion for the adjournment and allowed the Bill to be discussed. He thought that was an exact precedent, and he would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would now follow the action of the Government on the occasion he mentioned.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have nothing whatever to complain of in the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken. The precedent mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is really no precedent. I was not in the House at the actual moment when the business of Supply was concluded, and, unfortunately, con-
  See Debates, Fourth Series, Vol. lxxx., page 518.
  298
  trary to my directions another Order of the day was called on.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I was in the House all the time. Mr. Goschen, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, actually moved the adjournment of the House, and it was in answer to an appeal made to him that he withdrew it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is perfectly true that the Government moved the adjournment, but not until after the order of the day had been called and the House had entered upon the discussion of the Bill. That was through a misapprehension of the very clear directions I had given to the Gentleman then in charge of the business of this bench. If the hon. Gentleman will consult the archives of the Mouse he will see that I have over and over again moved the adjournment immediately after the conclusion of the business on Fridays, against Bills brought in by Gentlemen on my own side of the House and supported by the great majority of the party to which I belong, and I think as impartiality should be exercised by the Leader of the House it would be absurd to make an exception in favour of a minority as against a majority. I have nothing to do with the merits of the Bill. It is in the power of hon. Gentlemen to keep on the discussion of Supply until twelve o'clock, and I suppose they will do so if I do not give way, as I feel I cannot in honesty and honour give, way. I wish I could. Then the hon. Gentleman says to me. "Give us an opportunity." Is it to be the rule of the House that whenever Supply finishes before twelve o'clock the Bill which is next Order of the Day is to have a slice of Government time for its Second Reading discussion? I think the hon. Gentleman will see that if this House is to be managed on general principles irrespective of the merits of Bills, the general principle which I have laid down is the only one which can be laid down. If I gave way now to the eloquent appeal of the hon. Gentleman, the force of which I admit, I should be perfectly helpless in dealing with any Bill in future which had any backing at all in this House, and as a matter of fact Friday would cease to be a day given to Supply, and would become a day on which those who have the power of obstructing or

  299
  discussing Supply at length would always be making bargains with the Government, that if they refrained from discussing Supply they should have the Second Reading of some Bill in which they were interested. That would be very inconvenient. Frankly I say that if the House now indicates that their view is that Friday should not be exclusively given to Supply, I shall be bound to put down Government Bills as the next orders, which would, of course, exclude private Members' Bills. I am not able to accede to the request of the hon. Gentleman. I have not dealt with it in any contentious spirit, and I am sure he will feel that no other course was open to me in the interests of equality and justice.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: The precedent quoted by the hon. Member for East Clare is scarcely a precedent in this case. I have looked the case up in Hansard. We were dealing with the Army Supplementary Estimates on Report of Supply, not with the ordinary business of Supply. I myself feel great sympathy with my hon. friends, but I quite understand the position the Leader of the House has taken up, and, in the general interests of our procedure, I am bound to say that his decision to keep Fridays intact for Supply is in the general interests of legislation in the House. I am sorry we could not have some pledge with reference to this Bill, because I should like to see it brought before the House and divided upon. It is a, Bill which ought to have an opportunity of eliciting a vote from the House; but while I should be glad to press that view I am bound to support the decision the right hon. Gentleman has taken in the interests of public business, and because it conduces to general fair play.
  MR. POWERsaid he thought the precedent mentioned by his hon. friend the Member for East Clare was very much stronger than was acknowledged by the right hon. Gentleman. The action proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would be a direct premium on loquacity. The right hon. Gentleman said he could not break a rule, but if there was a rule there should also be an exception to prove it. That
  300
  was logic. The Roman Catholic Disabilities Bill was the exceptional case and deserved the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. His lion, friend the Member for Waterford had made a moderate proposition, and if the right hon. Gentleman could not assent to the Bill being discussed now, he ought to assent to it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must respectfully ask the Committee to come back to the matter before it. This discussion is irregular.
  MR. T, P. O'CONNORsaid he would suggest that the Vote be allowed to pass, and when the Bill was taken the discussion could continue on the motion for adjournment.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to oppose the motion. My reason for doing so can be stated very clearly and briefly. We have now reached half-past 10 o'clock, and an hour and a half remains for the transaction of business. In the early part of to-day's sitting a very large amount of Government business has been transacted. No obstruction has been thrown in the way of the Government, and, having obtained all they desired, they now propose that the House should adjourn, although there remains on the Order Paper one Order of very great importance which has the support of the overwhelming majority of the House. It is a Bill entitled "Roman Catholic Disabilities Removal Bill." It would be improper for me to attempt to go in detail into the provisions of this Bill, but I may be permitted to point out that the Bill deals with a very important question, and that it has practically the unanimous support of the House. It was introduced by a private Member, and of course the opportunities of private Members in promoting legislation are very few It has been the fate of this

  301
  Bill year after year to be defeated by the opposition of one or two Members. The opportunity has arisen for dealing with the Roman Catholic Disabilities Removal Bill now. We have an hour and a half before us, and I respectfully submit to the House that it would be a monstrous thing if, after we have helped the Government business to be transacted quickly at the earlier part of the sitting, the Government should intervene with a motion for the adjournment of the House. This matter which we desire to bring before the House is one which excites the keenest possible interest, not only in Ireland, but among large classes of the people of this country and in other parts of the Empire, Perhaps you will allow me to mention in one sentence what the object of the Bill is.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the House understands the object of it. I do not think you can discuss the details of the Bill now. The object is plain from the title.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: It is quite true that the object is clear on the title, but I am afraid that in these days of toleration in this country hon. Members in this House are apt to forget that there remain on the Statute Book some relics of the old Penal days.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid if he allowed the hon. Member to argue the question he must allow other Members to reply.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I never had any intention of arguing the matter at all, and I will not go further than to say that the Bill proposes to remove certain religious disabilities attaching to a large class of the citizens of the Empire—disabilities which, I believe, not one per cent. of the Members of this House desire to see continued. In fact, I think I am right when I mention that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has already stated that so far as he understands the Bill, he does not see any objection to it. I do not know anybody who has any objection, with the exception of two Members of the House, and I do put it in all seriousness, if it is not monstrously hard, after
  302
  sitting up night after night since the commencement of the session helping the Government in the passage of its business—bringing to bear on the business of the Government keen interest and intelligence—that we, are to be prevented now from spending ten minutes or a quarter of an hour in passing the Second Reading of a Bill of this nature. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh. Of course they think that if the House has been sitting late it has been the fault of the Irish Members. I will not argue the question. Possibly they think that it would have been better for the interests of the Empire if hundreds of millions of money had been voted without any discussion at all. Possibly they think that the function of the House of Commons is discussing—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was travelling beyond the question of the adjournment.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I quite understand that, Mr. Speaker, but what I desire to point out is that we, having been necessarily engaged night after night for prolonged hours in discussing the business of the Government, would feel it very hard to be prevented from taking advantage of this happy opportunity to-night to push forward a Bill about which there is practically no difference of opinion at all. The right hon. Gentleman pleads that there is some understanding that on Friday nights nothing but Supply should he taken. I respectfully submit to him and to the House that I think that would be an unfortunate understanding to have translated into an unwritten rule of the House. It that were so, it would be placing a, direct premium, as one of my honourable friends said, upon loquacity, and upon prolonging discussion, and where you have an occasion like tonight, where large sums of money have been voted with meagre discussion, it would be hard indeed to deprive us, who have abstained from discussing these matters, of our reward when we want to bring forward this Bill. I say that it would be a monstrous scandal if the House adjourned at half-past ten when a question of this kind remains to be discussed. If this House is to retain

  303
  the respect of the nation it must conduct its business in a business-like manner, and I ask seriously is it a business-like transaction, having fulfilled the particular Government business to-night, that you should adjourn at half-past ten? This is an urgent matter, upon which we are all agreed, waiting to be discussed, and which could be dealt with in a quarter of an hour. If the light hon Gentleman had not moved the adjournment of the House we might now have disposed of it to the satisfaction of the entire House, and we might have removed what is an intolerable grievance and insult to citizens of the country. Under these circumstances. I appeal to the House to take a reasonable, businesslike and conciliatory attitude on this matter, and give us the few moments that are necessary out of the hour and a half that remains. This question is of the utmost importance in Ireland, and millions of people in other parts of the Empire take a keen interest in it. I cannot conceive that anybody out of sheer malice or revenge, because they thought we had prolonged discussion on other occasions, could desire to deprive the Irish Members of this opportunity of discussing this matter. That indeed would be a very ungenerous thing for the House to do. I do not believe that that feeling is animating hon. Members opposite at all. I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, as we have economised time during this silting of the House, at any rate to give us the advantage of the Few moments we ask for discussing this urgent matter, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not persist in his motion for adjournment, and will enable us in proceed to the discussion of this matter.
  MR. FLYNNsaid the laws of the House were surely not like the laws of the Medes and Persians. The business of Supply ordinarily ran to 12 o'clock, but were they to throw away an hour, or an hour and a half, of valuable time when Supply finished earlier, simply for the purpose of carrying out some cast-iron rule? The session had now lasted six weeks, and it was a remarkable fact that although the Irish party had some Bills they desired to bring forward only one had come before the House. Here was a chance of dealing with a grievance not only of
  304
  Ireland, but of Great Britain. The sense of the House could be taken upon it in half an hour, and yet the Government seemed inclined to sit tight and stick to this stupid idea about taking no other business on Friday after Supply. This could not be quoted as a precedent, because it very rarely happened that Supply was finished before midnight. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion for the adjournment, turn round and smile on his followers, and say "Let us go to a Second Reading." So far as he could see there would be no other opportunity of bringing forward the Bill this session.
  MR. CREANsaid the British Government were supposed to govern Catholics and Protestants with equal laws, but it appeared to him that Jews and heathen had a better chance in the empire than Catholics. They could never be governed with equal laws so long as there was a ban on their faith. So confident were the supporters of this Bill in the justice of their claim, that they were prepared to accept the decision of the House upon it without discussion. They were satisfied that every honest-minded man would vote for the Bill. He acknowledged that there were a few cranks who objected to it, but they were very few. Earlier in the evening the Irish Members abstained from discussing the Votes of money, because they wished to have the opportunity of bringing this Bill before the House.
  MR. BLAKE: I hope the House will not set up any cast-iron rule on this occasion about allowing nothing but Supply to be taken on a Friday night, but will enable us to discuss this very important Bill. I speak as a member of the Protestant faith, and it is we, the members of that faith, who ought to be the most eager to wipe out the disgrace which this Bill proposes to remove. The disgrace does not reflect upon those who ask for this opportunity of discussing this Bill. It is upon the Protestants of this country that it rests. It is an unfortunate thing—it is a shameful thing—that in this Parliament for several years earnest and assiduous efforts to get an opportunity of wiping

  305
  out this disgrace have been thwarted. Those who made those efforts have been deprived of the opportunity in the past, and they are again being deprived of it now. I say it would be more for the honour and credit of this House that this Bill should be allowed to-night to receive a Second Reading; and I therefore implore the Leader of the House not to be inexorable, but to allow this disgrace to be wiped out by allowing the Bill to be read a second time. If this opportunity is refused, the feeling of insult and wrong will be continued among the Catholics of the
  Empire.
  MR. J. W. WILSONsaid it appeared to him that the time available for private Members' Bills was inevitably curtailed year by year. It was not unreasonable to ask that, when the Government business had been transacted, any available time should now be devoted to this Bill. It should then be left to the opposers of the Bill, irrespective of party, to move the adjournment of the House. That was the practical test to put the Bill to.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend who has just spoken has not, I think, fully appreciated the exact circumstances of the case. Why was it that after Supply to-night the next Order of the day was a Bill in the hands of a private Member? The reason was that the Government bad laid down as a rule and practice of the House that Friday should be devoted to Supply. The House may
  like or dislike that. If they dislike that rule, let them say so, and the immediate result will be that I shall put down a Government Bill as the second Order of the day, and no private Bill would ever have a chance. The whole difficulty which we are now suffering from would be obviated it I were to put down a Government measure at the end of Supply, and announce beforehand that I would not take it, but move the adjournment of the House. If the adjournment was not carried, the Government Bill would be taken. That is the course that would be adopted, and which was adopted for some time before the new Supply rule was introduced. In those days Friday was devoted first to Supply and then to
  306
  Government business, but remonstrances were made to me as Leader of the House. I was told that it was not fair that I should use any time that was over for legislation. I yielded to them at the time, and I have abstained from putting down a Government Bill. Am I to be told that if the Government have abstained from using their own day for carrying on the legislation of the country, the gap is to be filled up with private Members Bills? If my hon. friend will think over the proposition be will see that it is an unreasonable one, and if the House should differ with the Government to-night as to the course I am advising the Government to pursue, it is the last time they will do it, for never again will I put down a private Member's Bill after Supply.
  MR. BELL: Why is this Bill on the Paper?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that I put it down. The hon. Member asks for information, and I will give it to him, as perhaps he is not so familiar with the practice of the House as some of us who have been longer here. As regards Government business, the Government put it down any day they please. Friday is a Government day, and therefore no Bill put down for that day by a private Member is taken until after the Government business has been finished. On the other hand, a private Member has a perfect right to put down his Bill any day he likes. Therefore the Government have only got to put down a Bill, or two Bills, or a dozen Bills, after Supply on Friday, and, of course, private Members would be absolutely excluded from any chance. We have no control over private Members, but we have to submit that when we have abstained from exercising our fights, it is rather hard that private Members should step in and violate the rule in their own interests. I hope I have made that clear to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are advocating the Second Reading of the Bill. Hon. Members from Ireland state that the Government owe them some little compensation for all the hard work they have been doing for the Government. I can assure hon. Members that, if there are hon.

  307
  Members on my own side of the House who consider that the action of the Irish Members during recent weeks has not been such as to recommend to the general favour and attention of the House any of their requests, in the action we have taken on the present occasion there is no consideration of that kind nor any tincture or flavour of revenge. The course we have taken to-night is one which I have previously taken against the almost unanimous desire of my own friends, and they have again and again protested to the gentleman in charge of the general management of the business of the House against the hard-heartedness of the Government in insisting that after Supply was finished the House should adjourn. Hon. Members opposite say that this Bill is for the purpose of removing a great and standing scandal. I am not going to discuss the merits of the Bill. They have also mentioned that they have been fortunate in the ballot this year. Why has not this Bill had precedence on one of the occasions on which Irish measures secured priority on the Order Paper? Hon. Members are admirably organised, and when they are fortunate in the ballot they put down measures which commend themselves to the majority of Members on those benches. I do not say that they do not desire this Bill to pass; but they cannot have a pre-eminent, overmastering wish that it should pass, otherwise they would have taken care on one of the many days on which they have secured precedence to have placed it first on the Order Paper.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I would wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish Members have not been so very fortunate in the ballot. They have only obtained precedence for one Bill up to the present.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I have noticed two or three Wednesdays on which Bills with a most Hibernian flavour in their titles at all events had precedence. I have been in the House five-and-twenty years, and during that period I would be afraid even roughly to estimate the number of Wednesdays in which hon. Members have had precedence.
  308
  Let us put on one side altogether the merits or demerits of this Bill. So far as I know, I think the Bill is a very good one. I do not know whether it is a practical Bill, but to its principle I think most people will assent. One or two hon. Gentlemen opposite said it would pass without a word of comment, and it was so obvious that no one would desire to debate it. Is that the principle on which hon. Gentlemen manage their debates? Do they not discuss obvious propositions and occupy the time of the House?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: We have allowed Bills to pass without discussion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not deny that hon. Members can on occasion show the virtue of silence. I am asking, is that habitual? Are they in that general state of grace in which silence is their obvious and ruling characteristic, and in which every common sense proposition maintained on this side of the House is received with respectful taciturnity on the other side? I think. Sir, that the expectation of silence is very often disappointed on whatever side of the House it is entertained. We may set aside all discussion as to the merits of the Bill, or the characteristics of the Party advocating it, because I can most truly say that neither of these circumstances have had the smallest influence in the decision which I venture to recommend to the House. The question is the management of our Fridays in Supply. I am glad that this Bill is one which, so far as I know, is not of a controversial character. Had it been one which the Government looked upon unfavourably, we might have been accused of partiality. We cannot be accused of partiality on the present occasion, as we have no objection to the Bill. We are acting on a general principle, which I am sure the House ought to accept, and it in a moment of aberration we violated the established practice, I can only say that I should be obliged to see that it did not occur again by putting down on Fridays, not for the purpose of discussion, but for the purpose of preventing motions like the present, other Government business.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid he could not hope to add weight to the appeal which had been made to the First Lord of the Treasury, but, as the Member who first introduced the Bill, he should like to say a few words on the motion for the adjournment. He introduced the Bill five years ago, and he then endeavoured to make it as unobjectionable as possible. In the course of his investigations he only found two hon. Members who objected to it, and their ground was that they thought it was intended to repeal the Mortmain Acts. There were then some words in the Bill which, in the opinion of lawyers, might be so construed.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss the merits of the
  Bill.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid he found hon. Members on the other side favourable to the Bill with the exception of the hon. Member for South Belfast, which he regretted, because everyone would regard the hon. Member as a conscientious and honest opponent, although sometimes fanatical. Whenever he had an opportunity of bringing the Bill forward he always informed the hon. Member of his intention, and he was sure his hon. friend who was now in charge of the Bill would also have informed the hon. Member for South Belfast if he were in the House that the Bill would he brought forward. His hon. friends desired to fight fairly and squarely. The Leader of the House said that he had no objection to the Bill, and that was something to remember, but in the words of a familiar quotation, "Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love, but why did you kick me downstairs? The House would have adjourned long ago if his hon. friend had been allowed to move the Second Reading of the Bill. The evil which it was meant to remove had been condemned by no less an authority than the Master of the Rolls in Ireland.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the merits of the Bill.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid he would ask the House not to be led by the
  310
  Leader of the House on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of Fridays as if they had been created for the Government, but it would be in the recollection of the House that until recently Fridays were the property of private Members, before the Government appropriated them to their own use, as they were inclined to appropriate, all the time of the House. He hoped that the Catholics of Ireland, when they were next asked to fight the battles of the Empire, would remember how they had been treated by the Government.
  DR. AMBROSEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Irish Members had been very fortunate in the ballot, but they had only secured one Wednesday up to the present, when they brought forward a Bill for the benefit of over half a, million of people. During the discussion of that Bill there were only fourteen Members on the other side.
  MR. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the question before the House, or with the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman.
  DR. AMBROSE: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would themselves put down Bills, if private Members' Bills were to be brought forward on Fridays; but was it because they bad neglected their duty that the Irish Members should be deprived of their opportunity? The right hon. Gentleman said that he himself was in favour of the Bill, and that reminded him that when his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo brought forward the Catholic University question last year, the right hon. Gentleman said he was passionately in favour of it, but asked the Irish Members not to go to a division. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman now, if he were passionately in favour of the Billon the Order Paper, would he make it a Government measure?
  MR. POWERsaid he desired to support the suggestion of his hon. friend. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he approved of the principle of the Bill, and saw nothing objectionable in it, but if he

  311
  approved so much of the Bill, why should; he not make it a Government measure? That would be a test of the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman, and if he did that, there would not be many dissentient voices, even on his own side. They were not responsible for the discussion on the motion for the adjournment. His hon. friend the Member for Waterford proposed an alternative, which would have obviated the discussion, but the Government refused to accept it. The right hon. Gentleman asked why, if the Irish. Members were so much interested in the Bill, they did not put it down as first Order on one of the Wednesdays which had fallen to their lot, but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill had been put down every day during the session, and it was not the, fault of the Irish Members that it was not passed. He was sorry that the Catholic Members on the other side did not support the appeal to the Government.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: We cannot ask the Government to violate the rules of the House.
  MR. POWERsaid that if such an appeal were made the right hon. Gentleman would perhaps adopt the suggestion of his hon. friend.
  MR. CULLINANsaid that the header of the House stated that the precedent quoted by his hon. friend the Member for East Clare did not apply, because of the fact that on that
  occasion he himself was absent, from the House. But the right hon. Gentleman had representatives in the House who acted on his behalf, and therefore he held that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he would in future put down Government Bills which would prevent private Members moving their Bills; but if the right hon. Gentleman neglected to do that, why should the Irish Members suffer for it? They claimed to have a right to discuss the Bill. The, right hon. Gentleman used what he would call a very humorous and interesting argument. An hon. Member opposite, animated by a spirit of justice and fair-play, stated that he believed that the demand of the
  312
  Irish Members was reasonable and just. The right hon. Gentleman immediately jumped up, fearing that the disease would become contagious, and appealed to his party to follow him. The right hon. Gentleman had not treated the Irish Members fairly with regard to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman asked why this Bill was not put down as the first Order on a Wednesday, but what was the necessity of putting it down on a Wednesday, when, as the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted, there was no opposition to it? The Irish Members were therefore justified in taking an ordinary occasion to bring forward the Bill. An hon. Member opposite appealed to the Leader of the House not to take up the Bill because an hon. friend of his was absent. Was it because one hon. Gentleman was absent on his own business, that the question of removing an insult to Catholics was to be postponed? That would be unworthy of the House of Commons. He observed with some sunrise that the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derby supported the Leader of the House, notwithstanding that on several occasions recently they had heard the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of his party, protest against being ignored by the Leader of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the adjournment of the House.
  MR. CULLINANsaid, not being yet well up in the rules of the House, he hoped he would be excused. The arguments and actions of the Leader of the House, and the support which was given him by his party, convinced him that the Government were not disposed to give anything like fair-play or justice to the demands of the Irish Members. The action of the right hon. Gentleman was consistent with that which the Chief Secretary and other Members of the Government assumed, although they had honeyed words in their mouths when they answered the questions of the Irish Members.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNORsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to express himself

  313
  in favour of the principle of the Bill, and he was therefore appealed to to make it a Government measure. He should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman would answer that appeal.
  MR. SPEAKER: The question as to whether the Government ought to make a Bill a Government measure or not, is not germane to the question before the House.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNORsaid that the reason why he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to answer was that ii he replied favourably the discussion might end.
  MR. O'DOHERTYsaid that, as the Member in charge of the Bill, he wished to point out the fallacy of one argument put forward by the First Lord of the Treasury as a reason why hon. Members should vote for the adjournment. The right hon. Gentleman said that if hon. Members broke through the customary rule of procedure on the present occasion, he would in future put down Government Bills after Supply. The right hon. Gentleman must think that the Irish Members were very blind, and that they did not know that there was a dearth of Government legislation. Where were the right hon. Gentleman's Bills? The only business laid before the House was the voting of money for the Army and Navy. In the most gracious Speech from the Throne—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting very Faraway from the subject.
  MR. O'DOHERTYsaid he was surprised that all the protests against the adjournment of the House should have come from the Irish Members. Where was the voice of the hon. Member for Galway, or of the hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield, in support of the civil and religious liberty of their fellow Catholics? If the right hon. Gentleman wished to remedy the grievance, all he had to do was to tell the Government draftsman to introduce a section into the Statute Law Revision Bill, and the grievance would be wiped out. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an assur-
  314
  ance to that effect, it would satisfy the Irish Members.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMsaid he thought it was the manifest duty of a Protestant like himself, who was returned by a Catholic constituency, to oppose the motion for the adjournment. He did not intend to discuss the merits of the Bill, but he should have thought that the majority of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, who were always boasting of their religious toleration, and the Unionist Government, which said it was prepared to do everything for Ireland that an Irish Parliament could do, would have bailed with delight the opportunity which was afforded them of removing a great grievance. The Irish Members had again and again been obliged to point out that the professions of the Unionist party were merely empty wind, and their action on the present occasion would intensify the dissatisfaction of the people of Ireland with English rule, and also the demand that the action of the Irish Members, not only in Ireland, but in the House of Commons should be in the direction of compelling the Government to redress Irish grievances, if they would not redress them through a sense of fair play. As a Protestant he felt grieved that his coreligionists were not broad-minded and liberal enough to rise in their places and urge the header of the House to yield to the demand of the Irish Members. The argument and the justice were on the side of the Irish Members, and if their demand was refused they would be taught a lesson which they would take to heart, and they would show that in refusing to grant an opportunity for discussing the Bill the Government would not be advancing the progress of business in the House or bringing about a greater acquiescence on the part of the people of Ireland in English rule.
  MR. FLAVINsaid that the Government had wasted two hours in endeavouring to prevent the discussion of a Bill which did not meet with the opposition of as many members. The Irish Members knew very well how appeals in the past for facilities to discuss the Pill had been met. The right hon.

  315
  Gentleman, although he professed sympathy with the Bill, by his action refused to afford Catholics the religious liberty accorded to other denominations. To be consistent, the right hon. Gentleman should cither make Catholics throughout the Empire criminals or make them free.
  MR. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the adjournment of the House.
  MR. FLAVINsaid that if the demand of the Irish Members were refused they would tell their constituents and also the Catholics of Great Britain how they had been treated. The Irish Members did not ask for anything but religious equality.
  MK. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must endeavour to keep to the question.
  MR. FLAVINsaid that the Irish Members were only doing their duty in asking that they should be given an opportunity of discussing the Bill.
  MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid that hon. Members opposite had by the rules of the House been able to keep up debates at great length, and it was then the duty of his hon. friends to remain in the House. Now by the rules of the House hon. Members should be allowed to go home after Supply had been finished. He
  hoped the House would abide by the rules and accept the motion for the adjournment.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken had hardly grasped the meaning of the situation which had arisen. The hon. Member referred to the rules of the House, but was he present when it was pointed out earlier in the debate that on an occasion almost exactly similar the rules of the House were so far waived as to permit a motion for the adjournment on the part of the Government to be withdrawn in order that a private Member's Bill might be discussed? That was an almost exact parallel. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said it was impossible to depart from prece-
  316
  dent, that Friday being a Government day it was essential that nothing but Government business should be taken. But there was no rule so strong that it could not be departed from on occasion, and if ever there was an occasion when a departure should be made it was the present. He would not enter into a discussion of the details of the Bill, but would refer to it merely to the same extent as the right hon. Gentleman referred to it. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was non-controversial. That was perfectly true. It was a Bill which had very few opponents in the House, and which the right hon. Gentleman himself declared he approved of. That being so, was it unreasonable that the Irish Members should oppose the motion for the adjournment, in order that they might deal with a Bill that was practically unopposed? When those who were interested in the Bill read the discussion it would be forced on their minds that although the right hon. Gentleman said he approved of the Bill, there was some hidden objection to it on the part of a section of the Government. The First Lord of the Treasury was generally on such occasions so admirable in his manner, and so bland and suave in his tone, that he succeeded too often in softening down the natural feeling of resentment entertained by the Irish Members; but he took the liberty of telling the right hon. Gentleman, speaking for himself, and he believed also for many other Irish Members, that he was getting heartily sick and tired of his conduct. Hon. Gentlemen opposite boasted sometimes that their party was pre-eminently the party of the aristocracy, and the gentlemen of England. [An HON. MEMBER: Order, order!] If that was out of order, he would withdraw it. He would repeat that he was getting tired of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, who was continually saying to the Irish Members, "I quite agree with your contention, which is most reasonable, I am personally strongly in favour of the measure you desire to pass "; but the end of all the fine and honeyed speeches of the right hon. Gentleman was that his majority of 150 went into the division lobby against the Irish Members. That occurred on the Catholic University question.
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Gentleman will keep to the question before the House.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he merely alluded to the—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order on a motion for the adjournment in discussing the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman on other questions.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was referring to the Catholic University question in order to illustrate tin attitude—
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member will endeavour to pay some slight respect to the ruling of the Chair. He is persisting in a line of argument which I have twice told him is nut in order.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he would deal with what the right hon. Gentleman himself had said in his speech. He said he had no objection to the principle of the measure, but in the same breath he told the Irish Members that he would give them no help to carry out what he himself said they were justly entitled to. That attitude of continually expressing a desire to meet the wishes of the Irish Members while doing nothing to carry them out was an attitude which he himself was heartily sick of, and it illustrated the emptiness of the professions of the Government to rule Ireland with a fair and equal hand. If the Bill referred to religious orders which were respected by the majority of the Protestant Members of the House, would not the rule have been strained in favour of it? From one point of view, indeed, he was glad the Government had adopted the attitude they had, because it went to prove that while the Irish Members go plenty of sympathy there was still an

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex, F.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bain, Col. James Robert

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Arnold Forster, Hugh O.

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

  Bignold, Arthur

  attempt, though not so open as it used to be, to treat Irish Catholics with contempt, and he sincerely hoped that not only Irish Catholics but their co-religionists throughout the Empire would resent the action of the Government. An hon. Gentleman opposite said that he could not ask the
  Government to break the rules of the House. It was not a question of asking the Government to break rules; it was asking them to do for this Bill what they did for a Bill last year. As a Catholic himself he was not a bit ashamed to express his determination, in spite of every rule of the House and every action of the Government, to protest as strongly as he could as long as an insult, which no fair minded man approved of, on the Catholics of Ireland and the Empire was retained on the Statute Book.
  MR. MACDONAsaid that as an Irishman himself he protested against the disrespect shown to the Leader of the House.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: What about the disrespect shown to Catholics?
  MR. MACDONA: Of all men in the House his right hon, friend did most to support Roman Catholics in Ireland, and no one could go further than he had.
  MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members on either side of the House are not entitled to discuss the general question.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: On a point of order, might I be allowed to suggest that the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to continue his defence of the Leader of the House?
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 148, Noes, 53. (Division List No. 116.)

  Bigwood, James

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bill, Charles

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

  Purvis, Robert

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Randles, John S.

  Bond, Edward

  Higgingbottom, S. W.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Came

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Brookfield, Col. Montagu

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Bull, William James

  Lawrence, William F.

  Renwick, George

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Lawson, John Grant

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Caldwell, James

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

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rigg, Richard

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Charles T.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Levy, Maurice

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

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

  Smith, H C (Northumb. Tynesd.

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Spear, John Ward

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. B. (Northants

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tennant, Horold John

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgun, Gow'r

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Tomlinson, William Edw. M.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Meysey Thompson, Sir H M.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. F.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Finch, George H.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wodehouse, Hon. A. (Essex)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

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

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Rbt. Wellesley

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'amlts

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Penn, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Hayes Fisher.

  Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St, Ed.

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  NOES.

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Doherty, William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Bell, Richard

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Dowd, John

  Blake, Edward

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

  O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N

  Boland, John

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Mara, James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lundon, W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Cogan, Denis J.

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Reddy, M.

  Crean, Eugene

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cullinan, J.

  Murphy, J.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Delany, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Duffy, William J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes after Twelve of the clock till Monday next.