Commons Sitting of 27 May 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
East Ardsley Gas Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Blackheath and Greenwich District Electric Light Bill, Wolverhampton and Cannock Chase Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill; Naval Works Provisional Order Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Drainage and Improvement of Lands
2
(Ireland) Act, 1863, and the Acts amending the same, relating to the Pallas River Drainage District in the county of Tipperary. Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Elliot and Mr. Wyndham.
Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863, and the Acts amending the same, relating to the Pallas River Drainage District, in the county of Tipperary." Presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 217.)
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18). Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Wolverhampton. Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18) Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board

3
relating to Wolverhampton." Presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 218.)
Hamilton Burgh Provisional Order. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Hamilton Burgh Water and Town Hall. Ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
Hamilton Burgh Provisional Order Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Hamilton Burgh Water and Town Hall." Presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 219.)
Grangemouth Water Order Confirmation. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Grangemouth Water, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.
Grangemouth Water Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Grangemouth Water." Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 9th June, and to be printed. (Bill 220.)
Edinburgh Corporation (Markets, Slaughter Houses, etc.) Order Confirmation. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Edinburgh Corporation (Markets, Slaughter Houses, etc.). Ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.
Edinburgh Corporation (Markets, Slaughter Houses, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Edinburgh Corporation (Markets, Slaughter Houses, etc.)." Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 9th June, and to be printed. (Bill 221.)
Lanarkshire Electricity and Refuse Destruction Order Confirmation. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Lanarkshire Electricity and Refuse Destruction. Ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.
Lanarkshire Electricity and Refuse Destruction Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Lanarkshire Electricity and Refuse Destruction." Presented and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 9th June, and to be printed. (Bill 222.)
South Shields Corporation Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

POLICE AND SANITARY COMMITTEE.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee that the parties promoting the Erith Tramways and Improvement Bill had stated that the evidence of Arthur Elliston Collins, city engineer, Norwich, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Arthur Elliston Collins do attend the said Committee on Wednesday, 10th June, at half-past eleven of the clock.
Ordered, that Arthur Elliston Collins do attend the Police and Sanitary Committee on Wednesday, the 10th day of June next, at half-past eleven of the clock.

PETITIONS.
  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Petitions for alteration: from Ayr; and Dundee; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  Petition from Mosley Common, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petitions against (praying to be heard by Counsel): from County Council of Kent; and East London Railway Company; to lie upon the Table.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petition from London, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Leyland and Farrington; Stanbury; Bletchley and Fenny Stratford; Wolverton; Market-Harborough; Grangemouth; Bonnyrigg; Sawston; Walton-le-Dale; Colne; Beswick; Blaydon; and, Falmouth; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petition from Mosley Common, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COLLEGE CHARTER ACT, 1871 (OWENS COLLEGE, MANCHESTER, AND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LIVERPOOL).
  Paper (presented 26th May) to be printed. (No. 174.)
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of (1) Associations constituted under The Voluntary Schools Act, 1897; (2) Associated Schools and amounts of Aid Giant paid: (3) Un-associated Schools and amounts of Aid Grant paid, 1902–3 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (AGRICULTURAL RETURNS).
  Copy presented, of Agricultural Returns for Great Britain, with Statistics
  6
  for the United Kingdom, British Possessions, and Foreign Countries for 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, that they are of opinion that the provisions of the Scottish Central Electric Power Order, the Scottish Ontario and Manitoba Land Company, Limited, Order, and the Hutcheson's Hospital and Hutcheson's Educational Trust Order are of such a character that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bills and not by Provisional Orders [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 180.)
  SUPERANNUATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 15th May 1903, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Deputy Master and Controller of the Royal Mint, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the Public Service are required [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
  Copy presented, of Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1902. Volume II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (LONDON).
  Further Return relative thereto (ordered 2nd August 1894.—Mr. Francis Stevenson); to be printed. (No. 181.)
  MEDWAY CONSERVANCY.
  Copy of Statement of Receipts and Expenditure of the Conservators for the year ending 25th March 1903 [by Act].
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (LICENCES REFUSED).
  Address for "Return of the number of victuallers', beerhouse, and other licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors the renewal of which has been refused at the general annual licensing meetings and adjournments thereof held in England and Wales during February and March, 1903, showing in each case the ground of the refusal, especially where such ground was in any instance that the licence was not required; with the number of cases in which notice of appeal was given, and the result of such appeal (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 141, of the present Session of 1903.)."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
  Copy ordered, "of Statistical Tables relating to Emigration and Immigration from and into the United Kingdom in the year 1902, and Report to the Board of Trade thereon."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Irish Representation on Trades Disputes Commission.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the appointment of the Trades Disputes Commission, he will see that a representative of Irish trades unionism is appointed.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) If the Commission were to be a large and representative one, the request of the hon. Member would be a proper matter for consideration.

  Payment of Pieceworkers.
  MR. HUNTER CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the practice of employers of labour, particularly in the shipbuilding trade, when paying their pieceworkers, to hand each a sum of money to represent the amount earned, but refuse to give any details of the amount; and will he take steps to remedy this alleged grievance.
  8
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) Some time ago I received a I representation on the subject from the Boiler Makers' and Iron Shipbuilders' Society, representing the workmen in Glasgow, who ask that the "particulars" section of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, may be applied to the industry. I at once directed an inquiry into the matter, which is one of much difficulty. The inquiry is not yet concluded.

  Artificial Sewage Schemes.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will give a Return showing the number of sewage schemes by artificial process alone, the names of the authorities, with the amount of loan in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In consequence of the recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal in their Interim Report, the Local Government Board have in some special cases made an exception to their ordinary rule, and have sanctioned loans for schemes of the kind referred to without requiring that the sewage shall be applied to land. The names of the authorities in these cases and the amount of the loans sanctioned are as follows—Easington Rural District Council, £7,000; Gorton Urban District Council, £21,519; Pontefract Town Council, £15,506; Blackwell Rural District Council, £6,840; Heywood Town Council, £21,500; I have of course not included in this statement cases in which the sewage is discharged directly into the sea or into tidal waters.

  Infected Army Blankets
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that two consignments of Army blankets infected with typhoid germs reached the city of Nottingham; that, although the Health Committee of the city took steps to prevent the further distribution of these blankets, some portions of the consignments in question had already been sold and distributed to villages in the neighbourhood; and, if so, will he state what steps he is taking in the matter.

  9
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have communicated with the town clerk of Nottingham on the subject, who has informed me this morning that, in consequence of the action taken by the medical officer of health in notifying the persons in the villages referred to who purchased the blankets, the whole of these articles have been sent back to the firm in Nottingham who supplied them. The town clerk adds that all the blankets which reached Nottingham, some hundreds in number, are in process of disinfection.

  Anglesey Education Scheme.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, seeing that the Board of Education have given notice that they intend to amend the Anglesey intermediate scheme, he will consider the advisability of inserting provisions in the amended scheme to improve the financial position of the Beaumaris county school.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The amendment of the Anglesey scheme, of which notice has been given, is confined to the extension of the age limit to which scholars may remain in the school, and is urgently required to remove a difficulty which has arisen in connection with the award of county exhibitions on the result of the approaching school examinations. In the circumstances, the Board have decided not to endanger or delay the passing of the amendment by associating with it a question which would undoubtedly give rise to pro-longed discussion, and which, in the opinion of the Board, can only be solved by recourse to funds outside the operation of the county scheme.

  Illegal Trawling in Red Wharf Bay.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that trawling operations are now carried on in Red Wharf Bay, contrary to regulations within the three-mile limit; and, if so, whether he will take such measures as will ensure the discontinuance of the practice.
  10
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) No, Sir. My attention has not been called to trawling operations in Red Wharf Bay. The Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee have made by-laws for the regulation of trawling within their district, and any breaches of those by-laws should be brought to the notice of the Committee.

  Alleged Grievances of Postal Telegraph Clerks.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can state whether, seeing that the request of the London branch of the Postal Telegraph Clerks Association for a personal interview for the purpose of asking for a revision of the scales of pay, and the desire that the claim for operators to receive a maximum salary of £190 per annum should be submitted to arbitration were refused; and that a section of the staff some of them members of this Association, have been promised a personal interview since the announcement of the reference of the whole question to the consideration of five business men, he is now prepared to give the Association the same treatment as the more senior men, and settle the case by receiving the men and inquiring personally into the matters.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) All the facts in relation to the claim of certain operators in the Central Telegraph Office to receive a maximum salary of £190 are well known to me; I have myself personally investigated their case, and have given a decision which, as far as I am concerned, must be considered as final. Under these circumstances, a personal interview upon the subject is unnecessary.

  Foreign Tobacco Imported into India—Proposed Duty.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the quantity and value of foreign tobacco imported into India; and whether, seeing that it is not liable to any duty except the general Customs duty charged on all imported goods, he

  11
  will consult the Government of India as to the advisability of imposing a duty on foreign and local grown tobacco, with a view to repeal wholly or in part the duty on salt in view of the effect of the restricted use of that article upon the prevalence of leprosy in India.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The imports of foreign tobacco into India during the last two years were:—1901–2, 4,416,688 lbs., value, £300,158; 1902–3, 4,199,403 lbs., value, £297,669. A tobacco excise or State monopoly in India has been frequently considered and rejected as impracticable. Lord Herschell's Indian Currency Committee reported in 1893 that it would involve constant and vexatious interference with the people, and that the cost of collecting and enforcing the tax would be enormous in proportion to the sum realised.

  Plague in India—Inoculation.
  MR WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the number of persons who have died of plague in the Punjab since the 1st January last, and what percentage of these persons were inoculated with plague serum.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The number of persons who have died of plague in the Punjab, whose population is 22,500,000, between the 1st January 1903, and the 2nd May (the latest date for which figures have been received) is 141,789. The returns do not distinguish deaths of inoculated persons from deaths of persons not inoculated.

  Somaliland Campaign—Agreements with Italy and Abyssinia.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any agreement with regard to the war now being waged in Somaliland either with Italy or with Abyssinia beyond what has been brought already under the cognisance of this House; and, if so, whether he will state what such agreement or agreements are; and whether the Mad Mullah has ever been informed of the
  12
  conditions under which he will be left in peace, or any attempts have been made to enter into negotiations with that potentate.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The answer to both Questions is in the negative.

  Treaties between Persia and Great Britain.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any treaty between this country and Persia, or whether there exists any pledge given by Persia to this country, by which Persia is in any way restrained from dealing with her territories on the Persian Gulf or in any other part of her dominions as she pleases; and, if there does exist any such treaty or pledge which has not already been laid upon the Table of the House, whether it will be so laid.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) There is no treaty of the kind indicated, but in regard to Southern Persia, His Majesty's Government enjoy certain rights admitted by the Persian Government. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, there is an agreement between this country and Russia for the maintenance of the integrity and independence of Persia.

  Improvement of Primary Schools in Ireland.
  MR. JOHN MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the propriety of using portion of the equivalent grant for the purpose of improving the heating and other accommodation of primary schools in Ireland; the free grant of books and other requisites for poor children attending such schools; and the creation of a fund for the assistance of children who are too poor to procure higher education otherwise.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I have nothing at present to add to the replies already given by me to similar Questions.

  Primary Education in Ireland.
  Mr. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to resolutions lately passed by the South Kerry Teachers' Organisation claiming that portion of the equivalent grant should be devoted to the necessities of primary education; and, if so, whether he will take these representations into consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The reply to this Question is in the affirmative.

  Evicted Tenants in County Waterford.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of evicted tenants in the county Waterford included in the Return recently prepared; and whether a list of the names is yet available.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The number will be found in the Return which has been laid upon the Table of the House (No. 125 of this session). It is not proposed to publish the names of the evicted tenants.

  War Rewards—Case of Mr. A. J. Vogan.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of I Mr. A. J. Vogan, late sergeant of "A" Squadron, New Zealand (Prince of Wales') Light Horse, who during the late South African War served with distinction as a sergeant of Scouts under the Field Intelligence Department, and captured Commandant Scheepers, for whose capture rewards had been offered; and whether, seeing that Major Bramley, his commanding officer, recommended this man for the Distinguished Service medal, he will explain why Vogan has received neither medal nor reward, and state whether he will take steps to ensure that Vogan's services shall receive recognition.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Sergeant Vogan's claims to reward were fully considered, but owing to the large number of even more deserving cases it was found impracticable to include his name amongst those nominated for reward.

  Arrest of the Minister at Rustenberg.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make inquiry as to whether, and if so, upon what charge, the minister of Rustenberg, in the Transvaal Colony, was recently arrested and imprisoned by the resident magistrate, and upon whose information; and whether the Attorney-General has taken any steps for the release of the rev. gentleman, and upon what grounds.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I have no information as to the incident referred to, but I will make inquiry.

  Chinese Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Rand Native Labour Association has sent persons to China to inquire into possibilities of procuring Chinese to work in the Transvaal mines under contract; and whether the House will have an opportunity to express an opinion as to such importations being permitted before they are allowed by Lord Milner.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I am aware of the fact stated in the first part of the Question. There is, of course, nothing to prevent the House from discussing the question, but, in my opinion, such discussion at the present time would be entirely premature.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Destruction of Army Rations in the Transvaal.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why £150,000 worth of Army rations were recently destroyed by order of the authorities in the Transvaal instead of being sold.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): A large quantity of tinned rations were found by a Board of Officers to have so much deteriorated as to be unfit for consumption, and, in accordance with the advice of the expert medical officers, were destroyed. Under the regulations,

  15
  supplies which have been condemned as unfit for issue as food for the troops, owing to deterioration, are not to be sold, but destroyed. The General Officer Commanding South Africa has been instructed to report fully on the matter by mail.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the value of the food destroyed, and by whom it was supplied?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot give the value of the rations until I have received the Report. As regards the firms who provided it, it is the universal custom of those firms not to keep a very large supply, because after a certain time tinned goods of this character deteriorate. But, of course, the amount of rations in South Africa at the close of the war was vastly greater in extent of what would have been supplied if we had known the troops would be so quickly withdrawn.

  Disease Infected Blankets from South Africa
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that fever-infected blankets recently used by the troops in South Africa have been distributed in this country, and that some of the blankets in question are saturated with blood and filth; and, if so, will he explain why these blankets have been allowed to be distributed; what steps he proposes to take to recover them; and whether instructions will be given to prevent any further articles of this nature being despatched from South Africa or distributed to the public; and whether, in view of the danger to public health caused by the distribution of articles used during military operations, he will appoint a Committee to consider the best methods of treating and disposing of them.
  MR. BRODRICK: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to Questions put on this subject on Monday last, to which I have at present nothing to add. †
  † See (4) Debxtes, cxxii., 1631.

  Imperial Yeomanry.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that 14,000 of the 17,243 men comprising the 1901 batch of Imperial Yeomanry had complained, will he state what percentage of complaints were owing to men not receiving a month's furlough, or pay in lieu thereof, after landing in England and before discharge, as in the case of reservists; what percentage were owing to the stopping of bounties or gratuities; and what percentage were direct claims against officers commanding companies respectively.
  MR. BRODRICK: In only a small percentage of cases was the question of furlough money raised as a single complaint, but many added it to a composite claim. Bounties or gratuities were only stopped in the cases of men who had been guilty of misconduct, numbering rather less than fifty. The remainder were direct claims against the assessment of officers commanding companies, in most cases to the effect that they had not actually received the amounts entered against them in the pay lists.

  Scottish Horse Mutineers.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state for what offence men of the Scottish Horse were sentenced to terms of imprisonment; how many were undergoing imprisonment at the termination of the war; whether any have since been released; and, if so, how many; and whether any distinction as regards food, housing, and general treatment is made between these men and ordinary criminals; have any of the men of the Scottish Horse who were sentenced been or are employed with convicts on the Capetown breakwater.
  MR. BRODRICK: Twenty-one men of the Scottish Horse were convicted of mutiny in March, 1902, and twenty were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and one to three years penal servitude. They were all undergoing sentence at the end of the war. All have since been released, except the man sentenced to penal servitude,

  17
  whose sentence has been commuted to two years imprisonment and the further remission of which will be considered in August. The sentences have all been undergone in military prisons.
  MR. WEIR: But were the men employed with convicts on the Cape-town breakwater?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware of such employment. My information is that the sentences were carried out in military prisons.

  Somaliland—Behaviour of Native Troops.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any official information to the effect that a mutinous spirit has been shown by any of the native troops now employed in Somali-land; and, if so, will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. BRODRICK: No such report has been received in the War Office.

  Naval Medical and Accountant Officers.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the portion of the statement issued by the First Lord of the Admiralty with the Navy Estimates as to the re-adjustment of the relative rank of medical and accountant officers of the Royal Navy, when he expects to be able to give the details which were then in process of being worked out.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The details of the readjustment in question are still under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty, but an announcement on the subject may be expected shortly.

  Lord Milner.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether arrangements have been made, or are in contemplation, for giving Lord Milner leave of absence; and in that case for what period, and by whom will the duties of High Commissioner be discharged.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Lord Milner proposes to take a short holiday away from South Africa during the present summer. His duties will be discharged during his absence by Sir Arthur Lawley, in virtue of a dormant Commission which appoints the Officer Administering the Government of the Transvaal to be High Commissioner in such a contingency.

  Transvaal Legislative Council.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will indicate where can be found the authentic reasons of Generals Botha, Delarey, and Smuts for refusing to join the Transvaal Legislative Council.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The reasons for refusal were given in a correspondence with Lord Milner, which was published in the Transvaal newspapers in February. I have had a copy of this correspondence placed in the Library.

  Disturbances in Eastern Roumelia.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has received any official information from Bulgaria showing]that fugitive men, women, and children have reached Burgas, in Eastern Roumelia, from the villages of Karaklisse, Beleirien, Derakeny, etc., in the district of Lozan, to the east of Adrianople, or that these districts have been rebellious or infested by bands; and whether his Majesty's Government will cause some inquiry to be made into the circumstances under which this population is being sent from its home.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): No information to the effect stated has been received from His Majesty's representatives, nor have His Majesty's Government been informed that the population of the districts in question is being removed. Inquiry will be made.

  Finance—Duties on Colonial Products.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether

  19
  he proposes any modifications of the Finance Bill to afford preferential duties in the case of colonial products.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): No, Sir.

  Gambling in Grain—Taxes on Options.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of imposing a tax upon options and future contracts representing fictitious grain, flour, and other commodities, in view of the volume and value of these transactions.
  MR. RITCHIE: This question has often been considered; but I doubt whether it would be possible to devise a tax which would hit speculative options without falling upon genuine and legitimate transactions at the same time.

  Vivisection in the Metropolis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of laboratories in the Metropolis at which vivisection is practised, and the number of dogs subjected to experiments at these laboratories during the year 1902.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I think I must refer the hon. Member to the annual Return under the Act of 1896 for the year 1902, which will be presented immediately, and will soon, I hope, be issued to Members. This will give him the information he desires except that experiments on cats and dogs are not distinguished in the Reports made to the Secretary of State and embodied in the Return.

  Bristol Post Office Sports—Motor Fatality.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fatal motor accident at the Bristol Post Office Sports, on Saturday, by which three lives were lost, and other persons were seriously injured; and, if so,
  20
  in view of the fatal accidents which have occurred through motor racing, will he consider the question of introducing legislation to regulate the same.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. My attention has been drawn to the sad accident to which the hon. Member refers. As regards the suggestion in the last part of the Question the matter will receive consideration, but it would seem to me that the question of regulating the racing at Sports and similar meetings is hardly one to be dealt with in a Bill relating to the use of motor-cars on highways.
  MR. SCOTT MONTAGU: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this accident, which we all deplore, was on a prepared track and not on a public road, and that it was a motor cycle and not a motor-car accident?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, that is exactly what I pointed out.

  Regulation of Motor-Car Traffic.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to two recent fatal motor-car accidents, one at Kew Bridge on Sunday the 24th instant, when a gentleman who was waiting for a tramcar was knocked down and killed, the other at Edinburgh on Saturday, the 23rd instant; and, in view of recent motor-car accidents, will he say when he proposes to bring in a Bill to deal with the speed and identification of motor-cars.
  MR. WEIR: I beg also to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the expediency of taking steps to require drivers of motor - cars to secure certificates of competency.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have seen newspaper paragraphs relating to the accidents referred to. I hope to introduce a Bill as to motor-cars shortly after Whitsuntide. The points referred to in the questions will receive consideration in connection with this measure; but of course I cannot say what the provisions of the Bill will be.
  MR WEIR: If the right hon. Gentleman will bring in the Bill to-morrow he may rest assured that it will have all the assistance possible.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERasked whether the Bill would be first introduced in the Lords or in the Commons?
  MR. WALTER LONG: The other House has been suggested, but the matter is not yet decided.

  Irish Cattle Trade Losses.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Hunts, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can give the mortality amongst cattle and sheep shipped from Ireland to English and Scotch ports during the year 1902, and also during what has transpired of the year 1903.
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: One hundred and thirty-seven cattle were reported to have been lost on the voyage from Ireland to English or Scotch ports during the year 1902 out of a total shipment of 959,000. The losses amongst sheep were reported to have been 152 out of a total of 1,056,000. During the present year the losses reported have been eighty-two out of a total shipment of 275,000 cattle and fifty-seven out of a total shipment of 98,000 sheep.

  Regulation of Irish Cattle Trade.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the Animals (Transit and General) Order of 1895, he will state whether cattle shipped from Irish to English and Scotch ports are carried in pens of the prescribed dimensions and construction, with battens to prevent slipping and to protect from collision against ships' fittings, etc., in rough weather; how many inspectors report on this traffic; and at what ports are they stationed.
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: All cattle shipped from Ireland to Great
  22
  Britain must be carried in pens, and in the case of vessels not regularly employed in the trade prior to May, 1895, these pens must be of certain prescribed dimensions and construction. In every case the floor of the pens must be fitted with battens or other footholds to prevent slipping, and ships' fittings likely to cause injury and unnecessary suffering must be fenced off. Forty-seven ship inspectors are stationed at the eighteen Irish ports from which cattle are shipped, whose duty it is to examine vessels and to see that the different requirements of the Transit Orders are complied with. The Irish Veterinary Inspection Staff, to the number of twenty-four, also exercise supervision in the matter. On this side of the Channel the oversight of the trade forms part of the regular duties of the four Inspectors of the Board of Agriculture within whose Divisions Irish cattle are landed, and these inspectors from time to time make journeys in vessels carrying live-stock in order to satisfy themselves that the trade is properly carried on. It is also the duty of the various local authorities to execute and enforce the provisions of our Order, and some of these authorities have appointed inspectors for this special purpose.

  Mercantile Marine—Fishermen and Sir Edward Fry's Award.
  MR. DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of placing fishermen on the same footing as other seamen in the Mercantile Marine by remitting the fee of 6d. charged to them for signing the ship's log book at the offices of the Board of Trade when they join or leave their ships, in view of the effect of this charge upon the working of Sir Edward Fry's award in the fishery dispute of 1901.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): The arrangement made by the Board of Trade in connection with Sir Edward Fry's award is a purely voluntary one, and was agreed to on the express condition that the additional expense incurred should be met by the imposition of a

  23
  small fee on each engagement or discharge. The Board of Trade will consider whether it is possible to make any reduction in the fees charged without imposing an obligation on public funds.

  Avoch (Ross-shire) Channel Lights.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state when the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners propose to carry out the scheme for lighting the channel off Avoch, Ross-shire, which has already been sanctioned.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I am informed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses that they hope to carry out the scheme for lighting the channel off Avoch during the coming autumn.

  Highland Tweeds at the St. Louis Exhibition.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if the Congested Districts Board for Scotland will consider the expediency of arranging for an exhibit of Highland homespun tweeds at the St. Louis Exhibition.
  *THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): The initiative in this matter must be left to enterprise of a private nature, but in the event of any proposition of the kind suggested by the hon. Member being made on behalf of the Scottish Home Industries Association or other similar Society to the Congested Districts Board, the matter would be open to consideration.

  Oliver Cromwell's Bust.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Derby, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether a bust of Oliver Cromwell, presented by a private individual, will be removed from its present position until a proper site has been found for the statues of statesmen erected by the desire or at the cost of the nation; and, if he will say by whose authority the bust, being the gift of a private individual not being a Member of this House, was placed in its present position.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The statues of statesmen in the Central Lobby were the gifts of private individuals, and are upon precisely the same footing in that respect as the bust of Cromwell is. This bust was presented to the House of Commons and accepted on its behalf by the Leader of the House; and it was placed in its present position by arrangement with the donor, under the instructions of the First Commissioner of Works. It is not proposed to remove it to another site.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Who was the donor of this bust?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I believe it is generally known who it was.

  Grants to Voluntary Schools—Return.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Return will be presented to the House of Grants to Voluntary Schools from Departments other than the Board of Education.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,): The Return has been presented and is now with the printers. It will be issued, I hope, before Parliament reassembles after Whitsuntide.

  Belfast Valuation Appeals.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the Commissioner of Valuation has held conferences with the appellants against the new valuation of Belfast in April and May, as promised last December; and, if not, when will this engagement be carried out.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): No, Sir; but the Commissioner hopes to arrange to hold the conferences next month.

  O'Callagan's Mills (County Clare) Post Office.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if the sub-office at O'Callagan's Mills, County

  25
  Clare, is to be closed; and, if so, will he state why this course is to be taken.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The office is not closed. Business has merely been removed to temporary premises pending the rebuilding of the Post Office premises, which were in bad condition.

  Wicklow Harbour.
  Mr. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will cause a survey to be made of the harbour of Wicklow in pursuance of Section 39 of the Dublin Corporation Waterworks Act, 1861, to ascertain whether the harbour or channel of Wicklow has been damaged or the depth therein lowered to less than the standard depth ascertained in last certificate of survey, by reason of the abstraction of the waters of the River Vartry; and, if so, will he cause the Dublin Corporation to maintain such standard depth of water, or enforce the penalty provided as a debt due to the Harbour Commissioners of Wicklow.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The matter is one for the Board of Trade, as the powers possessed by the Admiralty under the Act referred to by the hon. Member were transferred to the Board of Trade by the Harbours Transfer Act, 1862, (25 and 26 Victoria, Cap. 69).

  Irish Industries at the St. Louis Exhibition.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Irish Department of Agriculture will take steps to have a special exhibit of Irish industries at the St. Louis Exhibition.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Department understands that should it undertake the organisation of a special Irish Exhibit a pavilion for the purpose of such an exhibit would be provided from American sources. With the approval and co-operation of the Royal Commission, the Department is prepared to organise such an exhibit on the condition mentioned, and is at present in correspondence
  26
  with the Royal Commission on the subject.

  Belfast Floods.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board for Ireland has been called to the effects of the periodical flooding in the city of Belfast; and whether, seeing that the flooding is due to the defective drainage scheme at present in operation, it is intended to hold a sworn inquiry into the causes and required remedies of the evil.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board has been in correspondence with the Belfast Corporation in this matter. It has engaged the attention of the Works and Improvement Committees of the Corporation for some time past, but definite action has been deferred pending the appointment of a new city surveyor.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Has the attention of the Local Government Board been drawn to the fact that these floods have gone on for many years while the vacancy in the City Surveyorship has existed for only a few weeks?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Ennis Police and Mr. Casey.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will explain why a Mr. Casey, a journalist, was removed from Court by the police at the last assizes in Ennis.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Casey was not removed from Court. He attempted to force his way into the Court at a time when it was crowded to excess and the police told him there was no room.

  Motor-Car Races in Ireland.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what precautions are being taken for the preservation of the life of the motorists and of the population during the forthcoming races in Ireland?
  MR. WYNDHAM: An order has been made by the Local Government

  27
  Board, pursuant to the provisions of the Light Locomotives (Ireland) Act of this session, closing the course upon which the race will take place to all persons and traffic other than persons appointed by the Automobile Club as stewards, members of the constabulary and military on duty, locomotives engaged in the race, and persons in charge of the same. To give effect to this order a large force of police and military, supplemented by stewards supplied by the club, will be employed.
  MR. SCOTT MONTAGU: Is it not the fact that the motor races in Ireland will be held under totally different circumstances from the Paris-Madrid race?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes.

  Belfast and Rathfriland Train Service.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Department of Agriculture has been called to the train service on the Great Northern Railway between Belfast and Rathfriland, and to the shunting appliances used, and the fares charged; whether they are aware that this journey of thirty-four miles occupies nearly three hours, and that passengers, cattle, and merchandise are conveyed by the same train, and that for the last three days of every week there is no train after 2 p.m.; and whether steps will be taken to compel the company to provide an efficient service at reasonable rates.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The attention of the Department has not been directed to the matters mentioned. But if definite representations are made to it on the subject by aggrieved persons, inquiry will be instituted.

  Irish Land Purchase Advances.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state the number and amount of advances applied for under the Land Purchase Acts and sanction to which was withheld by the Land Commission on the ground that the security was inadequate.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number of applications for advances under the Acts of 1885–1888 which were finally refused on the ground stated was 1,286; the amount applied for was £467,872. Fresh applications were subsequently made in respect of a number of these cases under the Acts of 1891–1896, but no separate record of these has been kept The number of applications finally refused under the latter Acts is 789 for £175,154.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Do these figures include pending cases?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.

  Questions.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury will he consider the advisability of having the answers to starred Questions printed and circulated with the Votes.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not think such a change would be desirable. Hon. Members already have the alternative of saying whether or not these Questions should be answered orally, and some difficulty might arise as to supplementary Questions if the suggestion were carried out. On the whole, I think the present system the best.

  Military and Naval Works Bill.
  MR. WEIR: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Perthshire, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Military Works Bill and the Naval Works Bill will be introduced.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope these Bills will be ready shortly after we reassemble.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BRYCE: Can the First Lord of the Treasury now say anything positive as to his arrangements for the business of the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With reference to the adjournment for

  29
  the Whitsun holiday. I believe the arrangement most convenient to the House will be that I move to-morrow that the House, at its rising at 7.30, do adjourn till Monday week, 8th June. That, at any rate, will be the substance of the Motion.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: Will Supply be taken on the Monday and Tuesday after we reassemble?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the Monday. On Tuesday we begin with the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: What Supply?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Gentle man will put that question to me to-morrow. It is quite light the House should know before the holidays.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman put down the 3rd Section of Vote 8 (Navy) to afford the Committee an opportunity of discussing the subsidies to merchant cruisers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consider that; but one strong reason against it is that there is no chance whatever of the President of the Board of Trade being in his place on that date. On Tuesday I propose to begin the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: When will the Irish Land Bill be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: After the Finance Bill. It is my earnest desire to begin at once the consideration of the Irish land Bill. That will be the next important business, and I shall desire to take that measure continuously for some considerable period. I propose to take, under the ten minutes rule, the Sugar Convention Bill to-morrow.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I may point out that the subsidies I referred to are Admiralty subsidies.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Those to the Cunard and other companiies.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 16th June, and to be printed. (Bill 223.)
  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Fifth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order for Second Heading (8th June) read and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  MEDICAL ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading (8th June) read and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
NEW BILLS.
  METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS (FUNDS) BILL
  "To authorise the appropriation of the surplus Funds derived from Battersea Park towards the opening of the Mall into Charing Cross, and other Metropolitan Improvements," presented by Mr. Arthur Elliot; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. (Bill 224.)
  PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION BILL.
  "For the acquisition of land for the further Extension of the Patent Office, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Arthur Elliot; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. (Bill 225.)
  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Married Women's Property Act of 1882," presented by Mr. Kimber; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. (Bill 226.)
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend The Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900," presented by Mr. Asher; supported by Sir Robert Reid, Mr. Parker Smith, Colonel Denny, and Mr. Crombie; to be read a second time upon Friday, 26th June, and to be printed. (Bill 227.)

  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Lords Message (19th May) relative to the Port of London Bill considered.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE. (Mr. BONAR LAW,)moved the committal of the Port of London Bill to a Select Committee of five members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection to be joined with a Committee of Lords.
  MR. JOHN ELLISexpressed his regret at the absence of the President of the Board of Trade and the cause of it. This Committee, he pointed out, was to have a very important Bill referred to it, and he was glad it was to be a Joint Committee, because that, he believed, would facilitate the progress of the measure. He was pleased, also, that the nominations of members were to be made by the Committee of Selection. He was not a member of that Committee, but he looked on its nominations with great confidence. One advantage of that system of nomination was that it was entirely free from the usual machinery of a Party character. He held that Committees which dealt with such Bills as these should partake of a judicial rather than Party character. This particular Bill needed and would of course receive most earnest attention. He did not apprehend that the inquiry would be of a prolonged character, but this Bill did not stand on the same footing as an ordinary private Bill. It was introduced by the Government and it came before the House as embodying practically all the recommendations of the unanimous Report of the Royal Commission which sat on the subject. Its Second Reading was unanimously agreed to, and there was universal assent to the proposal that some new Port authority should be created. That was the backbone of the Bill. There was one point of procedure in connection with these joint Committees to which he would like to refer, and they had an illustration of it in connection with the Joint Committee on the Water Bill last year. There was a precedent—he did not think it was universal—that the Chairman should be a Member of the other House. There were instances to
  32
  the contrary, and he was one of those who thought that the Chairman of the Joint Committee should be selected indifferently from whichever House he came, and that he should be the man most fitted to occupy the Chair. He was sorry to say that in the case of the Water Bill there was what he held to be a very grave irregularity, viz., the Chairman took upon himself to put a question in a way to secure a result known to himself beforehand. One could hardly contemplate such a thing being done by Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees; as to put a question deliberately in the way to secure a certain result. He thought such conduct amounted to a very high kind of Parliamentary misdemeanour, and he hoped nothing of the kind would occur on this Joint Committee. He trusted too that the Committee would be able to report at an early date.
  Ordered, That the Port of London Bill be committed to a Select Committee of five Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection to be joined with a Committee of Lords.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
  Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented on or before the 11th day of June, 1903, be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the Quorum.—(Mr. Bonar Law.)

  MUNICIPAL TRADING.
  Lords Message (5th May), relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Municipal Trading, considered.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODmoved on the consideration of the Lords' Message of 5th May, relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Municipal Trading, that a Select Committee of seven Members be appointed

  33 33
  to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords to consider and report as to the principles which should govern powers given by Bills and Provisional Orders to municipal and other local authorities for industrial enterprise within or without the area of their jurisdiction.
  MR. WHITLEYinquired whether the selection had been made by the Committee of Selection or by some other means?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think that question would properly arise on the names. It would then be competent to move to strike out the name of any hon. Member, and on that to give reasons.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he was not prepared to attack any names, but he wished to know what method had been adopted in the choosing of the Committee.
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot understand what the hon. Member's point is. If the hon. Member considers that some other method should have been followed, he would be in order in objecting to the first name, making objections to the general method of choosing the Committee.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that his objection was to the general complexion of the Committee. He wished to ask the Government to explain the method followed in the formation of the Committee. There were only two opponents of the Government upon it out of a total of seven Members; and, as hon. Gentlemen from Ireland had now to be considered as supporters of the Government, this fact affected the complexion of the Committee.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITwished to say a word or two on the general aspect of this matter. He had not opposed, and did not propose to oppose, the appointment of the Committee, but he was bound to say that he distrusted the necessity for this Committee or the advantage likely to arise from its work; and he did not accept the specious arguments advanced in favour of its appointment. The object of the Motion was that the Committee should consider and report as to the principles which should govern the powers given by Bills and Provisional Orders to municipalities
  34
  and other local authorities. The prospect, probably the intentional prospect, and the ultimate result would be the placing of some restriction on that municipal action which had taken place with such great advantage to the country. The word "govern" in the Motion almost implied restriction. That was not the way in which local government had grown up in this country. In the past communities had suggested a course of action, which had generally been embodied in Private Bills, and after it had been tested by experience it found its way into general Acts. Local government, dependent on local experience and knowledge, would become gradually better if it was placed under no restrictions whatever, because the very essence of local government was variety of experience. The question whether there should be any other limitations on local industrial enterprise or not obviously depended on the circumstances of the particular locality and upon the judgment of the local Council and ratepayers; also on whether private enterprise supplied the necessity or not. With regard to the constitution of this Committee, he must say he thought it most undesirable and inexpedient to submit to any tribunal which had no considerable experience or knowledge of local government a question of this kind, affecting the local government of the whole country. So far as he could see, not more than two of the members had any practical knowledge of municipal government.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Who are they?
  MR. SPEAKER: It would be more convenient to discuss this on the names of members.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he intended to refrain from discussing names in any way. He only wished to point out that a Committee dealing with the important questions of local government should be in some of its elements specially qualified by knowledge and experience of local government. He did not think that the Report of a body constituted as this was would have the authority and respect paid to it which it ought to receive. He hoped, indeed, that his fears as to the effect of this inquiry would not be

  35
  realised, for he would be very sorry that anything should be done to interfere with the development of local government. But they were entitled at that stage to guard themselves against any presumption that the Report when presented would be accepted. He thought the indications were rather to the contrary.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEthought the advocates of municipal enterprise were somewhat over-nervous, and that these protests had been overdone. The Committee would not have to deal with the principle which should govern the powers, but with the principle which should govern the granting of powers—a very different thing indeed. Surely it was desirable to adopt some principle in that respect. Was it wise to give powers for municipal trading equally to all corporations, small or large? Large corporations, no doubt, could command a considerable amount of business talent, but small bodies naturally could not. The members of the Committee might be trusted to exercise common sense in the method of their inquiry. His experience on a similar Committee three years ago convinced him of the impartiality with which the Members of both Houses approached these great questions; and he was sure that if that Committee could have reported at the time, its report would have commanded the respect even of those who now sought, before the Committee was properly appointed, to detract from its influence and importance in a most unjustifiable manner.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that for the first time Parliament was being asked to appoint a Committee to ascertain "principles." That was the duty of Parliament itself, and it could not be delegated to another body. In these circumstances the deliberations of the Committee must be useless, for it would be dictating to Parliament or to some other body whom it was powerless to coerce. The function of a Committee was to ascertain facts and to make practical recommendations. Parliament would certainly say—"We do not want your advice as to principles; that is our business. You look after the facts and practical recommendations;
  36
  that is all we want you for." He agreed with his hon. friend behind him as to the want of grammar in the Resolution.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he felt sorry that the grammar of the Resolution should be inaccurate, but he was not responsible, for he had adopted the words from a Resolution passed in 1890. The hon. Member for Halifax asked him as to the manner in which the Committee had been appointed. He consulted with the hon. Member for Leeds, and his suggestion was that the number should be five; and then the hon. Member for East Cork asked that a representative from Ireland should be on it. In 1900 the Committee consisted of three Members from the Government side and two Members of the Opposition—Ireland not being represented at all. Since that time municipal trading had very much increased in Ireland, and therefore Ireland should be represented on the Committee. The hon. Member for Leeds thought it would be very hard for the Liberal Party to be represented only by one Member, therefore the number of the Committee was fixed at seven—four from the Government Benches, two from the Liberal Party and one from the Irish Party. He thought that two out of seven was as fair a proportion as one out of five; or to put it the other way three out of seven was as fair a proportion as two out of five. He had done the best he could to please all parties in the House, and it was not his business to say whether the different representatives were good or bad.
  MR. COGHILLsaid they all thought it fair that a Member from Ireland should be on the Committee, but under the circumstances that Member should come from that side of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is really discussing the next question to be put. The only way of dealing with that point is to move to strike out a name in order to put in another name.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee of seven Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords to consider and report as to

  37
  the principles which should govern powers given by Bills and Provisional Orders to municipal and other local authorities for industrial enterprise within or without the area of their jurisdiction.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
  Sir George Bartley, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Platt-Higgins, Mr. Powell-Williams, Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, and Sir James Woodhouse, nominated members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That three be the quorum.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)

  EDUCATION (BORROWING) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  *MR. GARDNERsaid that the object of the Amendment he desired to move was to make it easier for local authorities, who had a heavy burden cast upon them by the Education Act of last year, to bring that Act into working order. There was no disguising the fact that the financial conditions in connection with the bringing into operation of that Act were very unpopular and somewhat burdensome. The right hon. Member for Somersetshire had complained at the Second Reading of the Bill that to bring the Act into operation in his county would add 4d. in the £ to the rates. His county, might he say, was in the lap of luxury compared with the principal borough in his constituency. That borough had carried on its educational affairs for years in an excellent manner. It had never had other than voluntary schools, Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, Church of England, and British, and all the buildings,
  38
  with one exception, were first-class. The inhabitants naturally asked why they should have been disturbed in their educational proceedings? The answer to that question was that they were being treated in the same manner as all other boroughs. It nevertheless seemed to them very hard indeed that this burden should be placed upon them. The financial year of all their schools ended on 31st March, and the result of the first year's working of the new Education Act was that they had not got a single sixpence of the block grant and only three-fourths of the fee grant; and, left without assistance, they would have to raise a rate of 9d. in the £ over the normal one to carry on the work. What they wanted was that the Government should do something to enable them to tide over the difficulty in the easiest way. The Bill before the Committee would only enable the Local Government Board to sanction a loan for a definite amount for a definite time; but the borough could do its work a great deal cheaper than that. In the early part of the year there were considerable funds in the hands of the education authority and they could get on well enough for four or five months. But as he understood the section of the Bill they must take up the loan—which in the case of the borough he referred to would amount to something approaching £3,000—at once and pay interest on it for the whole year. As hon. Members knew municipal authorities had various accounts and by arrangement with their bankers these were taken en bloc, and no charge for interest was made for an overdraft on one should others be in sufficient credit. In that case it was quite conceivable no interest might be charged to an education authority, and a saving might be effected in his borough of from £500 to £600 over the whole term of borrowing. His Amendment to the first clause of the Bill would, he believed, make the working of the Education Act as easy as possible in the circumstances, and he hoped it would be accepted by the Government on the grounds both of policy and justice. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 7, after '1902,' to insert the words 'or in such other manner as that Board may approve.'"—(Mr. Gardner.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,)said he could not help thinking that his hon. friend had moved his Amendment under a misapprehension. In the first, place he had stated on behalf of the local authority he represented, that they would be compelled to take up the whole of the loan at once and consequently would have to pay interest upon it, though they would not require all the money for immediate purposes. His hon. friend was in error. It would only be necessary for the local education authority to take up the loan in such proportion as they required the money for expenditure. If the estimate of the deficit in the borough referred to was £3,000 it would not be necessary for the authority to raise that sum all at once. They could make application as they thought fit for various parts of the loan as they needed them. This would avoid the difficulty to which his hon. friend referred. The other contention of his hon. friend was that the local authority, having various accounts at the bank, some of which were in credit, might be able to borrow the money from the bank without paying any interest on the overdraft. There was nothing to prevent that under the Bill as it stood. They were prepared to make the work of the local authority as easy as they could. He was ready to grant reasonable and fair terms and to consider applications for loans, but the cardinal principle was that of a distinct loan for a definite purpose under the ordinary law, and to adopt the principle of legalising overdrafts was a very unwise step to take. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would not be pressed.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid there was a very strong feeling among the boroughs with regard to this question, and as they had supported the principle of making the best of the
  40
  Bill and the most of the Act, any representations coming from them were entitled to very great respect. The fact of having to make a rate was based upon very sound principles. Financially his hon. friend might say there could be no objection to it, but educationally it would be most prejudicial. It would create prejudice against the operation of the Act, and would have a tendency to alienate the sympathy and interest of the people of the locality in putting the Act into operation. The only effective remedy against borrowing would be the possibility of a surcharge. If a surcharge was the penalty the process of borrowing was open to objection on principle. He thought his right hon. friend rightly asked in this case, which was an exceptional one, that there should be elasticity given to avoid the necessity of laying a rate in the first instance. He thought there was ample protection in the Bill. Having regard to the prejudice which might arise against education owing to a temporary want of means, he thought that borrowing legitimately by a provision in this statute for a temporary purpose, would be amply justified. He supported the feeling expressed by the boroughs.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that in his constituency there was a School Board which had a large balance in hand raised from the rates in an agricultural district, and naturally they very much objected to being rated by a precept when they already had a balance in hand. What redress had those ratepayers? He wished to know whether, in the event of this Amendment being carried, the borrowing powers could be limited to the area of the county.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid the School Board parish would get the benefit of any balance when the next rate came to be levied, parishes which had funds in hand would be dealt with by the County Councils. He had heard his right hon. friend's answer with some surprise. He understood from the answer given to the County Councils Association that the Government were willing to assist the County Councils in any reasonable way, and among those

  41
  reasonable ways was that they might be permitted to overdraw their accounts. He could not see why the Local Government Board should throw any obstacle in the way, because his right hon. friend must remember that this position was created by the Government, and therefore they were entitled to all possible consideration, especially remembering the fact that they had to levy an extra rate in consequence. Surely it was not unreasonable that during the last few months of the last financial year they should be allowed to overdraw their accounts when necessary. Under the circumstances, it would be only reasonable for the Local Government Board to sanction this; otherwise they would be at the mercy of the auditors.
  MR. BRIGGsaid he wished to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of behaving as well as possible under the circumstances. The circumstances in one case he knew of were, that the County Council was called upon to raise £7,000 for extra expenses incurred under this Act. The County Council had done its best, but it now found itself face to face with the possibility of having to find the money immediately; it would only be reasonable, in granting a loan, that the right hon. Gentleman should do his very best to make the terms as easy as possible for the County Council to obtain the money. Of course they would have to borrow the money by degrees, and they should have as much time as possible given to them to make the payments easy. The money should be provided by the Government at once. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would act wisely if he would grant time, and give County Councils an opportunity of obtaining the money in the most reasonable way.
  SIR JOHN GORSTpointed out that the necessity for raising these sums arose from the way the schools had been treated. Instead of finding them capital, the managers had had to find the money, and would not receive any assistance until the year was over; therefore they would have to wait for their money for a considerable time. The maxim of the right hon. Gentleman was a very sound one, and he agreed that the local authorities ought
  42
  not to be encouraged to overdraw their banking accounts. This, however, was a very special case, and the local authority had no business to throw upon a subsequent year the cost of services rendered in the existing year. That was a reasonable principle, but in this case the expenditure was entirely unexpected, and it was not for the benefit of the ratepayers of the present year, but had to be spread over a number of years. Therefore, in a case of that kind, it seemed to him that the simple method of allowing the local authorities to overdraw their accounts would be quite sufficient means of enabling them to meet this unexpected and extraordinary expenditure, and he should be very glad if the President of the Local Government Board would consider the advisability of accepting the Amendment.
  MR. YOXALLsaid it was most unwise to apply the strict rules of finance to matters of this kind. What the counties wanted was not so much a funded debt as a floating debt. But a floating debt was not the way to meet these emergencies. It ought not to be necessary for local authorities to have to take this course. The proper method of dealing with the matter would have been for the Government to have made a special grant to tide over these emergencies, and such a grant might easily have been made by the schools being given their grants at the commencement, instead of the end, of the year. Now a Government Department declined to concur with the local authority in a matter of local government, and at the same time they had neglected to do what they might have done with regard to this matter in the Act of 1902. One of the great acts of omission in that Act was the omission of the question of finance, and now the Government denied to the local authorities the privilege of having an overdraft without being surcharged. If he had regarded this matter from a purely partisan point of view he should not regret the position, because it would only tend to make the Government unpopular, but what he feared was that it would also tend to make the provision of the schools, and the schools themselves, unpopular. What they were applying for now was an aid to the Act of last year, a smoothing of the path, a slight,

  43
  enabling action to make it possible for the Act and the schools to come more rapidly and smoothly into work than would otherwise be the case. He heartily supported the Amendment.
  MR. HARDYasked the right hon. Gentleman to accept the advice which had been offered from both sides of the House, and give the local authorities the freedom they all desired. The difficulty in the way of getting this money to start the scheme would act prejudicially to the Bill in rural districts, because this process fell heaviest on the districts in which there were most non-provided schools. The process suggested by his hon. friend was a simpler one than that suggested in the Bill. He earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to give way in this matter.
  SIR E. DURNING-LAWRENCEsaid the desire of the countryside was to make this Bill a great measure, and to make it work for the benefit of the children. He hoped nothing would be done by the Government to make that more difficult.
  MR. WALTER LONGthought there must be some misunderstanding with regard to the matter. What was intended by the supporters of this Amendment was that there should be power in the local authority to contract a temporary loan for immediate and pressing purposes. In his reply to the Amendment he thought the object of the Amendment was to substitute a perpetual overdraft for the loan, which would be contrary to the principles of sound finance, and that being so he had intended to resist it. But if he now understood that the object of the Amendment was that there should merely be power in the local authority to meet a pressing necessity by means of a temporary overdraft he would withdraw his opposition.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the discussion to-day illustrated the great danger of passing Bills without discussing them. The financial part of the Act of 1902 was never discussed, and this was the result.
  44
  They were starting the local authorities with a great deficit, and that was not a proper thing to do. It was not fair to call upon these local authorities to borrow money and charge themselves with loans and interest and compel them to start with a large deficit when they ought to have started square. He thought the Government should consider the advisability of making some grant in this matter. To enable a local authority to overdraw at the bank was not good finance and might give rise to considerable difficulty. The present position was due to an oversight on the part of the Government, and under the circumstances it was not fair that the County Councils should be made to pay the penalty.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEcongratulated the Government on having accepted the Amendment in the interest of the County Councils. The operation of the Act was most unequal. The county he represented would get through their difficulties fairly easily owing to the Act having come into operation last October, and to their having already made some arrangements, but with regard to the neighbouring counties it was quite a different matter. The proposal before the Committee would do something to ease the difficulty. If the Councils were allowed to overdraw when necessity arose the difficulty would be largely got over. In principle it might be said to resemble giving the County Councils power to issue bills. Of late years Committees upstairs had been gradually introducing the system of allowing large boroughs to issue bills similar to Treasury bills in the place of the old practice of overdrawing their accounts, which was an objectionable practice to go on permanegtly. The power of temporarily overdrawing was really a somewhat unsatisfactory form of allowing the Councils to do for a limited period for a special purpose that which Parliament was gradually giving large boroughs the power to do, under certain safeguards, in regard to local government finance generally. That being so, he thought they ought to thank the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the Amendment.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid that when the County Councils came to levy these extremely heavy rates they would make the Act very unpopular, hamper education, and aggravate the difficulties which already existed. In his own county the amount required would represent about 4s. in the £ as compared with an average county rate of 8d. He therefore hoped the President of the Local Government Board would be able even now to use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter.
  MR. STEVENSONjoined in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to obtain, if possible, a grant for this particular purpose. The facilities given by the Amendment would relieve certain County Councils to some extent, but, after all, the difficulty in which they were placed was not of their own making. It was important that they should begin with a working balance, and whether they obtained the money on loan account or by an overdraft on their bankers, they would have to pay interest. It was hardly fair that, for a reason which could not be laid at their door, they should be called upon to burden the ratepayers with that additional expense, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would come to their relief.
  SIR CHARLES WELBYjoined in reminding the Government of the existence of a very strong feeling in the country that they ought to have found money for the starting of the Act. At the instance of his constituents, who felt very strongly on this matter, he approached the Board of Education some weeks ago, and in reply he received a certain amount of genuine sympathy, but at the same time an intimation that, owing to the great financial embarrassments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with the Budget, it was impossible to find any more money this year. Of course he accepted the situation, and felt great sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his difficulties, and did his best to quieten his constituents. The Committee would therefore understand
  46
  his feelings when, only a few weeks afterwards, the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed them that he was so full of money that he was able, not only to take fourpence off the Income Tax, but also to remit the registration duty on corn. In connection with this he would like to suggest to His Majesty's Government, not only that the money ought to be found for the purpose of financing the Act, but also the source from which it might be derived. The suggestion he wished to make was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should retain the duty on corn for a year and use the money for the purpose of giving the Act a fair start. Then in a year's time, if the Government were still in the same mind with regard to the tax, a contingency which could not be counted on with certainty, there would be plenty of time to remit the tax to obtain any electioneering benefit that might accrue from it. Seriously he pressed upon the Government the desirability of finding the money for the fair starting of the Act of last year, and of removing the great prejudice existing against it in consequence of the financial difficulty that had arisen.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he had not much sympathy with the appeals that were being made. Hon. Members opposite last year demanded that the County Councils should undertake this work, and they ought now to be prepared to meet the liabilities thereby involved. It had been frankly stated that the main difficulty was caused by so many denominational schools having to be taken over. But the Associations of Voluntary Schools had about £250,000 in hand, and if their schools were to be taken over, why should not the balances be handed over with them? If that were done the difficulty would be entirely met.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The following Amendments stood in the name of the hon. Member for Morley:—"In page 1, line 9, after 'effect,' insert 'but such sums shall not be applied to the redemption of any debt contracted by the managers of the school."
  "In page 1, line 9, after 'effect,' insert' but such sums shall not be applied to the purposes of repairing any school-house, and shall be used exclusively for the purposes of maintenance.'"
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the first of the above Amendments was out of order because it really supposed the local authorities might do things which they certainly could not do. The local education authorities were not responsible for debts contracted by managers, and could not apply money towards their payment. With regard to the second Amendment, the local authority had not to repair the schoolhouses; that was the duty of the managers.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsubmitted that the Amendment was in order, as the local authorities were liable for wear and tear repairs.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will elucidate his Amendment.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that when he placed the Amendment on the Paper he really meant it to cover all repairs. But, as his hon. friend had pointed out, under the Act of 1902, there was a possibility of the county authority applying money for the wear and tear of the schools, many of which had not been kept up to a proper standard, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman might consent to introduce the words he suggested.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 9, after the word 'effect,' to insert the words 'but such sums shall not be applied to the purposes of repairing any school-house, and shall be used exclusively for the purposes of maintenance.'"—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that the local authority would not be able to spend the money in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The only wear and tear the local authority
  48
  could spend money on was the wear and tear caused by their own use of the schools. It would be very inconvenient if the local authorities were not able to apply the money for a purpose for which they were legally responsible.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that this section was extremely vague. Was the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman accepted by the Government?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would suggest instead of the words "to the purposes of repairing" the words "for the purpose of paying for such repairs in any school-house as may be effected or paid for by the local education authority." That would enable the local authority to pay for repairs for which they were legally responsible.
  Proposed Amendment amended—
  "By leaving out the words 'repairing any school house,' and inserting the words 'paying for such repairs in the schoolhouse as may be effected or paid for by the local education authority.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the interpretation of his right hon. friend was the interpretation which the Government placed on the Act of 1902. He hoped that the local authorities would not be hampered in what was undoubtedly a very difficult task. He had been appealed to to endeavour to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to help the local authorities in their difficulties; and now it was proposed to limit their powers. The only cost of wear and tear the local authorities would defray would be the wear and tear consequent upon their own occupation and use of the schools. He, therefore, submitted that, while the matter no doubt was not very serious, it would, be undesirable to hamper the local authorities in the manner suggested. He hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words as amended be there inserted."

  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 87; Noes, 151. (Division List No. 109.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Grant, Corrie

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Asher, Alexander

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Runciman, Walter

  Austin, Sir John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Russell, T. W.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bell, Richard

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Black, Alexander William

  Jones, David R. (Swansea)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Brigg, John

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Tennant, Harold John

  Burt, Thomas

  Labouohere, Henry

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

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

  Cameron, Robert

  Leng, Sir John

  Toulmin, George

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Lloyd-George, David

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lough, Thomas

  Weir, James Galloway

  Crombie, John William

  M'Crae, George

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Duncan J. Hastings

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Edwards, Frank

  Palmer, G. Wm. (Reading)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Ellis, John Edward

  Partington, Oswald

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Perks, Robert William

  Mr. Alfred Hutton and

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Price, Robert John

  Mr. Goddard

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Rea, Russell

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Cranborne, Lord

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Doughty, George

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

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

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Kerr, John

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Knowles, Lees

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Bond, Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bowles, Col. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)

  Flower, Ernest

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Butcher, John George

  Fyler, John Arthur

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

  Carew, James Laurence

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lowe, Francis William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Garfit, William

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Malcolm, Ian

  Chapman, Edward

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

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

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Mooney, John J.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

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

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf 'd

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  50

  51

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ritchie, Et. Hn. C. Thomson

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Percy, Earl

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Purvis, Robert

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Pym, C. Guy

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Rankin, Sir James

  Sullivan, Donal

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Bill reported as amended, to be considered upon Monday, 8th June.

  RAILWAYS (ELECTRICAL POWER) EXPENSES.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Motion made, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the remuneration of any persons appointed by the Board of Trade for the purposes of any Act of the present session to facilitate the introduction and use of Electric Power on Railways, and any other expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in carrying such Act into effect."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he did not know what this meant, and he objected to give a blank cheque of this nature to any Government Department. So far as he was aware there had been no explanation given to the House regarding this matter.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW: May I interrupt the hon. Member; I think he is under a misapprehension. This is simply a necessary part of a Bill which has already passed the Second Reading. The Bill itself will come before the House in the ordinary way.
  MR. WHITLEYthought the Minister in charge should get up and explain a Resolution when it was put forward. This
  52
  was to authorise expenditure under a Bill which was in the future. Surely the Committee ought to have some estimate of the probable cost.
  MR. BONAR LAWrepeated that this was a necessary part of a Bill which had already passed the Second Reading.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he recollected that the Bill passed the Second Reading some weeks ago, almost without any attention being given to it. Could the hon. Gentleman state to the Committee what was the estimated cost of the working of the Bill to which the Resolution referred? It was only by getting figures to show what the cost of the Bill was expected to be that they would be able to check expenditure on the Estimates. If on the Estimates the Department was charged with extravagance, the hon. Gentleman would say that the Committee passed this Resolution authorising the expenditure of anything they liked.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Gentleman who represented the Board of Trade had told the Committee that this was a formal matter. It was nothing of the kind. It was a Resolution authorising the Board of Trade to appoint any number of persons they liked. The clause in the Bill was as follows—
  "The Board of Trade may (with the concurrence of the Treasury as to number and remuneration) appoint or employ such persons as appear to them to be required for carrying this Act into effect, and the remuneration of such persona, and any other expenses of the Board of Trade under this Act shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament."
  Consequently, what the Committee was called upon to do was to authorise the Board of Trade to appoint any number

  53
  of persons they thought might be required, and to declare that the expenses should be paid out of money provided by Parliament. The Committee ought to have some information as to the amount of money involved. When the Bill was before the House for Second Reading they were told that the matter of expense could be discussed on the Committee stage, and now on the Committee stage they were told there was to be no consideration at all. His objection to the clause was that it enabled the Board of Trade to do what was tantamount to this—to appoint another whole army of inspectors to see that the alterations which the railway companies made, were done according to the notions of some person at the Board of Trade. It was an addition to the accursed army of inspectors which was treading under its heel the people of this country. He expected that we should have inspectors to see that we all went to bed at ten o'clock, and that we did not play bridge or cast lots. He thought the Government were not treating the Committee with proper respect when they did not even give an estimate of the amount they were going to spend under this Resolution. He hoped the Committee would insist upon a statement from the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. BRIGGsaid he had another grievance as to the nature of the work expected to be done.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the Bill. This is purely a formal matter in order to enable the Committee to discuss this particular clause of the Bill. Supposing this Resolution were not accepted by the Committee, the Committee would not be able to discuss Clause 5 of the Bill. When that clause is reached, that will be the proper time to discuss the number of appointments proposed to be made, and the remuneration of the persons proposed to be appointed, and until this Resolution is passed the Committee is not entitled to consider that at all.
  MR. BRIGGsaid his grievance was that the Bill was not made applicable to canal companies.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with this Resolution whatever.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid he was a supporter of the Bill, but he thought the position the Committee was placed in by the Resolution was exceedingly unreasonable. He did not share the apprehensions of the hon. Member for King's Lynn with regard to the possibility of there being a large army of inspectors. He did not think they ought to authorise an unlimited expenditure. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade ought to inform the Committee what he thought was the probable amount of money which would be required under the Bill for the first year.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid that this was a purely formal stage of the Bill, and it was very unreasonable to ask for an estimate of the expense that would be involved. It was not absolutely necessary for the Board of Trade to take any steps. Their action would altogether depend on what was done by the Railway Companies; on the number of Railway Companies which availed themselves of the Act. If no Railway Company applied for the benefit of the Act there would be no expense, and even if one or two applied, he believed that the present staff of the Board of Trade would be quite sufficient to deal with the necessary work which would be thrown upon them by the Act.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that the restrictions and delays which occurred in the introduction of electric lighting into this country had led to most unfortunate consequences, and he certainly hoped they would not repeat the error in regard to the introduction of electric traction. We were very greatly behind the United States and our own colonies in the matter of electric traction, and the sooner we adopted it the better. That form of energy would be universally applied in a very few years and would be more economical than the present system of traction.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that he objected to any Resolution being passed in Committee of Ways and Means without having any explanation from the Minister in Charge. This procedure in Committee of Ways and Means was one of the few

  55
  remaining protections which private Members had against the extravagance of the Government. However, from what the hon. Gentleman had said there was evidently no intention on the part of the Board of Trade to engage a large number of new inspectors without putting the expenditure on the Estimates, and with that assurance he was quite satisfied.
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the remuneration of any persons appointed by the Board of Trade for the purposes of any Act of the present session to facilitate the introduction and use of electric power on railways, and any other expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in carrying such Act in effect.—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday, 8th June.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TRANSFER OF POWERS) BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee) considered.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid that in the absence of his hon. friend the Member for East Somerset he begged to move the omission of Sub-section 3 of Clause 1. This was a very valuable Bill in connection with local self government, but he thought that the sub-section which he wished to see deleted was likely to cause very considerable difficulty in the administration of the Act. In fact he thought it would really render the Act nugatory. The relations between the minor and the superior local authorities were very frequently of a somewhat delicate character, and there was apt to be undue jealousy on the part of the minor local authorities at any increase of power being given to the County Councils. The sub-section provided that—
  "Where the Local Government Board propose to make a Provisional Order under this section transferring any power, duty, or liability to the Council of the County or county borough, the Board shall give notice to all local authorities who, in the opinion of the Board, are likely to be affected by the transfer, and if within such time as the Board prescribes the majority of those authorities notify to the Board that they object to any such proposed transfer, the Order shall not be proceeded with so far as relates to
  56
  that transfer, but without prejudice to the power of the Board to propose a new Order."
  It seemed to him that where the Local Government Board and the County Council were agreed that the transference of any power was expedient it should not be in the power of the minor local authorities to obstruct it. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 15, to leave out Sub-section (3) of Clause 1."—(Mr. Humphreys-Owen.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he would point out to his hon. friend that all that the sub-section provided for was that there must be inquiry before the transfer of the powers, and that the minor authorities should have an opportunity of being heard for or against. It was perfectly well known that, in the past, there had been a great deal of friction between the minor and the superior local authorities, and also between them and the central authority. If an attempt was made by the superior local authority to co-operate with the central authority for the transfer of powers to the former without full inquiry, a blow would be struck at minor local government.
  *MR. CHANNINGexpressed the strong hope that the Government would retain this sub-section. It was arrived at by a compromise in the Grand Committee. The Bill enabled powers of the great State Departments to be transferred by Provisional Order to a single County Council and thus affected the claims and interests of the urban councils, boroughs, and other minor authorities. He had himself considered whether some better Amendment could not be devised to secure their interests than the clause, but must confess that he had failed. The clause would prevent any serious hardships and tend to eliminate friction between the County Council and the minor authorities.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that everyone who had studied this question must know that there was a

  57
  real difficulty. It was all very well to talk about the minor local authorities, but that there was friction between the County Councils and the non-County Boroughs was perfectly well known, and it seemed to him that the sub-section was the only way out of the difficulty, unless hon. Members were prepared to coerce the minor local authorities into arrangements with the superior local authorities.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for East Northampton, when he said that this sub-section was not only a compromise but the only possible compromise. What were the facts? They had to find a modus vivendi between the Borough Councils and the County Councils. They could not succeed by trying to override the powerful section of opinion represented by the Boroughs and the Urban Councils. For twelve or thirteen years one attempt after another had been made by the County Councils Association and the Municipal Councils Association, and by successive Governments to find some means of decentralisation; but they had always failed. The County Councils had not yet entirely obtained the confidence of the boroughs. Great efforts had been made in late years by the two great associations representing the County Councils and the municipal boroughs to find a modus vivendi; and he was very hopeful that if the Bill passed it would be the beginning of a better state of things. If, however, the County Councils tried to override the minor authorities, they could not possibly make a greater mistake in their own interests. He did not believe that the sub-section which it was proposed to omit would reduce the Bill to a nullity. As chairman of the Standing Committee on Law, he presided over the discussions on the Bill in Committee. An attempt was made to introduce the Parish Councils; but that was going a great deal too far. If they had been introduced, he quite admitted the Bill would not be worth passing. What the Bill proposed was, that where there was a decentralising order affecting a Board
  58
  of Guardians, or an Urban Council, the majority in each case would have to be consulted. Public opinion was growing in those matters. In his own county, they sometimes got over difficulties by convening a representative meeting of all the minor authorities, in such matters as valuation, for instance; and he found that the minor authorities could be got to accept things in that way much better than if it were sought to force them. The Bill got in the thin end of the wedge; and that wedge would gradually extend, not, however, by compulsion, but by the mutual consent of the two great classes of public opinion which the Bill affected.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that there was practical agreement in all quarters of the House with reference to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment of his right hon. friend the Member for East Somerset said that the Amendments put into the Bill upstairs would entirely destroy its effect. He entirely disagreed with the hon. Gentleman He believed that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken did not in the least exaggerate the effect of the Amendment. Without the sub-section he did not think it would be possible to pass the Bill; and even if, by some fortuitous circumstance, it was passed without that sub-section, it would be impossible to give it effect against the will of the bodies whom the hon. Gentlemen called the minor authorities. The origin of the Bill was a demand made by some of the representatives of Wales that there should be a transfer made of some of those powers. It was pointed out that such a transfer could not be made under the existing law, as at present a transfer could only be general and not particular. The main object of the Bill was to enable a transfer to be made in particular cases. The case presented by Wales was that not only was the transfer desirable, but that there was no opposition among the county boroughs or urban districts. Therefore, the whole foundation of the Bill was not only the desire for a transfer, but the particular unanimity of the local authorities concerned. They could do no more evil turn to the County Councils than to

  59
  put on them the adminisration of some of the duties of a Government Department against the conviction and desire of the other local authorities. He was, therefore, glad that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, which would amount to the rejection of the measure, had found such little favour in the House.
  *MR. HELMEsaid he cordially supported the position which the Government had been pleased to take up to try and meet the feelings expressed on behalf of the local authorities whose position this Bill proposed to alter. When the Local Government Bill came before the House in 1888 the fear was expressed on behalf of many of the urban districts that too great powers were being given to the County Councils, and it was decided in the general interest that the Local Government Board should only have power to make a general transfer, not to transfer in particular cases. The very foundation upon which local government in the country had been developed had been on the basis of consent; and he thought the arrangements which were now before them in this Bill and in the Amendments he had put on the Paper in Committee which the Government were pleased to accept, met the desires of those concerned. There was no doubt whatever that in many cases the Local Government Board should have the power of transferring certain powers; and he thought that by the arrangements contained in the Bill justice would be done to the cases where between the County Council and the smaller districts there was a desire to have those powers transferred, and at the same time protect those where there might be a feeling of hesitancy as to the granting of those powers. On behalf of the non-county boroughs and urban districts he thanked the Government for the spirit they had shown in accepting the Amendments which were proposed in Committee.
  MR. EDWARDSsaid he desired to associate himself with the remarks of the hon. Member who had just spoken. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board referred to the part which the Welsh Members had taken in bringing this matter before the House. The right hon. Gentleman thought that, if it was
  60
  desirable that those powers should be transferred, they should be transferred by a Government Bill. It did not, however, much matter who introduced the Bill as long as the powers were transferred. Ha congratulated the right hon. Gentleman who, although he opposed his Bill, because it was a private Member's Bill, showed that he was sincere in the matter by bringing forward this Bill. He was glad to find that the difficulties which stood in the way of the Bill for many years had at last been overcome. When the President of the Local Government Board in 1899 tried to pass a Bill of this kind, he was met by the opposition of the Borough Councils. In his opinion, the omission of the sub-section would destroy the Bill altogether; and he would appeal to his hon. friend to accept the sense of the House, especially as the Bill went through Committee practically unanimously. The position might not be ideal; but it was a distinct advance.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he also wished to appeal to his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment, as there was a great feeling throughout the country, especially on the part of the boroughs and the rural authorities, that those powers should not be rushed upon them without their consent.
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he also wished to say how cordially he appreciated the action of the right hon. Gentleman in bringing forward the Bill; and he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on a very useful measure. He hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. BRIGGsaid he was glad to see that the compromise which had been arrived at in the Grand Committee appeared to be satisfactory to all concerned.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid that after the appeals which had been addressed to him, especially the appeal of his hon. friend the Member for Radnor, who was the parent of the Bill, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. The hon. Member for South Islington

  61
  seemed a little troubled at his having referred to "minor local authorities;" but he had not the least idea of saying anything disparaging. He only borrowed a convenient phrase, used by the Government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he hoped the House would consent to the Third Reading.

  SUPPLY [21ST MAY, EVENING SITTING].
  Resolution reported.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1903–4.

    CLASS III.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £375,897, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the expenses of the prisons in England, Wales, and the Colonies."
    MR. WHITLEYcalled attention to the fact that when this Vote was in Committee he had asked a question as to the large increase of £25,000, but had received no answer owing probably to the fact that the hour was late when the right hon. Gentleman replied, and this point was overlooked. He wished now to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not see his way to economise in this Department when the Vote next came before the House.
    MR. CALDWELLexplained that the number of convictions in England had enormously increased owing to the practice of legislation making petty offences punishable by fine or imprisonment. In England, as in Scotland, the people frequently preferred to go to prison rather than pay the fine, and that necessitated greatly increased prison accommodation.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,)said that serious crime, happily, continued
    62
    to decrease. The increase in the number of prisoners arose almost entirely from the large increase in the number of petty offences in the last two or three years. The increase in the Estimate was to provide for a further estimated increase. In addition to that there was the increased cost of the new prison dietary which the House had sanctioned.
    MR. WHITLEY: Does that account for the increase in the number of the petty offences?
    *MR. COCHRANEdeclined to express an opinion on such a wide question as to whether persons might or might not prefer the diet of the prison to that of the workhouse.
    Resoluton agreed to.

  SUPPLY [22ND APRIL].
  Resolution reported.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES 1903–4.

    CLASS II.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £139,395, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments, including a Grant in Aid."
    Resolution read a second time.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESmoved that the consideration of the said Resolution might be postponed. His reason for making this Motion was that in consequence of the most regrettable accident to the President of the Board of Trade, which no one deplored more than he, the questions he desired to raise could not be properly raised. He would just call attention to the fact that the Prime Minister had informed the Committee that out of this Vote he proposed to take certain moneys and allocate them to the purposes of the Convention at Brussels. That was one reason for postponing the consideration of this Resolution. Besides that, he had serious

    63
    complaints to make with regard to the Department of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Returns in connection with shipping which had been promised again and again and never supplied, and with regard to the question of shipping subsidies. These were very important matters, and under the circumstances he thought he was justified in moving the postponement.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: hoped his hon. friend would accede to the Motion, which seemed a most reasonable one. The appropriation of these funds for the purpose of the Sugar Convention, which many of them opposed, was a conclusive reason for postponing it.
    MR. GALDWELLsaid there were special reasons for the postponement of the Resolution. When dealing with a great Department the Resolution was always held over from time to time in case of matters cropping up. On the night this Vote was taken it was taken on the distinct understanding that the Report should be put off for some time, because there were other matters to be taken on Report.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. BONAR LAW,)said he was prepared to accede to the request of hon. Members. He merely desired to say that where there were two officers in charge of a Department one should be ready to answer any questions which might be put. Had such questions been addressed to him he would have done his best to answer them, but he had no objection to postpone this Report.
    Further consideration of Resolution postponed till Monday, 8th June.

  SUPPLY [21ST APRIL, AFTERNOON SITTING] REPORT.
  Order read, for further consideration of Twelfth Resolution, "That a sum, not exceeding £48,288, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture, and for Kew Botanic and Pleasure
  64
  Gardens, including certain Grants in Aid."

  SUPPLY [14TH MAY, AFTERNOON SITTING].
  Resolution reported.
  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  Section 1. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,991,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding. Repairs, Maintenance, &c., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
  SUPPLY [14TH MAY, EVENING SITTING].
  Resolution reported.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  Section 2. "That a sum not exceeding £4,786,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Materiel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he desired to move the recommittal of the Resolution.
  MR. SPEAKER: Has the hon. Member any precedent for proposing the recommittal of a Resolution of Committee of Supply?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had fortified himself by referring to the Journals of the House. On 10th Aug., 1880, a Resolution was recommitted to Committee of Supply, and there were good precedents both for recommittal and for postponement. He hoped the Civil Lord to the Admiralty would be able to give satisfactory reasons why recommittal should not take place, but the ground on which he moved was that the Vote was

  65
  not so fully discussed as a Vote of such importance, and involving so large a sum of money, should be. He wished also to remind the House that it had power to recommit even a Resolution, and he therefore moved.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Resolution be re-committed to Committee of Supply."
  MR. SPEAKER: Of course I have not had an opportunity of considering the precedent to which the hon. Member refers, nor was I aware there was any such case. Subject to that, however, I will put the Question.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid his hon. friend had not given any reason why the Resolution should be recommitted.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That of inadequate discussion.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that was a very general statement. The Vote might be a large one, but the whole of the sitting was devoted to its discussion. The Secretary to the Admiralty answered every point raised in the debate, as far as he could judge, to the general satisfaction of the Committee. In the absence of any specific complaint he was afraid that was all he could say.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  SUPPLY [21ST MAY, AFTERNOON SITTING].
  Resolutions Reported.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1903–4.

    CLASS III.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £180,118, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme
    66
    Court of Judicature as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £28,144, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st, day of March, 1904, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Land Registry."
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Salaries and Expenses connected with the County Courts.'
    4. "That a sum, not exceeding £26,390, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Pay and Expenses of Officers of Metropolitan Police employed on special duties, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary."

  PUBLIC OFFICES (DUBLIN) (ADVANCES).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole £225,000, as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present session for the acquisition of certain land in Dublin, and for the erection and equipment of a Royal College of Science and other buildings for the public service, and to authorise the Treasury for the purpose of providing for the issue and repayment of such sums to borrow

  67
  money by means of Terminable Annuities for a period not exceeding thirty years, such annuities to be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the Service of the Commissioners, and if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Arthur Elliot.)
  MR. BOLANDregretted that, owing to the unexpected way in which this matter had come on, the great body of Irish Members were not present to take part in the discussion, especially the Dublin Members, who were particularly interested in this question. As regarded the Bill itself, which had for its object the provision of a site for the new College of Science, he, of course, desired to support it, but he wished to take that opportunity of calling attention to the way in which the site was to be allocated. The Bill which was introduced last year was not carried, as it raised considerable opposition on the ground that certain Government offices were to be transferred. On this occasion he was anxious to raise the question whether the Government would not provide in connection with the present Bill that a portion of the new site should be allotted to a modern Gallery of Art.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that it would not be in order for the hon. Member to go into that point. The Bill itself was not now before the Committee. What they were discussing was the formal financial Resolution to give the Bill effect.
  MR. BOLANDwished to know whether there would be any later opportunity of discussing this matter.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY To THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT)was doubtful whether he would be in order in going into the details of the Bill on this Resolution, but thought there would be ample opportunity of discussing details when this Bill got into Committee. He was perfectly aware of what the hon. Member had at heart, and assured him that only after the most careful consideration had the Treasury been forced to decide that they could not meet his views.
  MR. BUCHANANheld that it would be in order, and in
  68
  accordance with precedent, that the Minister in charge of the Resolution should explain the purpose for which this money was being asked. That course was frequently followed when they were discussing Resolutions ion which Bills were founded.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that was so. But he had stopped the hon. Member who was addressing the Committee because he was suggesting that the money should be spent on some other scheme than that involved. That was not permissible on this Resolution, which was simply to give effect to one specific purpose.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid this money would be borrowed and repaid by terminable annuities, extending over thirty years, and he wished to protest against the growing practice of constructing public works of this sort, out of borrowed money rather than out of sums placed on the annual Estimates. That was a wrong principle so far as Parliamentary control was concerned, and it was a wrong system of finance. Hitherto that method had been adopted only in cases where the work would be of very great magnitude, and he thought the Committee were entitled to some explanation of why it had been adopted on the present occasion, where such a comparatively small sum was involved.
  MR. MOONEYsaid that in the debate of last year the then Secretary to the Treasury made certain statements as to what was to be done. He wished to know if the undertakings then given were to be departed from. At that time it was stated that certain buildings were to be occupied by the Irish Local Government Board, and he wished to know if that arrangement had been altered.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That is hardly relevant to this question, which is a strictly financial Resolution.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid it was not unreasonable to ask the present Secretary to the Treasury to give the Irish Members an opportunity of obtaining the fullest information in regard to this matter. If the Secretary to the

  69
  Treasury would refer to the debate of the 28th of May last year he would find several long statements on the subject made by the then Secretary to the Treasury, and if the hon. Gentleman read those statements he would understand the point which had been raised by his hon. friend. He thought some undertaking ought to be given to look into this matter, because the point raised by the hon. Member for Kerry was one which ought to be carefully inquired into.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked if it would be in order when they came to the Committee stage to make this money payable out of taxation instead of borrowed money.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid the Bill had now reached that stage at which it was largely in the hands of the Hybrid Committee, and he did not see why the questions which had been raised should not be threshed out before that Committee.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that the Hybrid Committee could not alter the method by which this loan was to be raised. If this was the one opportunity when the House of Commons could express its opinion as to the way this money was to be raised, surely they were entitled to take this occasion in order to obtain an explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury. So far as he was aware there was no precedent for a work of this comparatively small magnitude being constructed by means of borrowed money instead of out of the annual Votes of the year. He begged to move that this sum be paid out of the annual Vote.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept that Motion because it rests with the Minister to decide in what way the money shall be raised and the Committee cannot alter that. The Committee can of course refuse the proposal, but it cannot extend it.
  MR. BUCHANAN: My proposal would not extend it, but would simply alter it.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid this was not the first time they had discussed this question in Committee of the House of
  70
  Commons. Earlier in the session the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this plan of borrowing money for the purpose of constructing work was only used in cases of large and important work and that all small and minor works were to be paid for in the usual constitutional manner. They could not call this £250,000 a very large sum. Therefore, according to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this building ought to be paid for by the annual Vote of Parliament. He thought they ought to ask the Secretary to the Treasury to explain why the general principle laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been departed from.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid that it was quite true that this money had been raised by terminable annuities, but the Vote for these annuities would appear in the yearly Estimate, and hon. Members would be able to discuss these questions when those items came before the Committee. The system which they were adopting was the usual one.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if it was not a fact that money had been borrowed for similar objects in exactly the same way for buildings in this country. He remembered not long ago that a considerable sum was raised in this way for public offices in London. The amount under discussion was relatively a small one, but it was a very important matter to Ireland, and he was utterly astonished to find objections being raised to obtaining this comparatively small sum for public offices in Ireland. Not long ago several millions, to which Ireland contributed, were expended upon colossal buildings in London, which not one Irishman in 10,000 would ever see, and now, when a small sum was asked for to erect public offices in Ireland, this petty quibble was raised as to the way the money should be found. He hoped this small sum would be granted in a graceful way. If there was any bones made about it, the people of Ireland would say they had had to drag this money out of the House of Commons. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would pay particular attention to the points which had been raised.
  MR. BOLANDasked whether, on the Motion for Adjournment to-morrow, he would be able to raise this matter again with a view to getting a further expression of opinion from the Secretary to the Treasury.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I should not like to give any ruling upon what will be in order on the Motion for Adjournment, when Mr. Speaker will be in the Chair.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that by bringing foward this Resolution at the present time the Government were setting a precedent which might have serious consequences. It was not expected that this large financial question would come forward to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place, and right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House who held strong views on the matter were not there. He would venture to suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury that it was reasonable that this Resolution should be postponed until a later occasion when it could be more fully debated.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am prepared to debate it as long as ever you like now.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid it was difficult to understand the position taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They denied that the principle which the Government applied to the erection of public offices in London should be applied in Dublin. Their only reason was that in one case the sum was two millions, while the other meant a quarter of a million. So far as principle was concerned, there was no principle to stand upon at all. The Treasury had decided on raising the money in this way, and why should hon. Gentlemen object? He agreed with the hon. Member for East Clare that it was taking all the grace out of it. The Committee had plenty of time to spare to-night, and he hoped they would not adjourn the discussion. He remembered that the Bill was lost last year by tactics of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He hoped that the same tactics would not wreck the Bill this year.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid that the method proposed
  72
  in the Bill was obviously the right way of dealing with this matter. It might be a small thing, £250,000, but how could they possibly arrange for the Treasury getting that in annual sums? They would by adopting that means be upsetting rules just as much as if they got the amount in a Bill like this. It was very much better to do as was done in the case of the South Kensington Museum, and get the whole sum in this way than get it on haphazard Votes of the House. If they had not done this for large buildings there would have been a temptation to stop building operations during the expenditure consequent upon the war. In carrying out these large works it was very much better that the money should be voted as a whole at once. It was the cheapest, most business-like and commonsense way, and it was the way that any person in private life would adopt in dealing with such a matter.
  MR. TOULMINsaid he should like to join in the protest against the principle of borrowing money for such works as these. He did not desire that the Resolution should be postponed, or that they should stand in the way of these buildings being erected in Dublin. He did think, however, that it was well that the Committee should take note of the way in which this principle of borrowing was being extended. He could not admit that they had adopted the principle of borrowing money in this way. He thought it would be very much better to pay for the work out of Revenue. They did not pay for Post Offices in England by borrowing money. They paid a certain amount every year. Practically the passing of the Resolution would commit the House to the expenditure, and he thought it was a bad principle that these smaller sums should be borrowed. He was not sure but that they were being committed to more extravagant schemes than they might sometimes think wise to enter into, when they adopted for these smaller sums the principle of borrowing which should be reserved for larger sums.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid he could only refer the Committee to a case in 1894, when £200,000 was raised by means of annuities to provide additional land for the British Museum. There was nothing

  73
  new being done by what was now proposed in connection with the College of Science and the new public offices in Dublin.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he accepted the precedent quoted by the hon. Gentleman as corresponding to a certain extent to what was now proposed, but still he maintained that this method of procedure was not that which had usually been followed in the past. The National Gallery for Ireland, which cost something like £80,000, was built entirely out of annual Votes. At present there was an annual Vote for the extension of the National Gallery, and hitherto, when the Government was going to undertake works of a character similar to this new College, he ventured to say that it had been the almost invariable practice to put a sum down annually on the Estimates to be voted by the House. It was their duty to protest against the continual extension of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarded as an evil practice which was growing up, of increasing the public debt by borrowing for works similar to these.
  Resolved: That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums, not exceeding in the whole £225,000, as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present session for the acquisition of certain land in Dublin, and for the erection and equipment of a Royal College of Science and other buildings for the public service, and to authorise the Treasury for the purpose of providing for the issue and repayment of such sums to borrow money by means of Terminable Annuities for a period not exceeding thirty years, such annuities to be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the service of the Commissioners, and if those moneys are insufficient out of the Consolidated Fund.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday, 8th June.

  MARINE STORE DEALERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said the object
  74
  was to extend to Ireland a few sections of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act of 1892 for the purpose of putting marine dealers under certain restrictions. It was found recently in Ireland, especially in Dublin, that the number of petty larcenies was largely on the increase, and not only were they committed by professional thieves, but, it was much to be regretted, by children of tender years who were seduced from the paths of honesty and probity into crime, by the facilities afforded by the receivers of stolen goods. The object of the Bill was simply to put these marine dealers—brokers, as they were called in Scotland—under restrictions, so that they should keep a book in which should be entered the name of any person who brought goods for sale, and the description of the goods; that they should keep the goods for fourteen days; that they should not deface them; and that they also should keep a record of the name of the purchaser to whom they might afterwards dispose of them, and to give facilities to the police for the inspection of those books. This would not interfere with the honest dealer, but it would enable the police to detect crime.

  ROYAL COMMISSIONS AND SELECT COMMITTEES (COST).
  Return ordered, "Showing the annual cost to the country of Royal Commissions and Select Committees, respectively, appointed since the year 1892."—(Mr. Malcolm.)
  And, there being no further business set down for the Afternoon Sitting, Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair till this Evening's Sitting.

HOUSE OF LORDS (VETO)
*MR. CREMERsaid that from time to time various proposals had been made in the House of Commons for the reform or the abolition of the House of Lords. Some of the Motions were said by those who opposed them to be either undesirable,

75
indefinite, or impracticable. The Motion he moved to-night was not, however, open to the charge of vagueness or ambiguity, and he hoped to show that it was not only desirable but practicable. This was a burning question amongst the people, who had made up their minds that until the problem of the House of Lords was disposed of there could be very little useful and progressive legislation in this country. He did not now propose to discuss the question of whether there should be one or two Chambers, but he was perfectly certain that if this country only possessed one Chamber and it was proposed to establish a second, in which the sole qualification for a seat should be that the occupier should be the eldest son of his father, and that he and other eldest sons should possess the power of perpetual veto, that the proposer of such a scheme would be speedily incarcerated in an asylum for idiots. But that principle was unfortunately embodied in the British Constitution. We had not yet reached the stage when we had hereditary tinkers, tailors, or shoemakers; but in our Constitution hereditary lawmakers had the power to meddle, muddle, and destroy useful legislation passed by the House which derived its authority from the ballot-box. Postmen, policemen, porters, and domestic servants had to produce some evidence of character for their positions, but no such qualification of capability or character was needed for the House of Lords. The Members of the House of Lords were all presumed to be honourable and able men, and born lawmakers. It was idle to disguise the fact that this evil existed, and his desire was to make the best use of the House of Lords and to bring it into harmony with modern requirements. This was the object of his Resolution. For some time past he had been in correspondence with Members of the various Parliaments of Europe and America, and had endeavoured to find out whether any other Chamber in Europe was based on the same system as the House of Lords, and this was the result of his enquiries. The Upper House of Austria was composed of princes, nobles with proper qualifications and some hereditary rights, some ecclesiastics, and life members nominated
76
by the Emperor. Their power of veto was perpetual, but in case of a conflict a conference was arranged between the two Houses and the matter generally settled. That of Belgium was composed partly of men elected by the general body of electors under a method of proportional representation. The power of veto was continuous, but had only been exercised three times since Belgium had become a kingdom. In Denmark twelve life Members were appointed by the Crown, and fifty-four Members were indirectly elected by the people every eight years. Their power of veto was also continuous. In the case of nearly every Parliament of Europe he found there was an elective element in the constitution of the Upper House. In France the Senate is elected by district bodies and delegates for nine years, one-third retiring every three years. The power of veto is continuous, but both Chambers being elected they manage to settle their differences without any serious conflict. In Germany the fifty-eight Members of the Upper Chamber of the German Empire are appointed by the Government of each individual State, so that they derive their power indirectly from the people. In Hungary there is an elective element, and also in Holland. In Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland, more or less of the elective principle prevails. In the United States of America the Senate was an elected body, every State in the Union having power to appoint two Senators. In the case of a conflict there, both Congress and the Senate appoint three Members as a Committee, the general result being a compromise. The most interesting of the illustrations that he wished to give to the House was that of the little kingdom of Norway, which had solved the question of one or two Chambers in a most intelligent manner and democratic spirit. In Norway there was one suffrage, every man over twenty-five years of age being entitled to a vote. Every three years they elect 114 men to constitute their Parliament. One-fourth of this assembly is formed into a sort of Select Committee, and is generally composed of the most able and experienced men. Both these bodies had their President and officers, and were

77
practically separate from each other for the time being, The power of veto was a limited one. In case of a conflict a joint sitting of the two Chambers was held and a two-thirds majority of the whole settles the matter. That was to him the most interesting information he had been able to gather, because the Parliament of Norway being elected on a democratic basis the question had been solved by that little State in the most satisfactory and democratic manner.
The organisation of the legislative bodies to which he had referred showed that not in the whole world was there to be found any Chamber based exclusively on the hereditary principle where the power of veto was perpetual. It might be said that in practice the system in this country of which he complained worked very well. Such a theory was entirely upset by the black catalogue of offences committed by the House of Lords in opposing useful and beneficial legislation passed by the House of Commons. He would give only two instances, which might be multiplied indefinitely. The House of Commons had thirteen times, by large majorities, passed the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, and thirteen times the House of Lords had defied the expressed will of the House of Commons by rejecting that Bill. Again, the House of Commons had twice passed the very useful little measure known as the Friendly Societies (Outdoor Relief) Bill. The House of Lords had twice rejected that Bill, the second time on Friday last. So that the House of Lords not merely defied the House of Commons, but it also defied the great friendly societies of the country, with upwards of a million of members, who were practically unanimous in demanding that the Bill should be passed into law. What did the House of Lords know about friendly societies? He did not suppose there was a member of that Chamber who had any practical acquaintance with the subject. Not one of them had ever been an Oddfellow, a Druid, or a Shepherd, or a member of any of these great organisations. If there were no other reason than that the House of Commons had been so
78
repeatedly flouted by this hereditary Chamber, and that useful legislation had been unceremoniously thrown out by the House of Lords, that would be quite sufficient to justify him in making every effort in his power to reform that institution in the way indicated by his Resolution. There were, however, some weak-kneed people who said: "Yes, it is all very well to preach these doctrines; we are at one with you in admitting the evil that exists; but we fail to find a remedy. It is no use to talk of a thing being desirable if it is not possible. It is no use to pass resolutions which are simply pious expressions of opinion." Those who reasoned in this fashion forgot that the House of Commons held the purse-strings of the nation, and if the House of Lords, supposing this or a similar resolution was passed, were to defy the House of Commons, the House of Commons must decline, as he believed it would decline some time or other, to vote the Supply necessary for the continuance of the House of Lords. Every year the House of Commons votes a large sum for salaries and expense of offices in the House of Lords, and if the House of Commons declined to provide the £42,000 which it voted last year, then their Lordships would have to pay their own expenses and the salaries of their officers, some of which were very fat. They would have to pay the cost of maintaining their own Chamber and its various offices, to furnish their own apartments, to pay their own domestics and chambermaids. Such a thing as a bachelor-librarian having eight bedrooms at his disposal would not happen again. He believed that people out-of-doors were heartily in support of the proposal which had been made to limit the vetoing power of the House of Lords. In proof of that, he cited the thirteen Labour Members in the House of Commons who had some right to speak, not only on behalf of the people whom they represented, but also on behalf of the great masses of their fellow-countrymen. Every one of these thirteen Labour Members was cordially in support of this proposal. Formerly monarchs in this country possessed omnipotent power,

79
and there was constant friction between the Crown and the people, but our forefathers gradually deprived the monarchs of a great portion of the power they possessed; they took the sting out of the crown, and the result had been the constitutional monarchy under which we exist, and which appears to harmonise with the popular will. That was exactly what he wanted to do with the House of Lords; to deprive it of some of the power it possessed, and which he, and those who thought with him, believed it ought not to possess. They wanted to take the sting out of the Upper Chamber and bring it up to date, by limiting the power of their Lordships' veto, which ultimately would have to be done. It was with that object he had brought forward his Motion, and having slung his little pebble at the great giant he would conclude by moving the Resolution.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid they ought to thank the hon. Member for the very valuable account he had given of the different foreign Chambers, and their functions. If it were desirable to have a second Chamber, of which he had doubts, he would select as a model out of the list given by his hon. friend, the Norwegian. In Norway the first House was elected by the people, and it sent their most eminent men up to the other Chamber, where they had a good deal to say, but very little to do. That would be a very good thing here. They could perfectly well afford to send the two Front Benches up to the House of Lords, where they could talk matters amongst themselves, while the Commons did the business of the nation. His hon. friend had asked him to second his Motion, which he gladly agreed to do, although suffering from a severe cold. He had at various times moved Resolutions of this character in diverse Parliaments. In 1894, when a fresh Liberal Ministry had been formed, he moved an Amendment to the Address very much of the character of his hon. friend's Motion. Who opposed him? Why, it was the Liberal Administration. He was shocked to find them going into the Lobby against him, together with the Members from the Benches opposite. But he had not long to wait for vengeance, for from that
80
moment they muddled, and muddled, and muddled, and ploughed the sands of the seashore until they went to the country and lost their election, as he believed, simply because they did not support his Motion. He did not want to treat this matter in a mere academic way. He believed that Liberals generally did not want to do so; but, whether academic or not, it was a question of vital importance to the Liberal Party. Under our party system, a Party at a General Election obtained the majority, and a Minister was born from that majority. That Ministry remained in power until it lost the confidence of the country. But the Upper House was formed by hereditary legislators, of bishops and peers recruited from gentlemen who, in most cases, paid the Party to which they belonged very large sums of money for being made peers, and obtaining for themselves and their descendants the right to legislate for the people. From the very nature of the hereditary principle they were bound to have a permanent Conservative majority in the House of Lords. He did not mean Conservative in its true sense, but in its party sense.
They were told that the business of the House of Lords was to check hasty and impulsive legislation when a Government chose to legislate on a matter of very great importance before the country had been consulted upon it. But, when the Conservative Party were in office, the House of Lords was absolutely nonexistent. It was a wretched echo of the dicta of this House. How was the present House of Commons elected? It was elected by the present Ministry and their supporters going to the country and asking the country to return them to Parliament, irrespective of all domestic questions, simply and solely to enable them to finish up a war which, from some want of logic, had not been already finished. The House of Lords did not say to the Government, "The war is not over; we will pass none of your measures." But they would have done so in the opposite case had the Liberals been returned to power. [Cries of "No."] Well, take the case of the Education Act of last year. Did the Government ever consult the country on that matter? They knew perfectly well they did not.

81
The Government calmly, and on their own initiative, proceeded to upset the whole educational system of the country to their own advantage. Did the House of Lords throw out that Bill because the country had not been consulted? But suppose the Liberals, without consulting the country, had put forward a Bill providing what he regarded as a sound educational system—that was to say, which swept away all sectarian schools entirely—would not the House of Lords have thrown it out? Most unquestionably they would. Take the Home Rule Bill. He had heard hon. Gentlemen opposite say what a valuable institution the House of Lords was, because it stepped in and prevented Home Rule for Ireland. It must be remembered that in the election that brought together the Parliament that passed that very Home Rule Bill of Mr. Gladstone's, the question was put to the country, and the election turned on Home Rule or no Home Rule. The House of Lords could not say that the country had not been consulted, because they knew perfectly well that it had. Yet they threw out the Home Rule Bill. Mr. Gladstone wanted to dissolve at once and appeal to the country. [An HON. MEMBER on the GOVERNMENT Benches: "But you did not do it."] He would have done it anyhow, and he might reasonably say if that had been done it was the opinion of most Gentlemen on that side of the House Home Rule would have been carried. But what happened? There were certain Gentlemen who lagged superfluous on the stage and stuck to office without power, and when at last they went to the country they did so without once alluding to the House of Lords, and they were beaten. He was not sorry that they were beaten, and he hoped that it would be a lesson to them for the future.
He was credibly informed that at some place called Epsom there had been that day a race between three-year-olds, each carrying the same weight; but in the struggle between the two Parties in the State the Liberals were handicapped in the game. They were not treated in the same fair way as the horses. He believed the favourite had won, but if the favourite had had to carry double weight, it would probably not have won. If the Liberals
82
were sent to the country with their legs bandaged they went at a great disadvantage. They made promises; perhaps they believed in these promises, and when they carried these promises into the Bill which the Lords threw out they were dumb. Therefore, the country said, "Much as we dislike King Stork, we prefer him to King Log." He himself was entirely in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords; he would abolish it root and branch. He objected to hereditary legislators. He objected to the archbishops and bishops of one particular sect legislating for him; and he objected to all those brewers and bankers, and Heaven knew what, who were sent to the House of Lords simply because they had large money bags. The constitution of the House of Lords was utterly unfitted for the present age. There was not one country in the world which was prepared to accept an Upper Chamber formed in the same way and with the same powers as the House of Lords. He was glad to know that all the Labour Members, with one single exception, had issued a whip for this Resolution, and that one Labour Member did not join in the whip because he took a stronger view of the matter, and was in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords altogether. He alluded to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil. He regarded the Resolution before the House as one of the most moderate proposals ever made by a moderate man. It did not ask for the abolition of the House of Lords; it dealt simply with the difficulties of the present situation; it proposed merely to clip the wings and pare the claws of the House of Lords. It had been suggested by certain Liberals that it would be desirable to restrict the veto not from one session to another, but from one Parliament to another. He remembered that he had the privilege of speaking to Mr. Gladstone on that matter. Mr. Gladstone said to him—
"You have brought forward many Resolutions, but remember this: never agree to any restriction which allows a veto to be carried on from one Parliament to another, because it would be absolutely impossible for a Liberal Ministry to live under such a régime."
He thought Mr. Gladstone was perfectly right, and that anybody who really thought the matter out would agree. For what would happen if the veto was

83
from one Parliament to another? A Liberal Ministry would pass a Bill. The Lords, who would be much more free in using their veto than at present, would throw the measure out. Next session another measure would be treated in the same way. What would the Liberal Ministry be able to do? Either one of two things: to sit down and grin and bear it, or to dissolve. It would be impracticable to force a dissolution almost every year, and they would have to sit down and bear it, and enjoy the emoluments of office; but the constituencies would not quite approve of that. They would say, "We sent you to Parliament with a majority to do something; but if you humbly accept the decision of the House of Lords, we come to the conclusion that it is not worth while exerting ourselves at the next General Election." And when that election came off the Liberal Ministry would be turned out. He thought there would be time enough for consideration if the veto were from session to session. He did not suppose anyone would take the little part of finishing a session one day, and beginning another session the next day. He meant the ordinary session the next day. The Resolution of his hon. friend really represented the irreducible Radical minimum. It ought to be the corner-stone of Radical policy. The country ought to know at the next General Election that if the Liberals were returned to power this force would be swept away once and for all.
In the reign of Queen Anne a sufficient number of Peers were created by one Government to swamp the majority of the other Party in the House of Lords. That could be done again; there would not be the slightest difficulty in the matter. As a matter of fact it was quite sufficient to threaten the Lords, who would then absent themselves from their House, as they did on the occasion of the great Reform Bill, and allow any measure to pass. He trusted all Liberals would, as he was perfectly certain all Radicals would, show the country that they were really in earnest in this matter by voting for the Motion of his hon. friend. In the last speech made by Mr. Gladstone in this House he said that matters had arrived at such a point that, unless the power of the Lords to veto was restricted
84
it would be absolutely impossible for any Liberal leader to remain in office. This Resolution really represented the Radical minimum. It ought to be the corner-stone of Radical policy. The settlement of this matter was a legacy left to the Liberal Party by Mr. Gladstone, who was the greatest member and Statesman of the present times, and the best way of honouring his memory was to show respect for the advice which he had given. He seconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the power now possessed by the House of Lords to veto any measure adopted by the House of Commons should be limited to one session of Parliament."—(Mr. Cremer.)
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he had not had the good fortune to hear the whole of the speech of the hon. Member who had introduced the Motion, and therefore did not know whether the hon. Member had founded his argument on the fact that the Motion was necessary in the interests of the country; but he had had the good fortune to hear the whole of the speech of the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, and that hon. Member based his argument in support of this Motion not on the fact that it was necessary in the interests of the country but on the fact that it was necessary in the interests of the Liberal Party. The hon. Member for Northampton would excuse him if he did not share the views the hon. Member apparently held, that the interests of the nation and the interests of the Liberal Party were the same. Where a Motion was brought forward to change the whole constitution of the country, he submitted the question to consider was not the interest of a particular Party but the interests of the nation as a whole. The hon. Member, with his usual candour, by making so much of the Liberal Party gave his case away, because, when alluding to the last speech Mr. Gladstone ever made in the House, he seemed to forget that by that speech Mr. Gladstone failed to carry the majority of the country with him. The hon. Member could hardly expect, therefore, that the majority of the nation would cut their own throats to do something the whole aim

85
and object of which was to restore to power a Party in which they had no confidence. The hon. Member who moved the Motion gave a long account of different forms of government in foreign countries; but he could found no argument upon that unless he could prove that the countries with these various constitutions were better governed than our own, and their people more prosperous and more happy. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion was now absent, like the thirteen Labour Members, but in the speech he had delivered he spoke of Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill of 1892 as having been demanded by the people, but surely the hon. Member's recollection was at fault. There was the greatest anxiety to know what the Home Rule proposal of 1892 would be, and finally it was found that it did not differ very much from the previous Bill of 1886. The action of the House of Lords in rejecting the Bill was approved by the nation at large. The only way in which the question could be determined whether a measure was desired by the nation was to take an election on the issue; and in the case of the Home Rule Bill the Liberal Administration knew it would be useless to do that. The present Motion was absurd, or else it meant the practical abolition of the House of Lords as a legislative assembly. If that was the intention, then it should be boldly stated, and reasons given for it which, so far, had not been given. He hoped the House would reject a Motion which would make so great a change in the constitution of the country.
*MR. DUKEthought that in bringing forward this Motion the hon. Member had a little misread the signs of the times. There had been Motions of a similar character before which had greatly moved the feelings of the House, when the Leaders of both Parties debated the subject as if it were a branch of practical politics. He congratulated the House and the country upon the present appearance of the Front Ministerial Bench, and also of the Front Opposition Bench. Both of them were empty, which he regarded as a sure indication that no one having any responsibility for public affairs at the present time cared twopence about this Motion. It was a Motion which aimed at the existence of the House of Lords,
86
because it would reduce the House of Lords to a position of mere futility and public uselessness. The House of Lords in its conflicts with the House of Commons in dealing with great public questions had not always had the worst of the contest. In the periods between 1880 and 1890 there were two conflicts between the Liberal Administration and the House of Lords, and in neither of those conflicts did the Liberal Administration succeed in converting the country to their views and carrying the country with them against the decision of the House of Lords. He believed that, with all its anomalies and alleged impediments to usefulness, if the hon. Member cared to test the opinion of the people he would find that in reality they were proud of the House of Lords with all its faults. The object of the Motion of the hon. Member and of this attack upon the House of Lords, as was said by the hon. Member for Northampton, was to enable hon. Members opposite to "do the business" of the Kingdom and "do the business" of the Empire. There was a fatal significance about the words, and the majority of the House, and in all probability the people in the country, were of opinion that if put in the position hon. Members opposite would certainly "do the business" of the Kingdom and the Empire. Until hon. Members opposite were prepared to establish a second Chamber more powerful than the House of Lords, he did not believe they would succeed in leading any considerable body of public opinion to a course by which the veto of the House of Lords would be limited to the startling extent proposed by the Resolution, which he characterised as a bald and revolutionary proposal. The hon. Member had referred to the cases of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia. He could only say that in the case of Canada the example of this country had been followed as nearly as possible, while as to Australia, where there was one of the most democratic peoples in the whole civilised world, the Constitution recently adopted for the Australian Commonwealth was in itself one of the strongest condemnations of the present proposal.
MR. CAWLEYbelieved that those Liberals who put the abolition of the House of Lords in

87
the very forefront of their programme in 1895 were the most successful. He had the fortune to win a seat from the other side on that occasion, and that was what he did. The House of Lords was composed of five or six hundred persons about the same as any other similar number of individuals picked from any crowd, and neither better nor worse. He failed to see, therefore, why the House of Commons should have its measures vetoed time after time by those six hundred Gentlemen picked indiscriminately from the general public. The hon. Member for Plymouth might be a cleverer man than he was. He quite admitted it—but that was no reason why the hon. Member's son might not be a bigger fool than his son. He had no animosity against the House of Lords as Peers, and no objection to their having their titles and their estates. He objected to them in politics as being a landlord body. The British Parliament as a whole had been ever dominated by the landed interest, and he objected to that, as he would object to any one industry or interest in the country dominating legislation. He held that the veto of the House of Lords should be limited to one session at most.
MR. PURVISwas bound to confess that he found few additional ideas advanced in support of the attack on the House of Lords since 1899. When the mover of the Motion expressed a desire to pare down the power of the other House and reduce it to one exercise of the veto, he was perfectly candid, for he admitted he would like to get rid of the veto altogether. He did not, however, seem to appreciate that the function of the House of Lords was to stand up for the will of the people. Yes, to maintain the Constitutional principle that, when the will of a majority in the House of Commons is opposed to the will of the people, the latter shall prevail. No assembly having to deal with great affairs ought to be without some check on its action; and the House of Lords imposed a check on spasmodic action by the Commons. It had done that over and over again, and the House of Commons had repented its hasty action. The Long Parliament, having got rid of the House of Lords, determined to make itself permanent, and
88
so roused the indignation of the people that Cromwell had the support of the nation when he turned that House of Commons out, locking the doors and putting the key into his pocket. It was the want of any check on the proceedings of the French Assembly that caused some of the most sanguinary episodes in the Revolution. The House of Lords was not an unpopular institution. Direful threats were made against the other House if it dared to reject the Home Rule Bill; but when the House of Lords did reject it, it was not upon the Conservative but on the Radical Party that the stroke of popular vengeance fell in 1895. He hoped that the House by a comparatively large majority would reject the Motion.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the hon. Members for Plymouth and Peterborough both appeared to have completely misunderstood the object of the proposal. The speech of the latter had been directed not so much in support of the House of Lords as it at present existed, as to a definition of what a Second Chamber should be. The Second Chamber of the Australian Commonwealth had been quoted in defence of the House of Lords. As a fact, there was no more democratic Assembly in the world. It was quite typical of the working-classes of Australia. He supported this Motion because he saw in it the germ of what he desired. By reducing the House of Lords to a position of futility, it would lead to the uprooting of the hereditary principle. The hon. Member for Peckham said the Unionist Party could not support the Motion as by so doing they would be cutting their own throats.
SIR FREDRICK BANBURY: I did not say it would be cutting our own throats; I pointed out that the hon. Member for Northampton had declared that the carrying of the Motion would be the salvation of the Liberal Party, and I did not see why we should cut our own throats in order to put the Liberal Party in power.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEadmitted that the intellect of the hon. Member was more subtle than his own, but he failed to see that he had inaccurately quoted

89
the sense of his observation. There was under this Resolution the deep underlying purpose which the Liberal Party had supported ever since it took its present shape, and he for one frankly admitted that he supported it because he felt that if they were to be enabled to pass the measures which the country desired, they must get rid of the House of Lords as at present constituted. As to the hereditary principle, would any hon. Member opposite claim that he had a right to go to his own constituency and recommend that his own son should succeed him as Member, simply because he was his son. Such an idea as that was altogether out of date at the present moment. He was really unable to take the arguments of the hon. Member opposite seriously. Underlying this Resolution was a purpose which the Liberal Party had consistently supported ever since it took its present shape. ["What shape?"] He had been in political life for some time, but until two days ago he had never known a Government completely to change a proposal three times in three consecutive days, or one that was sometimes kept in office by its nominal opponents, and sometimes deserted by its nominal supporters. He thought, therefore, the Liberal Party was at any rate as coherent a political unit as the Party opposite. [At this moment the Colonial Secretary entered the House.] The right hon. Gentleman could not have entered the House at a more interesting period, as the House would be glad to hear some repetition of those doctrines which were not out of favour with the right hon. Gentleman some ten or fifteen years ago. The right hon. Gentleman might have changed his opinions, and could doubtless give adequate reasons for having done so, but the words he addressed to the English people on this subject ten or fifteen years ago would be an important factor in deciding the question when it came definitely before the country.
SIR ELLIOTT LEESsaid that he could remember the time when this question was one of the principal planks of the Liberal Party, and he was therefore amazed to see the Front Opposition Bench so deserted. The hon. Member for the Prestwich Division had attacked
90
the House of Lords on three grounds: first, that one Lord was the son of another; secondly, that the Lords were largely interested in the land; and, thirdly, that if the Liberal Party had been in office last year the other House would have rejected the Education Bill. He was pleased to hoar the hon. Member admit that that would have been enough to condemn the House of Lords in the eyes of the country.
MR. CAWLEYsaid his contention was that if a measure had been sent up by the Liberal Party with as little popular support as the Education Bill had at its back, the House of Lords would have thrown it out as a party question.
SIR ELLIOTT LEESsaid it remained to be seen what would be done with any future Education Bill sent up by a Liberal House of Commons. The question they had to consider was whether the House of Lords rejected Bills that were for the benefit of the country. The hereditary principle had been objected to. Probably if a Second Chamber were now being appointed, a Committee representing the nation would be formed to select from the foremost men of the country persons fitted to be members of such a Chamber. But the Cabinet of the day might be said to represent the nation, and frequently, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, as the head of the Cabinet, persons who had been eminently succeessful in various walks of life were made Members of the House of Lords. There were in the Upper House many Members who sat there not because they were the sons of their fathers, but because they had done such service to the State as to entitle them to sit in the Second Chamber. A large majority of the Members so appointed voted against the Home Rule Bill, and a fair majority of them voted against the Employers' Liability Bill.
No doubt, if they were now to form a Second Chamber, they would not proceed on the hereditary principle; but he contended that the House of Lords understood the feeling of the country and, on the whole, worked very well. There was something to be said in favour of a device similar to the referendum. That, however, raised a great constitutional question which required much consideration.

91
Failing that, he saw nothing but a Second Chamber to save the country from ill-considered and revolutionary legislation.
MR. OSMOND WILLIAMSsaid he would go farther than the Resolution—he would do away with the House of Lords altogether, and start de novo with a representative Chamber. Why should they submit to have a Tory Committee always ready to throw out Bills passed by a Liberal Government? As an Assembly, the House of Lords was a blot on our Constitution. What was its record? In 1832it brought the country to the brink of civil war over the rotten boroughs; in 1880 it plunged Ireland into crime because it refused compensation for disturbances. Then for many years it kept Nonconformists out of the Universities. Who were these men that they should dictate terms to our Statesmen, and encompass the ruin of our Constitution? Were the Members of the House of Commons so lost to their pride of race and their love of popular institutions as to allow this Tory Committee to flout and jibe the representatives of the nation? The House of Commons was not perfect, but at any rate it was bone of the national bone, and flesh of the national flesh; it came from the people, and periodically it went back to the people for a renewal of life and energy, whereas these Lords sat on for ever, watching the poor and the working classes struggling for a better, brighter, and nobler life, knowing all the while they had the power and the will to thwart them. If the House of Commons was not to be down-trodden and flouted in the future as it had been in the past, it was time to put an end to this irresponsible Assembly, and he hoped the Resolution of his hon. friend would be carried.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,)said he should like to ask the hon. Member whether they lived under a representative form of Government, because he noticed that the proposer and seconder of the Resolution warned the House that outside this was a burning question, and if the House of Commons was a representative body, surely it ought to reflect in some-way the conflagration that was said to be
92
raging outside. They were also told that the Resolution they were now discussing was the corner-stone of the Liberal Party. [Mr. Labouchere: It ought to be.] He was tempted to believe from the state of the House, with most of their Members outside it, that very few took the slightest interest in the subject. This was not the first time the question had come before the House. Nothing whatever came of a previous Resolution carried under Lord Rosebery's Government; and he asked whether the discussion of such Resolutions, to which not the slightest importance was attached, and which indeed were a mere worthless brutum fulmen when used by one House against another, was consistent with the self-respect of the House of Commons. He had been struck by the weakness of the case made out under present circumtances against the House of Lords. How could the hon. Member have the face to accuse the House of Lords of obstructive and obscurantist views in rejecting the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill when every Member knew that the Bill would now be law if it were not for the House of Commons itself, which enabled a small minority to trample on the will of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and the generally settled convictions of the British people? ["No."] Those were, at all events, his sentiments. He ventured to submit that the House of Lords was equally subject, though not so directly, to the same power as the House of Commons, and bowed, as the House of Commons constitutionally bowed, to that power—he meant the settled and constitutionally expressed conviction of the country. He did not think the House of Lords ought to yield to the passing feeling of the hour if it had strong views of its own in a contrary direction; but if it had to do with the settled conviction of the country, made known year after year in the constitutional fashion, the House of Lords of these days knew, perhaps better than the House of Lords in past years, that its duty was to recognise and bow to that conviction. Those who withstood such convictions, whether in the one House or the other, were, in his opinion, guilty of an offence against the Parliamentary and constitutional spirit which had enabled our somewhat complex system to work through so many generations as well as it had done.

93
The hon. Member had referred to every country in Europe and other countries. He did not think it necessary to go into the systems of other countries, or the history of past times, or even the methods of the colonies. They had to deal with the system that suited themselves. Theirs was not like the Parliaments of Portugal and Belgium and those great Parliaments which had sprung up in their own colonies in close imitation of their own. Starting afresh to sketch out a Constitution, they might individually prepare different systems; but they knew the system under which they worked, and they knew that it did work. He objected to the language of the hon. Member when he spoke of the veto of the House of Lords. It was not constitutionally accurate. The House of Lords did not exercise a veto. The constitutional view was that the two Houses must concur in every act of legislation. There was no question of one House vetoing the proposals of the other. The hon. Member talked as if this country had since 1832, and anterior to that, been legislatively at a standstill; whereas almost year after year, and certainly every four or five years, very large measures of fundamental reform had been passed. Every one of these measures had been passed by the House of Lords as well as by the House of Commons. How could it be said, then, that the House of Lords pursued a policy of bar? The House of Lords acted, as every second Chamber must act, rather as a checking instrument than as a vetoing power. The House of Lords had long ceased to try to thwart the settled convictions of the British people. There had been nothing of that sort in recent years, because the House of Lords had to a large extent essentially modified its character and so had the House of Commons. They had made up their minds no longer to rely on mere privilege.
No doubt Lord Lyndhurst would have mutilated every measure which the Reformers of 1832 sent up to the House of Lords, but Lord Lyndhurst and the party of privilege did not get their way, and why? Because Lord Lyndhurst did not lead the Conservative Party, and because a far wiser, more long-sighted Statesman, Sir Robert Peel, led the Party, and almost for the first time induced it to become a progressive Party. The House of Lords now judged measures on their merits instead of rejecting from the point of view of mere privilege, Bills sent up from the popular House. He did not think his hon. friends had made out a strong case for this Motion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had not brought down their friends to support this corner-stone of Liberal politics. They were not present. The working men were conspicuous by their absence. This was a proposal not only inconsistent with the dignity of the House of Commons to accept, but it was fundamentally wrong in itself. No doubt it might be possible to make many changes in the constitution of the House of Lords; but, at the same time, it was very desirable, while there were two Houses, as he thought there ought to be, that the one House should be independent of the other. Each must bow down to the solid will, the deliberate sense, of the British people. They did not want one House to be the mere echo of, or subject to, the other. But they could not be equal in authority. This House was the main instrument under our Constitution for governing this country. He asked the House to reject the Motion by a large majority.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 62; Noes, 118. (Division List No. 110.)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Schwann, Charles E.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Weir, James Galloway

Paultan, James Mellor

Tennant, Harold John

White, George (Norfolk)

Rickett, J. Compton

Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

Williams, O. (Merioneth)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Robson, William Snowdon

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

Mr. Cremer and Mr.

Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

Toulmin, George

Labouchere.

NOES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Forster, Henry William

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Arnold-Porster, Hugh O.

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

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Atkinson, lit. Hon. John

Fyler, John Arthur

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Baird, John George Alexander

Galloway, William Johnson

Percy, Earl

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

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Pierpoint, Robert

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin and N'rn

Pretyman, Ernest George

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon, Maj Evans (T'r Haml'ts

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bignold, Arthur

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

Purvis, Robert

Bond, Edward

Groves, James Grimble

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Bull, William James

Gunter, Sir Robert

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Butcher, John George

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hamilton, Marqof (L'nd'nderry

Robinson, Brooke

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Round, Rt. Hon, James

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Chapman, Edward

Johnstone, Heywood

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Charrington, Spencer

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. P.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Kerr, John

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasqow)

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Cranborne, Lord

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Thornton, Percy M.

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Valentia, Viscount

Cust, Henry John C.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Walker, Col, William Hall

Dalkeith, Earl of

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

Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lowe, Francis William

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Denny, Colonel

Macdona, John Cumming

Webb, Col. William George

Dickson, Charles Scott

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Majendie, James A. H.

Wilson John (Glasgow)

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Malcolm, Ian

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

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Manners, Lord Cecil

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Milvain, Thomas

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edward

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Sir Alexander Acland-

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Hood and Mr. Anstrnther.

Fison, Frederick William

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

HOUSE OF LORDS (VETO)

  SMALL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING].
  MR. BLACKmoved the Second Reading of this Bill. He said it was a measure to facilitate the acquiring of land by small holders. Few things were more pathetic than the study of the statistics of the moving of the population of the crofting districts during the last thirty years. Migration from the fishing villages to the towns was constantly going on and the consequence was that labour was scarce in the country and the physique of the people was deteriorating. Any measure which would tend to check that process and retain the population in the country must
  96
  be of great benefit to the country and to this Empire. Over 1,500 holders would be benefited by the provisions of this Bill in the county of Banff. The constituency of the Lord Advocate would also be benefited, and instead of enjoying a precarious tenure the crofters would secure by this measure fixity of tenure. They had heard a great deal—
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present—
  The House was adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Twelve of the Clock till to-morrow.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Twelve o'clock.