Commons Sitting of 2 August 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Felixstowe Gas Bill; Radcliffe Tramways and Improvement Bill; South Shields Gas Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Great Yarmouth Corporation Bil [Lords] (King's Consent signified). Bil read the third time, and passed, Amendments.
King's College Hospital Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Leeds Corporation (Waterworks) Railway Bill [Lords]. Verbal Amendments made; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill [Lords]; Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords] (King's Consent, on behalf of the Crown and Duchy of Lancaster, signified). Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
North Wales Electric Power Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
West Riding Tramways Bill [Lords] (King's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified). Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Buxton Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Stretford Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. As amended, to be considered upon Thursday.
Trafford Park Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Greenock Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Edinburgh and District Water Order Confirmation Bill. As amended, considered; a clause added; Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Glasgow and South Western Railway (Darvel and Lanarkshire Railway Transfer) Order Confirmation Bill; Perth Corporation Order Confirmation Bill. Considered; to be read the third time upon Thursday.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [Lords]; Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway Bill [Lords]; Cardiff Railway Bill [Lords]; Derwent Valley Water Board Bill [Lords]; Great Western Railway Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to County Courts." [County Courts Bill [Lords.]

PETITIONS.
  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the Table,
  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  Petition from New Basford, for removal of prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Aberdare; East Manchester (twenty-one); Nottingham; Warwick; and Welham Bridge; to lie upon the Table.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ACT, 1897.
  Petition from Bath, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee on Naval Boilers [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Statement showing the Financial effect of certain reduction in, and additions to the Army, proposed by the Secretary of State for War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3243 to 3245 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PHYSICAL DETERIORATION.
  Copy presented, of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Inter-departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration. Vol. II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Sixteenth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to inquire into the Law relating to Compensation for Injuries to Workmen. Vol. I., Report and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT, 1903–4.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 14th July; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed, [No. 298.]

  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Forty-eighth Report

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  7.

  Date when closure moved.

  By whom moved.

  Question before House of Committee moved.

  Whether in House or Committee.

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

  Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

  (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 319, of Session 1903).—Mr. Caldwell.)

  DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Divisions of the House in Session 1904; stating the subject of the Division, and
  510
  of the Commissioners, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  SHIPPING CASUALTIES (1902–3).
  Copy presented, of Abstract of the Returns of Shipping Casualties which occurred on or near the Coasts or in Rivers and Harbours of the United Kingdom from the 1st July, 1902, to 30th June, 1903, and of the Returns of Shipping Casualties to British Vessels elsewhere than on the Coasts of the United Kingdom, and to Foreign Vessels on or near the Coasts, or in Rivers and Harbours, of British Possessions Abroad, etc., with Charts and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 10.
  Return ordered, "of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon during Session 1904 (in the same form as, and in continuation of, Parliamentary Paper, No. 318, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 26).
  Return ordered, "respecting application of Standing Order No. 26 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1904, under the following heads:—
  the number of Members in the majority and minority. Tellers included; also, the aggregate number in the House on each Division; distinguishing the Divisions on Public Business from Private; and also the number of Divisions before and after midnight (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.202, of Session 1903,"—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1904; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.201, of Session 1903).—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1904; with the total number of signatures in that year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.200, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 1904, including the Standing Committees and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.198, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered, "of the number of days on which the House sat in Session 1904, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after midnight; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings (in
  512
  continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.199, of Session 1903)."—Mr. Caldwell.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (DAYS OCCUPIED BY GOVERNMENT AND BY PRIVATE MEMBERS).
  Return ordered, "showing, with reference to Session 1904, (1) the number of Sittings at which, in accordance with the Standing Orders, Government Business had precedence; (2) the number of Evening Sittings on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and the number of Sittings on Fridays at which Private Members had precedence under the Standing Orders; (3) the number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence under a special order of the House; (4) the number of Saturday Sittings; (5) the total number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence; (6) the total number of days on which the House sat; (7) the total number of Motions for Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance; and (8) the number of days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 320, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1904, classed according to the following subjects:—Railways; Tramways; Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations; Roads and Bridges; Water; Waterworks; Gas; Gas and Water; Lighting and Improvement; Police and Sanitary Regulations; Corporations, etc. (not relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations or to Lighting and Improvement Schemes); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Markets and Fairs; Gaols and other County Buildings; Inclosure and Drainage; Estate; Divorce; Naturalisation; Hospitals, and Miscellaneous."
  "Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1904 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed

  513
  Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed."
  "Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session, 1904, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended."
  "And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.197, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED TVITH THE VOTES.

  Accident on H.M.S. "Blake"—Heroism of Chief Stoker Gee—Official Recognition.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary to Admiralty the whether the Admiralty intend to recognise in ally special manner the heroism displayed by Chief Stoker Gee who, on the 6th August last, at the risk of his own life, rescued two men from the stokehold of H.M.S. "Blake" on the occasion of an accident to one of her boilers, seeing that for a similar act of bravery Stoker Lynch was awarded the Albert Medal.
  514
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) Chief Stoker Gee displayed great courage and promptitude on the occasion of the accident on board H.M.S. "Blake." His conduct was favourably noticed at the time, and an entry to that effect was made on his parchment certificate. It would be invidious to attempt any comparison between two such brave actions as those referred to in the hon. Member's Question, but I can assure him that all the circumstances of both were fully considered.

  Post Office Savings Bank Books sent in for Annual Examination.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what percentage of the depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank fail to forward their deposit books to the head office once a year; and what percentage send in their books more than once a year.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) It is estimated that less than 25 per cent. of depositors with active accounts fail to forward their books annually to headquarters for examination. There are no statistics available showing the number of depositors that send in their books more than once a year.
  Fee for Letters addressed to Tain Post Office "to be called for."
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to explain why the officials at the Tain post office required persons calling for letters on the 7th instant to fill in a form and pay a charge of three pence before they would undertake to search the caller's box; and, seeing that a similar error was recently proved to have been made at the Cromer post office, will he state how these irregular charges originated, and what steps have been taken to prevent their recurrence.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) As I have already explained to the hon. Member by letter, on public holidays in Scotland (one of which was reserved at Tain on 7th July) and on bank holidays in England and Ireland, letters arriving after the morning delivery for residents who do not rent private boxes can only be obtained on payment of the usual fees for express delivery; and this will, no doubt, account for the special charge made at Tain on the 7th ultimo. Visitors, however, can use the Poste Restante without any charge.

  Retiring Allowance for Mrs. F. Williams, late of Edgeworthstown Post Office.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Mrs. F, Williams, who served 27 years as sorting clerk and telegraphist in Edgeworthstown post office, left the service in February, 1904, without pension of any kind; and, seeing that in the April following an order came out making her office pensionable, and that she never had a report against her during this 27 years service, will he direct that she be granted a retiring allowance in accordance with the terms of the April circular.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Mrs. Williams did not hold an established appointment as sorting clerk and telegraphist. She was employed as assistant by the postmaster of Edgeworthstown and paid by him out of an allowance he received for providing assistance. Service of this nature is not pensionable, and it is, therefore, not in my power to obtain for Mrs. Williams any award under the Superannuation Acts, but I will inquire whether she is eligible for any gratuity from the Rowland Hill Benevolent Fund. In the latter part of his Question the hon. Member probably refers to the grant made this year by Parliament for providing gratuities in certain cases for unestablished officers. This grant was not available in the case of officers retiring before April of this year.

  Vacancy in Telegraph Superintendent's Survey Branch at Leeds.
  MR. BARRAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a vacancy that occurred more than a year ago in the telegraph superintendent's survey branch at Leeds has not yet been filled up, and that the work is being done by junior clerks in expectation of advancement; and, if so, whether he purposes to make an appointment to fill the vacancy.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) In connection with certain changes of administration, the district under the control of the postmaster of Leeds was largely reduced on the 1st February, and in consequence it is not found necessary to fill the vacancy referred to by the hon. Member.

  Death Rate and Infant Mortality in London and Provincial Unions.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the
  516
  Local Government Board whether he will grant a Return of the death rates and infant mortality of the London unions and of the unions of Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, and Bristol, with information as to the ratio of indoor and outdoor pauperism to the population, and the total cost of Poor Law relief in these unions per head of population.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am willing to give a Return of the kind indicated by the hon. Member. I do not gather, however, for what period the information is desired and, perhaps, the hon. Member will send me the draft of a Notice of Motion, indicating more precisely what he wishes on this point. I shall then be happy to consider its terms before it is put down.

  Schemes for Creation of County Boroughs—Powers of Local Government Board to Award Costs.
  MR. DUNCAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state under what statute the Local Government Board possesses power to award costs as between local authorities promoting, and local authorities and individuals opposing, schemes for the creation of county boroughs, and the alteration or extension of local government boundaries.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The only powers which the Local Government Board possess in cases of this kind are those conferred by Section 87 of The Local Government Act, 1888.

  Extension of Crofters Act to Small Crofter Leaseholders in the Highlands.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that crofters under the Act on the Ferintosh Estate (Black Isle), Ross-shire, have had arrears cancelled and fair rents fixed by the Crofters Commission, whilst tenants on this estate who were leaseholders at the time of the passing of the Crofters Act are now threatened with eviction for nonpayment of arrears of rack rent, will he say whether he proposes to extend the benefits of the Crofters Act to small crofter leaseholders in the Highland crofting counties.

  517
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I have no knowlegde of the facts alleged in the first part of the hon. Member's Question, and I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 11th February, 1904.†

  Return of Hours of Railway Servants.
  MR. BELL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state when the Return of Hours worked by Railway Servants in October, 1903, will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) A number of the companies have not yet sent in their Returns, and their attention has been called to the matter. I cannot say when the complete Return will be issued, but no time will be lost by the Board of Trade in hastening its completion.

  Percentage of Non - Employment in the Trades of the Principal Industrial Countries.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he could obtain and publish comparative figures showing the amount and percentage of non-employment in the skilled and unskilled trades of the principal industrial countries.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Such statistical information on this difficult subject as it has been found possible to obtain has been compiled in accordance with a promise made to my hon. friend earlier in the session, and will be ready for publication shortly.

  Increase in Vivisection Experiments.
  MR. TOMKINSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the increase in the numbers of medical and surgical experiments performed on living animals, amounting to 19,084 in 1903, as compared with 14,906 in 1902, and 11,645 in 1901; and whether he intends to take any steps to limit the number.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The increase pointed out by the hon. Member in the number of experiments in recent years is almost wholly in
  † See (4) Debates, cxxix., 1030
  518
  those included in Table IV. (B) of the Annual Return, i.e., Experiments of the nature of Simple Inoculations, Hypodermic Injections, and similar proceedings. It is pointed out on page 5 of the Return, that the increase is due mainly to the progressive importance attached to biological tests generally in practical medicine for the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, and to the more widely recognised need for such experiments on the part of those responsible for the care of the public health. It may be added that over 3,000 of the experiments performed in 1903 were made for Government Departments, or for county or borough councils, and 1,313 were made for the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis. Every application for authority to perform experiments is carefully scrutinised, but I am not prepared to take action in the direction suggested.

  Advertising of Patent Medicines.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBERLAYNE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of imposing some restrictions on the advertising of patent medicines, with a view to protecting persons of the poorer classes.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I am not sure what class of patent medicines my hon. friend has in mind. The question of legislation for the purpose of dealing with certain evils in this connection has been considered in my Department, but there are many difficulties in the way of framing a measure which would be satisfactory and neither inoperative nor too wide in its scope.

  Ankylostomia Infection—Recommendations of Dr- Boycott.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of Dr. Boycott's Report on the subject of the diagnosis of ankylostomia infection in mines and its recommendations, and of the fact that following his circular letter of 10th March to the county councils, the medical officer of health to the Derbyshire County Council issued a memorandum to the medical men in the county relating to the disease and

  519
  the precautions which should be adopted to prevent the spreading of this disease, he will now furnish the Derbyshire County Council with the necessary powers under the Coal Mines Regulation Act to enable the medical officer of health to give practical effect to the recommendations of Dr. Boycott's Report.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) Dr. Boycott's Report deals simply with the mode of detecting ankylostomia infection by examination of the blood, and contains no recommendations as to precautions to be taken against an outbreak of the disease. It is true that amongst other steps which, as I have previously explained, I have taken in this matter, I have invited the co-operation of the county councils in the mining districts, with a view to their spreading information among miners as to the precautions to be observed, and also to their furnishing facilities at the county laboratories for examination of infected matter; but there are no powers under the Coal Mines Act which can beconferred on the county councils.

  Accidents in Mines—Responsibility of Owners and Managers.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that certificated managers of mines are from time to time indicted for manslaughter owing to fatal accidents occurring in their mines, he will issue orders to inspectors of mines that they should instruct the certificated managers to enter into their daily report books all recommendations which they consider essential to the safe working of the mines, and that where colliery managers have brought such recommendation before their employers, he will advise His Majesty's inspector to prosecute the owners in place of the certificated managers where loss of life takes place owing to the owners having refused to give effect to such recommendations of their managers.
  (Answered by Mr. Akers-Douglas) The hon. Member is, I think, under a misapprehension; the inspectors of mines have nothing to do with prosecutions of mine managers for manslaughter. So far as prosecutions for contraventions of the
  520
  Mines Acts are concerned, an inspector would always carefully consider where the responsibility for the contravention really lay before taking proceedings. The inspectors have no power to give the instructions suggested in the Question.

  Indian Village Police.
  MR. SCHWANN: To, ask the Secretary of State for India, with regard to the proposals under consideration for better utilisation of the Indian indigenous village police as distinguished from the the uniformed district police, can some such proposals towards extended use of the village police as partly substituting them for district police be given effect to without waiting for any elaborated plan dealing with the whole subject of the India police services.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am unable to make any announcement as to measures to be undertaken to give effect to the recommendations of the India Police Commission until I receive the conclusions of the Government of India upon the Report. As I have already stated on previous occasions, that Government has been asked to deal with the Report as expeditiously as possible.

  Salary of Teacher of School, Roll No. 8145.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the principal teacher of school, Roll No. 8145, has not received an increment, although he is trained first class, has almost twenty-five years satisfactory service as principal school average over 100, and has these reports from inspectors; year 1900, school is in a satisfactory state; year 1901, report marked good; year 1902, report marked fair; year 1903, report marked good; and year 1904, report marked very good.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) This teacher received an increment of £2 from the 1st April,1903, which raised his salary to £107, the maximum salary of his grade.

  Promotion of Irish Male Principal School Teachers.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutentant of Ireland; whether he can state how many male

  521
  principal teachers have been promoted to second division of first grade since the end of the triennial period, 1903; what were the conditions under which promotion was granted to these teachers, and how many were promoted to this grade who had not a single report marked very good or excellent during same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Sixty-five male principal teachers have been promoted to the second division of first grade since the end of the triennial period 1903. These promotions were made under the conditions laid down in Rule 195 (g) and (i). There have been no cases such as indicated at the conclusion of the Question.

  Gold Commandeered by late South African Republic—Claim of British Banks.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consider the expediency of appointing a Select Committee of the House of Commons to consider the claims made by British banks in South Africa in respect of gold commandeered by the Government of the late South African Republic.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am advised that this claim has been dealt with in accordance with certain general principles which have been applied to all such cases. The reasons have been fully set out in correspondence, and the view of the Government is that such a Committee as the hon. Member proposes should not be appointed.

  Trades Disputes Commission.
  MR. BELL: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state the date when the Royal Commission to inquire into Trade Disputes was appointed; how many sittings has it held and the total number of hours of such sittings; how many witnesses have been examined; and when is it likely to conclude its inquiry and report.
  (Answered by Mr. A., T. Balfour.) The Question of the hon. Member amounts to a Motion for a Return as to the day-to-day proceedings of a Royal Commission. It must be remembered that a Royal Commission does not owe its appointment to Parliament, and conducts its pro-
  522
  ceedings wholly without reference to the Government of the day. Beyond answer as by the courtesy of the Chairman I sometimes am enabled to do, some Question as to the probable date of a Report, I should not consider it to be a wise precedent to call for all the particulars set out in the hon. Member's inquiry in the case of this or any other Royal Commission.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Boiler Committee's Report.
  *SIR. CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when the final Report of the Boiler Committee will be in the hands of Members: and whether figures can be given to show the actual mean consumption of coal per indicated horse-power per hour in the case of the Belleville boiler, of the Babcock boiler, and of the Yarrow boiler.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): I had already taken steps to ensure this Report being in the hands of Members at an early date, and I hope copies will be delivered at the House tomorrow. Tbere are, however, enclosures containing diagrams, which will take some time to print. These will be issued to Members at the earliest possible moment. With regard to the latter part of the right hon. Member's Question, I must refer him to the Answer I gave to his Question of the 6th July.†
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: That Answer was in my mind, but it did not show exactly what I asked for. It showed the average taken between the highest and the lowest but not the true average.
  MR. PRETYMAN: I will do what I can.

  Militia and Volunteers—Cost of Compulsory Training.
  COLONEL LLEWELLYN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the Table
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxvii., 775.

  523
  the figures upon which it is estimated that the adoption of the recommendation of the Report of the Royal Commission on Militia and Volunteers with respect to compulsory training would cost a yearly sum of £25,900,000.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The figures have just been laid and will shortly be in the hands of Members.

  South African Military Stores Scandal.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether investigation by the War Office authorities of the various dealings of Colonel Morgan with military stores in South Africa and the peculation of public money, which has been the subject of the strong condemnation from the Bench of the Chief Justice of the Transvaal with reference to those dealings, is to be suspended pending the hearing of actions for libel brought by Colonel Morgan against certain organs of the London Press; and, if so, whether Colonel Morgan is under any and, if so, what obligation to the War Office to proceed with these actions; and whether, having regard to the fact that none of the actions, if expeditiously pressed forward, can be heard for many months, and that after lapse of time there will be difficulty in sifting the dealings in South Africa of Colonel Morgan and his subordinates with the property and money of the public invested in military stores, and to the effect of the delay of the War Office in dealing with this case, he will say whether any and, if so, what undertaking will be given by the War Office that these transactions will be thoroughly and speedily investigated.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As I have already informed the hon. and learned Member, no steps will be taken by the War Office in this matter until the case has been decided in Court. Colonel Morgan is under no obligations to the War Office to proceed with the case. Should the result of the case prove the necessity of inquiry by the War Office, the hon. Member may rest assured that full investigation will be made.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that that
  524
  inquiry cannot be made for several months and in the meantime may be destroyed? Will he give us an assurance that the War Office will make an investigation, as there is a suspicion they are shielding the offenders?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order The Question has been answered.

  Local Self-Government for South African Colonies.
  DR. MACNAMARAI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to confer a measure of local self-government upon the Orange River Colony at the same time as upon the Transvaal Colony; and, if not, whether he will state the reason why.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): No final conclusions have been arrived at by His Majesty's Government on this subject.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what voice, if any, it is proposed to give the House of Commons in the form of local self-government to be conferred upon the Transvaal Colony before the matter is finally determined.
  The follow Question also appeared on the Paper—
  DR. MAGNAMARA: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Notice of Motion handed in on Tuesday, 26th July, by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Handsworth Division, relating to representative government in the Transvaal; and, if so, whether he will give an opportunity for the discussion of this proposed Motion before the close of the present session or before any operative steps are taken in the matter of conferring the proposed form of self-government upon the Transvaal.
  THE PRIME MINISTEP AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Member has two Questions down in regard to time for the discussion of this question. So far as I am aware, there is

  525
  no precedent at all, in the many cases which have occurred in which similar proceedings have been taken with regard to British Colonies, for a preliminary discussion upon the subject. Of course anything which requires statutory sanction by this House would have to be fully discussed by this House, and even in the absence of statutory sanction, of course there are opportunities when the House can call in question any action of the Government.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Will there be legislative action?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course legislative action can only take place in the House subject to the discussion of the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is there any precedent for a case of this sort, where a large community, such as lives in the Transvaal, has been incorporated in the British Empire as the result of a war, and then has had representative government given to it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that the mode in which this country became possessed of the Colony is very relevant to the fact of giving it a Constitution. A great many of our Colonies have been obtained by war, and a great many by peaceful occupation; but I do not think either of these considerations is relevant.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Will there not be a Constitution set up in the Transvaal by Act of Parliament as in the case of Western Australia?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If, and when, that happens clearly Parliament will have full power to discuss it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Will there be?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Are the Government not to be allowed to consider that point?
  MR. BRYCE: To clear up the point, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether it is in-
  526
  tended to take action for establishing these representative institutions before the House reassembles next session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no intention, as I understand, of taking any action between this session and next session which requires the legislative sanction of this House.
  DR. MACNAMARA: In the event of this matter being settled by an Order in Council, will operative steps be taken before Parliament has had some voice in the determination of the form of self-government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is impossible at the present stage to say whether it will or will not require an Order in Council. That I cannot state with positive assurance. But certainly we shall not be precluded from proceeding with our policy.
  DR. MACNAMARA: In the event of the matter being capable of settlement by Order in Council and not by legislation, will the Government then contemplate going on with the matter before the House has had the opportunity of discussing it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We shall not consider ourselves precluded from taking such a course.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge?
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Will you not give us a day to discuss the matter?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Questions oil the Paper have been fully answered, and a good many more.
  DR. MACNAMARA: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my second Question on the Paper which was addressed to him.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman answered the two Questions together.
  DR. MACNAMARA: With all respect, No, Sir. I desire to ask him whether he will give a day for the discussion of this

  527
  proposed Motion of the hon. Member for the Handsworth Division before the close of the present session, or before any operative steps are taken in the matter of conferring the proposed form of self-government upon the Transvaal.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought I had answered that Question already. The hon. Gentleman and the House must see clearly that it is perfectly impossible for us to discuss the scheme of the Government until that scheme is settled. It is not settled, and any discussion or any expenditure of time upon it would, in my opinion, be wholly wasteful.

  Factory Act Regulations for Docks.
  MR. RENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to make regulations in regard to the loading, unloading, and discharging of ships in docks or otherwise; and, if so, having regard to the interests that will be affected by such regulations, will he undertake that such regulations shall not be brought into operation until they have lain upon the Table of the House the forty days prescribed by the 84th Section of The Factory Act, 1901; and that the draft regulations, if any, as finally settled by the Home Office, may be available to Members and the public at the earliest date possible.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERSDOUGLAS,): Draft regulations under the Factory Act relating to docks have been the subject of public inquiry since the beginning of the year. I understand that the inquiry is now concluded; and when the Commissioner's Report is in my hands I shall proceed to consider the formal making of the regulations. When made, the regulations will at once be laid before the House, in accordance with the Act, and will be available to all persons interested. In view of the full hearing given by means of the long and careful inquiry to all interests affected by the regulations, I do not feel called upon to postpone the date when the regulations will come into force.
  MR. RENWICK: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that these regulations shall lie on the Table for forty days while the House is sitting?
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I do not think I can undertake that. The draft regulations were issued to those concerned in the first instance, and they sent in what objections they had to the scheme. A Commissioner was appointed, and the whole thing was thrashed out. When the regulations are made they will come into force, but it will be open to any Member to raise any point on these regulations in the House when Parliament reassembles.

  Denbighshire Burial Dispute.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the refusal on 20th May by the Rector of Clocaenog, Denbighshire, of the parish bier for the interment of the fate Mr. John Hughes, a parishioner, under the Burial Law (Amendment) Act, 1880; whether he is aware that difficulties under such circumstances frequently occur with regard to the use of the parish bier; and whether it is the intention of the Government to propose any legislation on the subject.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I had not heard of this matter until the hon. Member drew my attention to it; and I am afraid I must ask him to put the Question to me again a day or two hence, as I have not yet received the answer to inquiries which I have made on the subject.

  Slaughter of Animals.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he intends to legislate, or advise local authorities to act, on the recommendation of the. Departmental Committee which reported that all animals, without exception, must be stunned or otherwise rendered unconscious before blood is drawn.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The Report of the

  529
  Committee referred to by the hon Member has only just been issued, and I have not at present arrived at a decision with regard to the recommendations made in it. The subject, is, however, receiving my consideration.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Will the right, hon. Gentleman kindly bring this matter under the notice of the local authorities, so that they may take any action they may deem desirable?
  MR. WALTER LONG: That is one suggestion I am considering. I shall be very glad if I am able indirectly to do something in that direction.

  Jury Challenging at Cork Assizes.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, in connection with recent proceedings at the Cork Sommer Assizes, in the trials of Michael Barry and Patrick Fitzgerald, is which forty-five and twenty-five jurors respectively were ordered to stand by, whether he can now say on whose authority and upon what information the Crown Solicitor acted in stating that canvassing of jurors was practised before the opening of the trials; and whether the constabulary authorities made any report in regard to the alleged canvassing.
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): In the case of Barry, the Crown Solicitor obtained his information from the police and from one of the Grand Jurors who stated that he was himself canvassed. In the Fitzgerald case, which was a Whiteboy offence, the Crown Solicitor came to the conclusion on which he acted from the fact that a subscription for the defence of the prisoner had been got up and was extensively subscribed to throughout the county, and that before the assizes the principal witness for the prosecution, when on his way to Mass, was publicly hooted at, called an informer and stoned, and also from the reports furnished to him by the police.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to this system of jury challenging Sergeant Sheridan procured the conviction of three innocent men?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it the fact that out of seventy jurors ordered to stand aside at least sixty-five were Catholics?
  MR. ATKINSON: I have no information as to that.

  Irish Lunatic Asylums—Married Assistant Medical Officers.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total number of assistant medical officers of lunatic asylums in Ireland, and of these how many are married.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The total number of assistant medical officers in district asylums is thirty-five. No married men can be appointed to this position. I have no information as to marriages, if any, contracted subsequently to appointment.
  MR. HAYDEN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman obtain the information?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am afraid not.

  Irish Assistant Teachers.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether managers of national schools may henceforward appoint assistant teachers in schools maintaining an average of daily attendance of fifty pupils.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have stated that the provision for effecting a reduction in the average attendance required for an assistant teacher cannot operate until funds have been placed at the disposal of the Commissioners. The revised Development Grant Estimate, to be laid on the Table in the course of a few days, will make provision in this respect, but no action can be taken by the Commissioners to give effect to it until the money has been voted by Parliament.

  King Harman Estate, County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will

  531
  state whether, in the case of the sale of the King Harman (Kenagh), county Langford estate, the Estates Commissioners have decided to take action towards securing the farm of Creagh for the evicted tenant, Mr. Robert Armstrong.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The holding in question is in occupation of another person, who has lodged an agreement for purchase. The case will be considered in the ordinary course by the Commissioners, and I am unable to say, by way of anticipation, what action they may take in respect to it.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentlemen aware that the landlord in this case has lodged a claim against the tenant of £250 for dilapidation and damages?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.

  King Harman Estate—Case of William H. Plant, of Toome.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether any application has been mule by the landlord, Colonel W. H. King Harman, to exclude from the sale of that estate the farm of William H. Piant, of Toome, whose farm is one of the worst on the estate, for which 25 years purchase (which the tenant refused to give) has been demanded; and, if so, what action he proposes to take.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Plant refused to accept the landlord's terms and an application has been made to exclude him from the sale. This application is under consideration by the Commissioners.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Will the tenant be allowed to be legally represented at the hearing of the application?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no know ledge as to that.

  Irish Government—Correspondence Regulations.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Load-Lieutenant of Ireland if all correspondence
  532
  from the heads of departments in the Irish Government is now to be addressed to the Chief Secretary's Office in Dublin; and, if so, if he will state the reasons for this change in the regulations; and if all communications so addressed are opened by the Under-Secretary.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.
  MR. DELANY: Who inspired this Question?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Conveyance of Horses to Cork Show.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution unanimously adopted by the Midleton (county Cork) Rural District Council, protesting against the accommodation provided by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company for the conveyance of horses from Midleton to the recent Cork Show, when valuable horses had to be conveyed in cattle trucks owing to the failure to provide horse boxes; and, if so, whether official communication will be made to the company with a view to secure better arrangements in future.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has supplied me with a newspaper report of the resolution. No representations, however, have been addressed to the Department in the matter, and until this has been done it cannot take action.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: If representations are made, will they be favourably considered?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have said on previous occasions that unnecessary delay is caused by addressing these Questions to me instead of directly to the Department concerned.

  Kerry Evicted Tenants—Payments by Congested Districts Board,
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a letter was addressed by Sir Antony Mac Donnell, dated 31st March 1904 to the hon. Member for East Kerry, who communicated its

  533
  contents to a meeting of the East Kerry Executive of the United Irish League, in which Sir Antony MacDonnell stated that the Congested Districts Board consented to grant as a matter of grace and compassion the sum of £500 to the surviving representatives of two tenants named John Lyne and Patrick Cronin, who had been evicted by the Land Commission for non-payment of their instalments in the year 1890; and, if so, whether he can state out of what fund and under what statute such money had been offered.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. The letter was written by my instruction, given in pursuance of a decision arrived at by the Congested Districts Board. The Board acted under the Act of 1891 and amending Acts, which invest them with all the powers of a landlord.

  Doohoma National School—Alleged III-treatment of Children.
  COLONEL SADNDERSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Patrick Kelleher, principal teacher in the national school at Doohoma, county Mayo, was reported to the school manager, the Rev. Father Dolphin, for ill-treating a schoolboy named Walter Spencer; and, if so, will he say whether the Rev. Father Dolphin forwarded the report to the authorities; and whether, seeing that Patrick Kelleher, before his appointment as teacher at Doohoma, was fined at petty sessions, and also fined by the Commissioners for his treatment of children attending his school, and that a little girl named Margaret Roy has been ill for a considerable time owing to a beating administered by this teacher, an inquiry will be instituted into the conduct of the teacher and immediate steps be taken to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners have no information on the subject but they are in correspondence with the manager of the school. Perhaps my hon. and gallant friend will postpone the Question for a few days.

  Trinity College—Receipts under the Irish Church Act.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-
  534
  tenant of Ireland if he will state what sum was paid to Trinity College. Dublin. as compensation for the Church livings taken in 1869; has this sum been used for the purposes served by the Church livings, namely, to provide pensions on retirement for the fellows, or to provide pensions for the professors or any other officials or for any other, and, if so, what purposes; has the capital sum been increased by accumulation of the interest, if so, what is its present amount; if otherwise, what is the cause of the diminution; whether he is aware that Lord Iveagh has offered a sum for the purposes of providing laboratories and the equipment thereof in a number of the scientific departments, which are in pressing need thereof, on condition that £3,000 per annum is provided for the upkeep of the same; whether, in order to prevent the advantage of this offer being lost to the College, the income of the fund mentioned above can be applied to this purpose.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Report of the Commissioners of Church. Temporalities for the period of 1869 to 1880, which was presented to Parliament in 1881, contains a list of the names of persons to whom payments were made under the Irish Church Act, 1869. I have no further information on the subject, and no information in respect to the other matters mentioned in the Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: This is public money. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is "jobbed"?
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I have no responsibility ia the matter.

  Bennett Estate, King's County.
  MR. DELANY: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Birr Division of King's County, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a tenant nettled James Dooley, the Pass, Kinnity, King's county, estate of F. P. Bennett, whose rent was raised on appeal from £110 7s. 6d., fixed by the Sub - Commission, to £116 7s. 6d., has applied by letter three times to the Land Commission for a copy of the Court assessor's report in his case, and

  535
  has been denied even a reply to his communications; and, if so, whether he will state why this information has been withheld.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A copy of the report was sent to this tenant on Tuesday last.

  King's County Appeals.
  MR. DELANY: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Birr Division of King's County, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the appeal cases from King's county, heard in Dublin on the 28th April, and in which judgment was delivered on the 21st June, the Land Commission raised all the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners; and, if so, can he state on what basis those increases were made.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Land Commission Court decides judicially in each case after hearing the evidence of the parties, upon consideration of the report of the valuers, and of all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district.
  MR. DELANY: May I ask if the wholesale raising of rent is one of the results of the retirement of Mr. Murrough O'Brien?

  The Drainage of the Barrow.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution passed at a meeting of the Triogue River Drainage Board, pointing out the necessity of cleaning up and sinking the River Barrow; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that this board has spent £1,750, repayable solely from local sources, which outlay will become unproductive if the condition of the River Barrow is not improved, he will state what steps he proposes taking in this matter.
  MR. DELANY: I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to communications made to the Board of Works, relative to the formation of local drainage boards, for the purpose of draining the
  536
  River Barrow in sections between Athy and Mountmellick; and as the owners and occupiers of the lands affected are prepared to tax themselves, whether he will state what aid the Government is prepared to give, in view of the fact that the Royal Commission, 1887, recommended a substantial free Treasury grant to be made for the purpose of carrying out these works.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer the two Questions together. I have seen the resolution referred to; and other communications have been received by the Board of Works from various persons making proposals for partial drainage schemes. Any persons prepared to proceed with such schemes under the Arterial Drainage Acts can do so without the assistance of Government. The Royal Commission in 1887 recommended a comprehensive scheme to cost £354,000, of which £75,000 would be contributed by Government. The Bill introduced by the Government in 1888 to give effect to this recommendation was not passed, and I can hold out no hope of a free contribution to partial schemes, the success of which cannot be guaranteed.

  Ireland's Contribution to the British Exchequer.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can say how the figures of the adjusted revenue, giving the true contribution of Ireland as compared with the collected revenue, are arrived at by the Treasury authorities; and, seeing that the contribution of Ireland in respect of tea duty for 1903–4, if calculated on the same basis as in former years, would have been £919,000, he can explain how the last Customs Return of the tea duty, under the head of adjusted revenue, gives the amount at the figure of £672,000.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)I explained the nature of the recent inquiries in some detail in answer to the hon. Member for North Dublin on the 21st of July†.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxviii., 771

  537
  Returns were obtained from the companies engaged in the shipping trade between Great Britain and Ireland of the amounts of sugar, tea, and wine interchanged between the two countries during the financial year 1903–4. On the basis of these returns the figures of revenue collected in Great Britain and Ireland on those articles during the financial year were adjusted so as to allow for the amounts of duty paid in one division of the United Kingdom on an article consumed in the other. In the case of tea the inquiries went to show that, although the amount of duty collected in Ireland was only £340,000, the duty paid upon tea consumed in Ireland was £672,000, and Ireland is accordingly credited with that increased contribution in the published Return. In the Financial Relations Returns for previous years similar adjustments have been made on the basis of inquiries carried out in 1890–91. But the inquiries in that year extended only over four months, while those of 1903–4 covered the whole financial year. I think there can be no doubt that the figure of £672,000 arrived at by the recent inquiry is much more trustworthy than the figure of £919,000 which the old computation would have given.
  MR. FLYNN: But, in view of the fact that Ireland is an island, cannot the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of removing her trade from the category of mere coasting trade, so that we may have proper Return?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared to propose the establishment of a separate system of Customs for her trade as against the trade of this country.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Ireland had her own system prior to 1823?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Interference with British Shipping—The "Knight Commander."
  MR. HOULT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware that the British Minister at Tokio has instituted an inquiry into
  538
  the circumstances attending the sinking of the British steamer "Knight Commander," and whether he has sanctioned this inquiry; and, if so, whether he will cause instructions to he given to British representatives abroad, in all cases of seizure or interference with British shipping, to hold an inquiry forthwith and furnish His Majesty's Government with all the information obtainable.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Minister at Tokio was instructed on the 25th ultimo to make full inquiries into the case of the "Knight Commander." As to the second part of the Question, I think it is clear that a general roving commission to all His Majesty's representatives to make inquiries is not required. We shall carefully watch events and do our best to make ourselves fully quainted with all cases of hardship.

  Army Reorganisation—Parliamentary Discussion.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Fist Lord of the Treasury in what manner, and when, it is proposed to obtain the approval of Parliament to the proposals of the Secretary of State for War for the division of the Army into a home-service Army and a foreign-service Army, and for the separation of the Volunteers into a first class on a large grant, and a second class on a reduced grant, and the reduction of the numbers by one-fourth; and if, having regard to the fact that the Estimates for the current year have for the most part been voted, he can give an assurance that no such change shall be made by Warrant or otherwise without full discussion in the House of Commons, and specific approval by Resolution or statute.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean†, who put an unstarred Question closely bearing upon this point, I observed that the Estimate for the War Office, if agreed to, seems to afford an adequate basis for any change not requiring, legislation which may be announced as in contemplation.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the debate will be taken?
  † See page 254
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Next Monday.

  The Judge Advocate-General.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, by whom at present is the office of Judge Advocate - General filled, and who is the Minister of the Crown responsible for the advice tendered to the Crown with reference to the administration of military law; and whether, having regard to the various questions of difficulty and complication which have arisen with reference to the military and civil status of Lord Dundonald, and the absence of a responsible Minister from either House of Parliament to explain that status and describe the points of difference between military and common law, the office of Judge Advocate-General will be restored to its former position of a Parliamentary office held by a Minister of the Crown responsible for advice on matters of military law to Parliament.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon Gentleman is aware that this office is now filled by Sir Francis Jenne. The Government do not contemplate going back to the originally and, I think, almost universally condemned system [Cries of "No"]—well, largely condemned system by which the Judge Advocate-General was a Minister of the Crown. We prefer the present practice, which was adopted after considerable deliberation.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Who is the Minister of the Crown responsible to this House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Minister responsible for dealing with these matters is the Secretary for War.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Who knows nothing whatever about them.

  Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, seeing that the Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill has been brought forward by the Government four years in succession, will he state whether he proposes to proceed with it this session; and, if so, when.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait for my statement.

  Whitstable Education Foundation.
  MR. SLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the action of the Board of Education and the Charity Commission in co-operating to set aside The Education Act, 1902, by an ex post facto scheme under the Charitable Trusts Act in connection with the Whitstable Education Foundation; whether he is aware that it is proposed to take an undenominational endowment for teachers' salaries and divert it for thirty years to the rebuilding or enlargement of premises appropriated to a Church of England school; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Kent County Council and the Urban District Council of Whitstable both have protested strongly against the scheme, will he give an opportunity, on the Civil Service Estimates or otherwise, for the House to consider the conduct of the two public Departments implicated; and will he use his influence with them to secure that the scheme, shall not be sealed until such discussion shall have taken place.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that this endowment has been the subject of three or four Questions in this House during the last two months. I am also informed that the endowment cannot fairly be called undenominational, nor has its character in this respect been altered by the Charity Commissioners of the Board of Education. The Kent County Council approved the plans submitted to them by the trustees before the publication of the scheme. The scheme was sent to the Whitstable Urban District Council when published on April 29th, and no objection was made to it. It was sealed on July 8th. Since then the council has protested, but the scheme having been sealed it is not in the power of the Charity Commissioners to deal with it except on the application of the trustees. The matter is now one for the Chancery Division of the High Court, to whom the council can appeal.

  Post Office Sites Bill—Question of Order.
  MR. WHITLEYasked the Speaker a Question as to the Orders of the Day. No. 7 of the Orders referred to a proposal to recommit the Post Office Sites Bill, which had already passed through Committee, and Order 43 dealt

  541
  with a Committee Resolution with regard to the same Bill. He understood on a previous occasion it was necessary to have a Resolution of the House before the Committee upstairs could proceed to consider the Bill, inasmuch as it involved expenditure.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better wait until the Order is called on.
  THE POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The circumstances are these. We found that a money Resolution was not necessary if I put the purchase-money for the various sites on next year's Votes, when I shall be in a position to give the full details of the prices I ask the House to pay for the sites. That course it is proposed to take.
  MR. WHITLEY: But I am raising a much more serious point than that.
  *MR. SPEAKER: This is not the time to raise it.
  MR. WHITNEY: Very well, Sir, I will raise it when the Bill is taken.

  FOREIGN SHIPS (APPLICATION OF STATUT0RY POWERS) BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Minutes of Evidence [Inquiry not completed].
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 299.]

  DEAN FOREST BILL.
  Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  COUNTY COURTS BILL [LOARDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 291.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS)—SUSPENSION OF THE TWELVE O'CLOCK RILE.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I rise to Move, "That, for the remainder of the
542
session, Government business be not interrupted, except at half-past seven of the clock at an afternoon sitting, under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; and that at the conclusion of Government business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put." I have a very modest and uninteresting statement to make in defence of the Resolution. The Resolution is brought forward at a considerably later period than has been customary in my Parliamentary experience. I do not wish to deal with matters in a controversial spirit, and I am not going to review the general course of the session. I will only remind hon. Members that in this session, and in this session alone We have gone from beginning to end of it without interfering with the rights of private Members. It is quite true, of course, that these rights were largely curtailed by the alteration of the rules in a previous session, but I think it will be admitted that private Members now know where they are, and that the privileges they have are far greater then they formerly possessed. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] That is a matter to he dealt with, not by jeering, but by simple arithmetic. Let hon. Gem lemon look at the records to previous years and they will find that Government after Government have taken away the time of private Members. Hon. Members may prefer a nominal right which they never had to the real right they are allowed to exercise. I can only point out that before Easter they had two evenings secured to them every week, and one evening weekly between Easter and Whitsuntide, besides the Fridays which were given up to Private Bill legislation. That has never happened before in my memory, or in the memory of anyone whose recollection extends back twenty years, and I think it is a matter for congratulation.
There is still—although I hope this session is rapidly nearing its end—a certain amount of public business which must be got through. There are certain administrative Bills that have to be passed in ordern that the work of the country may be carried on—Bills which are necessary for the ordinary administration of public affairs.

543
Among those Bills I would mention one to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the necessary borrowings in order to carry on public works already sanctioned, and to complete operations which the contractors have already begun. There is also the Cunard agreement, the principle of which has been discussed in a previous session and the substance agreed to, and which only requires the House to carry out its public obligations. There is another Bill which I do not think will raise any opposition on either side—the Wireless Telegraphy Bill. It is in charge of the Post Office, but the most important part of its substance deals with an important problem of national defence. Supposing we were—which Heaven forbid—involved in any foreign difficulty, it might be a serious matter if we lacked control over wireless telegraphy in this country. I hope I may count on the House in helping us to pass a measure that really is, I think, of great importance to national interests. Then there is the Irish Development Giant, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Public Works (Loans) Bill, the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, which have to be annually passed, and the Post Office Sites Bill, which ought to be dealt with without difficulty. I have been somewhat alarmed by the point raised by the hon. Member for Halifax, but I hope he will not stand in the way of this Bill becoming law.
MR. WHITLEY: It is a constitutional question.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not aware that the Bill raised constitutional points of magnitude. Then there is a small local Bill which the Local Government Board desire to pass—the Poor Law Authorities Bill—which deals with the amalgamation of two parishes. It is purely local in its character, although technically it is a general Bill. I hope I may add to the list the Southwark and Birmingham Bishoprics Bill, which ought to be regarded as in the nature of an administrative measure. I come now to measures which involve policy. There is the Defaulting Authorities Bill—a small Bill embodied in a single clause.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: A singular clause.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It has, of course, controversial points, but it is not inaptly described as a small Bill. There, is also in this category the Shop Hours Bill and the Anglo-French Agreement, on all of which I understand there is general agreement. There is a small Indian Council's Bill, to enable the Viceroy to add to the number of members of the India Council, That is the only way to meet the burdens of administrative duties, which in India, as in other countries, tend to increase. We are extremely desirous it should pass, lest the health of our public servants should break down. Then there is the Irish Land Bill, and a small Public Health Bill which is necessary to enable us to carry out treaty obligations in connection with sanitary matters. That exhausts the Bills that must be dealt with before the end of the session. I now come to the Bills which I think should be at once dropped. We propose to drop the Port of London Bill, the Aliens Bill, the Valuation Bill, the Butter Bill, the Fisheries Bill, the Penal Servitude Bill, the Lunacy Bill, and the Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill.
*MR. WEIR: Oh!
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gather whence that cry emanated, perhaps in another year the hon. Member will help us to pass the Bill.
*MR. WEIR: It has been waiting for four years.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is a Naval Prize Bill—a Bill which ought to be on the Statute-book, but I am afraid there is little chance of passing it during the present session—the Barracks Sites Bill, Solicitors Bill, Police (Superannuation) Bill, Duke of York's School Bill, Married Women's Property Bill, Prisons (Scotland) Bill, Charitable Loans (Ireland) Bill, and the Crown Lands Bill. I am told by the Secretary for Scotland that the Prisons (Scotland) Bill may be allowed to pass unopposed, and I shall, therefore, be delighted to transfer it from the condemned list to the one which is to receive, I hope, more fortunate treatment. There is the Local Authorities (Treasury Powers) Bill, which would, I

545
fear, take up more time than the House has at its disposal. There remains the Scottish Education Bill. That Bill has caused me a deal of anxiety. I had hoped at one time that it was a Bill which was not only in its main principles satisfactory to the people of Scotland, and to the Members representing that country on both sides, but that in its details it would not excite any prolonged discussion in the House. The discussions we have had upon it were interrupted on one or two occasions by an adjournment Motion or some other device familiar to Members, and therefore my hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland has not had all the chances ho hoped for in dealing with the measure. We have now got to a period of the session in which, if there be any discussion required on the Bill, it seems to be impossible either to find the time in this House or to give in another place the opportunity of discussing a measure which seems to be peculiarly within its functions to deal with at a convenient season. I have made it my business to find out whether the treatment of the Bill will be of a smaller volume and take less time. I regret to say that all the omens are unfavourable, and I do not think it possible for us to proceed with the Bill this session. I have however, taken to heart the commentary made on the conduct of business in respect of that Bill by the right, hon. Gentleman opposite at an earlier period of the session. The Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for East Fife, I think, complained that this Bill had not been sent to a Grand Committee instead of the Aliens Bill. It is probably indubitable that we can early next session deal with the subject in detail, and I shall then propose that it be referred to a Grand Committee. Experience shows that when a subject is threshed out in Grand Committee it takes less time on Report. Though, to my regret, I see no hope of proceeding with the Bill this session, I trust that without any long delay its successor in title may be made the law of the land. That completes the list of the Bills we propose to drop. In this list of Bills there are certain measures that we had hoped to pass, but we frankly acknowledge that they cannot be passed unless we have authentic reason
546
to know that they will not excite discussion.
Then there are Bills which we hope to pass as uncontroversial. These are the the Alkali, etc., Works Bill and the False Statements (Companies) Bill. The last-named is demanded, but if it requires discussion it must be postponed. There is also the Light Railways Bill. The War Office are anxious to have a Bill dealing with some points in the constitution of the Army Council, but there are the Seamen's and Soldiers' False Characters Bill, the Naval and Military Medals Bill, and the Reserve Forces Bill, about which the Secretary of State for War may be able to give more information than I have. Next there comes the Dogs Bill. I have received a hint by one of those subtle connections between Bills dealing with apparently different subjects that the feeling aroused by the Dogs Bill has some indirect reference to the Butter Bill. I do not know whether that is so, but if it be so, it is possible, now that the Butter Bill is condemned, that the dogs may receive more favour at our hands.
MR. FLAVIN: Give us the Butter Bill and drop the Dogs.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Another Bill is the County Courts Bill, in the progress of which my hon. friend the Member for South Islington takes an interest. There was a private Bill last year dealing with County Courts. It was not a Government Bill in its original shape. I do not know that it received much favour from the Law Officers of the Crown. It went to another place, and was there amended, hut without a subsidiary Bill it was, in the opinion of those competent to judge, not a really workable measure. The date upon which it should come into operation was postponed until January, 1905. It is not convenient to have another Act coming into operation shorn of some of the provisions necessary to make it a workable measure. But if it cannot be passed without any expenditure of time I shall not press it on the House. I do not know whether the Secretary for Scotland is sanguine about the Reformatory and Industrial Schools (Scotland)

547
Bill; but that, again, may probably receive the approval of the Scotch Members and without commentary it can pass. It remains now to deal with whales. I do not mean the portion of the United Kingdom, but the inhabitants of the deep—w-h-a-l-e-s. I understand that there is a Scotch Bill which has been passed in the Lords dealing with these interesting denizens of the deep, and I am told that it is uncontroversial and accepted by every one. I am not competent to explain its provisions, but it belongs to that class which by consent may pass, but without consent cannot pass. This, then, is the analysis of the contents of the obligatory list, and the House will feel that the time is quite adequate to deal with it without serious inconvenience and without throwing any undue burden on the patience of hon. Members. Its fulfilment does not rest wholly with the Government, but I do not see why we should not adjourn at the end of next week or shortly afterwards. I hope that the Supplementary Estimates will be taken to-day.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: What about the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill.
MR. FLAVIN: It died long ago.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary (Ireland) Bill is not one which I have down on my list, but I will endeavour to make myself acquainted with its position.
MR. BUCHANAN: Are there any Army or Navy Supplementary Estimates?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That, for the remainder of the session, Government Business be not interrupted, except at half-past Seven of the clock at an Afternoon Sitting, under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; and that at the conclusion of Government Business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put."—(Mr. A J. Balfour.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I have seldom listened to a statement of this kind less sensational in its character than that just made by the right, hon. Gentleman. He has accepted the situation, but still I think he was permeated by the sanguine spirit which always prevades Ministers in charge of Bills, because the list of so-called small Bills for the most part of an unknown kind, which the right hon. Gentleman thinks not beyond hope, is rather greater than it is possible to fulfil. I will venture to supplement the list which the right hon. Gentleman has read by reading a list of the Bills promised in the King's Speech. There was the Aliens Bill. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] Apparently hon. Members wish something to be said about that, and I will say it. It was a perfectly impracticable and hopeless measure. It practically put into the power of a Customs-house officer, and made it part of his duty, to tell who was respectable and who was not, who was likely to be prosperous and who was not, among all the promiscuous people landed from a ship. That was in itself enough to condemn the measure apart from the higher principles with which it dealt. The Government refused to give effect to the one provision which would have been open to no objection, and which would have a real effect in deterring the landing or in expelling undesirable characters who refuse to go. The next Bill was the Licensing Bill. That has gone to another place with all its sins and merits on its head. Let us say no more of it just now. The Valuation Bill has been much criticised and it now disappears. There is the Education (Scotland) Bill, and I regret that the House has not succeeded in passing it this year. But it was an unusually complicated and elaborate measure, and it was made more complicated when, in obedience to the suggestion of an hon. Member opposite the Government raised the thorny question of rating. That was a controversial question, the introduction of which almost brought the seeds of death with it. The right hon. Gentleman has attributed to me a preference for procedure by Grand Committee. I do not know that I ever said so, but I do say that if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he would satisfy the people of Scotland or the
549
Opposition by bringing in a Bill of this kind next year, and by sending it to an ordinary Grand Committee, he is entirely mistaken. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have great faith in his own countrymen, if then are left to themselves. But what alone would be satisfactory in regard to the reintroduction of the Scottish Education Bill would be either its full discussion in Committee of the Whole House, or its reference to a Committee almost entirely composed of Scottish Members, who would not be liable to be overruled by the votes of English, Welsh, and Irish Members. I have thought it right to say that in order to guard myself against the suggestion that I should approve the reference of the Bill another year to a mere Grand Committee. The Irish Labourers Bill is gone; the Workmen's Compensation Bill has not been introduced; the Public Health Bill is a very small measure; the Naval Prize Bill is gone with the Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill and the Sea Fisheries Bill; though the Shop Hours Bill seems to be in a hopeful condition. There remains one measure among those mentioned in the King's Speech of which nothing has been heard—the Re-election of Ministers Bill. Probably that re-election has become more doubtful than it was at the beginning of the session. I do not wonder at it. Election without the "re" seems to have no attraction for the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is under a slight mistake. That Bill did not apply to this Parliament at all.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In that case the benefit is to be postponed to the dim and distant period to which the fiscal question has been relegated. Of Bills not included in the King's Speech then are the Defaulting Education Authorities Bill, the Dogs Bill, the Penal Servitude Bill, and the Police Superannuation Bill. There is another small but at this time of the year dangerous category of Bills—namely, those dropped down suddenly not from heaven but from the Lords. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will assure the House that no controversial Bill will be sprung on the
550
House from that direction. There is not much criticism to pass on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which frankly accepts the situation. It is evident that, except for the Licensing Bill, this has been a most unfruitful session. So far as the Government are responsible for the general conduct of business, they cannot regard the future of their Bills as affording any satisfaction or credit to them: but they have the credit at least of accepting the accomplished fact, and of not attempting to force on against the obvious feeling of the House measures which would have no real chance of passing.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the right hon. Gentleman took credit to himself at the beginning of his speech for not having suspended the Twelve O'clock Rule earlier in the session, but the reason that the general suspension of the Twelve O'clock Rule had been postponed so long was only because the Finance Bill, which had occupied so much of the recent time of the House, was exempt from the operation of the Rule. It was practically suspended on the Licensing Bill under the closure Resolution. The House wss now asked to sit late to pass a large number of unusually controversial Bills. The Defaulting Authorities Bill would undoubtedly cause a struggle, and that was put down for Friday's sitting, of which the termination might be Monday. The Wireless Telegraphy Bill would require long discussion, and the County Courts Bill was far from non-controversial. Its effect was to repeal to a large extent the Act of last year, which extended the jurisdiction of the County court judes over the whole country. He believed that the only objection to it arose from a feeling on the part of some of the Judges that their salaries ought to be increased on account of the additional work that would be east upon them. He certainly could not see any objection to the Bill coming into operation on 1st January next, for he believed it would work perfectly well, and the difficulty as to salaries could be provided for in the Estimates. One remarkable fact was that the session had been entirely barren of Labour legislation; for the Shop Hours Bill did not carry out the Resolution of

551
the House passed last year. It had become, in fact, a Shopkeepers Bill and not a Labour Bill. He agreed that the Aliens Bill was an utterly impracticable measure. Some hon. Members on the Conservative side imagined that it was urgently desired by the working classes, but in that they were very much mistaken. The working classes in these matters listened to the advice of two sets of men who were intellectually their leaders—Socialists of various types ranging from the extreme to the moderate, and the old trades unionists—and both those classes were entirely opposed to the Bill. Then there was the question of the Amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It had been suggested that delay in dealing with that matter was due to an inquiry which had been held and to the recent receipt of certain reports from County Court Judges and others. All he could say was that there was no excuse for the delay; the inquiry could have been held years since and the reports were asked for three or four years ago. The Bill, in fact, ought to have been introduced last year.
The Government had wasted a great deal of time this session by introducing and pottering over Bills for a day or two and then deciding not to proceed with them. When they heard that the Scotch Education Bill was to be dropped they remembered that the Scotch Members failed to attend the Ascot race meeting, at which they were no doubt all anxious to be present, in order that progress might be made with that measure. There were about a dozen smaller Bills which had been introduced, and over which a certain amount of time had been wasted. The Penal Servitude Bill was only one of them. Another Bill, which he thought was to be the principal Bill of the session, was the Irish Labourers Bill. Last year in the discussions on the Irish Land Bill that measure was promised to the Irish Members in terms so strong that it seemed to him that it was to be made the principal measure of the session. At the beginning of the session he was somewhat astonished it did not occupy that position. It was the fifth in the King's Speech, and it had been abandoned without any serious attempt to pass it through the House. It was undoubtedly a fact
552
that Bills which might have passed through the Standing Committees had not been sent to them, and that Bills had been sent to them—such as the Aliens Bill—which ought not to have been sent. These Bills had been allowed to wreck, or rather to jeopardise, the very institution of the Standing Committees, because whenever Bills of the wrong kind were sent to the Standing Committees the effect was a breakdown of the Standing Committee system. It seemed to him also that there had been a great waste of time during the present session in connection with Bills which were introduced year after year. Some of them had figured on the programme for four years. These Bills tended to clog the Order Paper, and were used for preventing other measures from being carried through. The Bishopric of Southwark Bill and the Bishopric of Bristol Bill were measures from last year on which a certain amount of time had been wasted by the House, but there had been no really serious attempt to proceed with them. They were only allowed to stand in one another's way and to waste time. There had been no serious attempt to proceed with the Port of London Bill, and they ought not to have wasted time upon it last year and this.
The moral to be drawn was that it was useless for Members of the House to press for additional Ministries—for example, to divide the Board of Trade into a Ministry of Commerce and a Ministry of Labour—if the Bills produced by the Departments were to be allowed to jostle one another without any intelligible scheme on which they should be proceeded with. The outstanding Supply was likely to keep them up after twelve o'clock on those nights, because Supply had been allowed to fall in to arrear in respect of important Departments which must be discussed. Time had been wasted day after day in the early part of the session, and some of the Supply days had been allowed to finish improperly about seven o'clock. Some of the Votes included in Class I. were discussed year after year, and the time which had been not very usefully devoted to them prevented the consideration of other Votes which were really important and ought to have been discussed. They had spent this

553
year a good many days on Army Supply, but these days were substantially wasted because the Government bad not then put forward their Army scheme. Now they had to discuss the really important points of the Army scheme at a period of the session when they had not time to discuss them adequately. They had not this session had proper time for the discussion of the Labour Votes. The Clothing Vote was one in connection with which there had been gross scandals. Promises had been made in this House to Members who took part in former debates, and these promises had not been carried out. Many in this House ought to have been allowed to express their opinion on it. Now the Prime Minister stated that there would be no further War Office Supplementary Estimate, although within the past few days they were told that there would be a Supplementary Estimate for the expense of the war in Somaliland. He confessed he could not understand the discrepancy in the two statements. That was a matter that must be probed by the House. The moral they had to derive from that was that there was no proper arrangement of the business of the House. There was an immense waste of time in the early part of the session in Supply, and in other ways, due to no fault of the House itself. There were many matters which had not been brought before the House up to the present time. They were matters which hon. Members desired to discuss, but they would not now have the opportunity of doing so because valuable time had been wasted early in the session.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he wished to join in the general complaint made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet that Supply had not been managed in such a way as to enable the House to raise the various questions of policy which ought to have been raised. There were still fourteen Reports of Supply remaining to be considered. He was afraid that arose from attempting to rescue these Reports of Supply from consideration after twelve o'clock. With regard to the general question of Supply,
554
he must say that he regretted that the Government had not found themselves able to entertain the recommendation that an Estimates Committee should be formed and that a day should be allocated for the reception of the Public Accounts Committee. A question of peculiar gravity was raised by the Motion now before the House. The Motion said "That, for the remainder of the session, Government business be not interrupted except at half-past seven of the clock at an afternoon sitting, under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House." He did not object to that portion of it, but he thought it was really unfair to ask the House to agree to this sentence, "and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; and that at the conclusion of Government business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put." He thought the Government should not pass that part of the Motion, because under it extremely important business might be entered upon after twelve o'clock in circumstances when it ought not to be taken up. His right hon. friend, with charming cynicism or forgetfulness, was pleased to say that private Members were never so well off. When he himself came into the House they had three-fifths of the time, and the Bills and Motions they brought forward were excellently debated. Now private Members had barely one-tenth of the whole time of the House.
An important piece of business which might come on after twelve o'clock was a Motion to be proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which would eventuate no doubt in the giving of borrowing powers. That was a very serious matter. For something like twenty years, or more, whenever the Government wanted a million or two, they had recourse to the Savings Banks. But that source of supply had now, for the first time, failed. That was a very grave fact, and the consideration of it ought not to begin after one o'clock. Then taking the Cunard agreement, which was entered. into in September, 1902. From that day, it had not been put before the House till the very last day of the session lest year, when there were only ninety-two supporters of the Government present. He did not think it was creditable that

555
an agreement involving the expenditure of seven millions of money should have been put forward for ratification, and did receive ratification, on the last day of the session. He should oppose a Motion to finance the Cunard Company to the extent of £6,900,000 with all the energy of which lie was capable. As to wireless telegraphy, that was a subject of very great importance. It raised very nice and complicated questions, and was not a subject which ought to be raised after one o'clock in the morning. Then he came to the Anglo-French Convention. That raised very important matters indeed, especially under present circumstances. Had the House forgotten that the French Assembly had refused to ratify the Convention until the Autumn? That subject ought not to be entered upon after one o'clock in the morning. He congratulated his right hon. friend in having postponed the Undersized Fish Bill, and he hoped that the Whales Bill had no connection with it. Then there was the question of Naval Prizes—which was most important. So far as it went it was highly desirable to do what it purported to do, and he was in favour of it; but it would be necessary to discuss the question whether the provisions of the Bill should not be extended so as to deal with Military booty. These were all questions the discussion of which ought not to be begun after one o'clock in the morning. It seemed to him that, with these exceptions, the Resolution of the Government was a perfectly proper one, and one which he hoped the House would pass.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn had, for once in a way, made his forecast rightly. Almost all these Bills would come on after twelve o'clock, and most of them after one o'clock in the morning. If Thursday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday were to be occupied with Supply, and no other business could be taken until after twelve o'clock, there was a fundamental objection to closing the business of the session at the time proposed. There was a claim, therefore, for extending the session by an additional three days. Tuesday and Wednesday would, be two guillotine nights, and the whole of these Bills would have to be taken after twelve o'clock, and many of them at a mach later hour. He joined with his
556
hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn in his protest against that. He appealed to the Prime Minister whether the right hon. Gentleman could not make arrangements by which the discussion on these Bills, which were of great importance, involving great questions of policy, could not be begun at an earlier hour. There was the Bill to be introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, providing for a new method for borrowing money under the Naval and Military Works Acts. That was a Bill of the highest importance, of which they knew nothing, but which in all probability would have to he discussed after twelve o'clock. He did not think that was a fair way of treating the important questions involved in these Bills. Then, there were other Bills which had not yet been introduced, or any rate had not come before the House. There was one in connection with the Army Council which involved very considerable alterations in the law, and very considerable constitutional questions indeed. He put it to the Prime Minister, was it not perfectly clear that no final conclusion could be arrived at as to the alterations and amendments in our Army system laid before them at this late period of the session by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, and whether it would not be wiser to postpone this Bill and other Departmental Bills connected with the War Office till another opportunity.
He would like to press the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the Somaliland Supplementary Estimates. The Prime Minister told the House a few days ago that these Supplementary Estimates were going to be presented; but the only Estimates were in regard to half-a-dozen Civil Service Votes, and not one in regard to the Military expenditure in Somaliland. How did the Government propose to meet the expenditure which had been incurred in Somaliland, and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House would have to be met in the course of the present financial year? Or was it an oversight that the Prime Minister took no notice of that in the course of his speech? Then there were the Bills relating to Scotland. He thought the Prime Minister had taken the only course in regard to the Scotch

557
Education Bill. It was a Bill which needed discussion. He believed that if there had been an opportunity for its being fully discussed, it would have passed, and would have given general satisfaction to Scotland. If he might say so, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland had, in his desire to conciliate opposition, very considerably improved the Bill; and he had not the slightest doubt that if the Bill were introduced again they would have a better Bill than that now before the House, and one which would be still more satisfactory to the people of Scotland after full consideration had been given to it in the country during the recess. Then if only ten minutes were devoted to the Prisons Bill and the Reform stories Bill they could easily be passed. There was one branch of the policy of the present Government of which he had always approved, viz., that relating to dogs. There was a Bill relating to sheep-worrying, for the discussion of which he earnestly hoped some time would be found so as to enable the Government to pass it into law.
He wanted to say one or two words on the subject of the opportunities which private Members had for the discussion of grievances. The Prime Minister took credit to himself that the rights of private Members had never been infringed upon in the present Parliament. He believed, with the hon. Member for King's Lynn, that these rights were now of an extremely limited character. Still they gave to private Members some limited opportunity of raising questions of general and provincial importance, in which large sections of the community were vitally interested. The Prime Minister showed himself somewhat blind to the fact that that was, after all, one of the most important duties of the House of Commons: that it should constitute the means by which the representatives of the constituencies should have ample opportunity for bringing before the House and the public a free discussion of subjects which were vitally interesting to their constituents, and which might be coming on for legislation, though they had not yet arrived at that point. That time had been largely reduced. There was another way in which the rights of
558
private Members had been limited, and that was by the new and increasing practice of blocking Motions. That prevented private Members discussing subjects of vast importance, and particularly of sudden importance. The Prime Minister had shown himself anything but adverse to such a practice.
There was another practice in regard to Supply which was alluded to by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. He did not think that the right hon. Baronet had put the matter strongly enough in referring to what they had been doing this session with the allotted days for Supply in the course of the discussions on the Army Estimates an the early part of the session. He did not agree with the right hon. Baronet when he said that these days had been wasted in the sense the right hon. Baronet implied. Then as to the apportionment of the time of the allotted days for which the Leader of the House was alone responsible, they had had eighteen allotted days, but only on four was the House enabled to discuss Supply at the afternoon and evening sittings. On three occasions the adjournment of the House was moved at half-past seven by the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, which deprived the House of the opportunity of discussing important matters at the evening sittings. On one occasion, the attendance was scant; but it was the duty of the Government to keep a House on these occasions; and they should not have informal and secret arrangements which were not stated openly to the House. Even from their own point of view, the bargain was a bad one for the Government, as only on one occasion did they get the required number of Votes. On eleven other nights, the House did not enjoy the complete time because contentious private Bills were put down; and on five or six occasions all the evening sitting was taken up in private business. Private Bills were put down on the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, who, no doubt, exercised his authority in accordance with the Standing Orders; but there was nothing in the Standing Orders directing the Chairman of Ways and Means to put down private Bills on allotted days. He thought that the Leader of the House,

559
who was responsible for the proper conduct of business, and the adequate discussion of Supply, ought to take some notice of the fact that contentious private Bills were almost exclusively put down on allotted days. He thought the Government should share the burden of private Bill legislation with the rest of the House; and contentious private Bills should be discussed on Government days as well as on allotted days. He thought it right to lay these facts before the House; and he hoped that in future sessions they would have a better opportunity of discharging one of their primary and essential duties, namely, the proper discussion of Supply.
*SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he should like to express to the President of the Local Government Board the regret of the municipal authorities that the Valuation Bill was included in the list of Bills to be withdrawn. A proper system of valuation was the very pivot on which good local administration rested; and, with the exception of London, the position of which was exceptional, he was quite satisfied that the country generally was in favour of the principle of the Bill, namely, one central authority with good and adequately represented district authorities to secure adequate local information and representation. After the question had been discussed for fifty years, and after it had been reported on by a Royal Commission, he hoped that at no distant date the Bill would be proceeded with. Objection bad been taken to the surveyor of taxes as representing the Crown; but that had worked well in practice, and it would enable Government property to be properly assessed. As a London Member he expressed regret at the withdrawal of the Port of London Bill,which was urgently required in the interests of the Port of London. It was supported by the great body of commercial opinion, and was opposed chiefly by the Members for the City of London. He appealed to the Prime Minister to regard the withdrawal of the Bill as provisional; and he hoped that a Motion would be passed carrying the Bill over to next session as he himself suggested, and as was done last session. He rose chiefly to refer to the County Courts Bill. He did
560
not think that the Prime Minister had quite accurately represented the ground on which words were inserted in last year's Act postponing its operation for one year. That was consented to not because the Bill was not workable; but in order to enable those who said it was; not workable to have an opportunity of finding out in what way it was unworkable, and to provide a remedy. Those who supported the Bill never admitted that there was any obstacle whatever in carrying out the clause which provided for an increase in the jurisdiction of all County Courts up to £100, the only clause in the Bill as introduced. This year's Bill, however, instead of suggesting administrative and financial provisions and facilities, as promised, actually repealed the Act of last year, and then gave to only some of the County Courts increased jurisdiction, such Courts to be selected by the Lord Chancellor and not being named in the Bill. The Bill would encourage actions in the High Court by also omitting the reference made in the Act of last session to Clause 116 of the County Courts Act, thus removing the sanction of risk of costs. He quite agreed that there were some additional reforms which might well be effected.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman will not be in order in discussing the County Courts Bill.
*SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he would not discuss the matter further; but the responsbility for the rejection of the Bill rested with those who introduced it at such a late period of the session. He would, however, be very pleased to confer with the Attorney-General as to how the Bill might be amended; but he certainly could not agree to it as it stood or to the repeal of the Act of last session; and in fact most of what was proposed could be effected by rules and resolutions and increased remuneration to judges, according to their work, after experience, and upon the Estimates. The Shops Bill would not meet with universal assent, as many thought it did not go far enough, while others thought it would operate against the small trader especially those not employing assistants, who had work enough to live on. He would support the Resolution, although he thought the

561
measures had been withdrawn which might have been passed, and that measures were to be passed which might have been withdrawn.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister there were fourteen Bills that must be carried, and he would like the House to consider the time allowed for this programme. This week the right hon. Gentleman only had two-thirds of a day, Friday, for legislation; next week he would not have a single day. With the Indian Budget and Supply there would not be a single day for legislation next week until after twelve o'clock. All of those Bills, important Bills, would have to be passed after twelve o'clock or the House would be thrown into the third week in August, when everybody would be thoroughly tired and exhausted except those who were opposing the measures. And the animus of some of the Opposition towards some of these measures would ecp the House sitting for some time. Under those conditions it was rather important to consider those Bills which the right hon. Gentleman had dropped, and contrast them with those he was going to proceed with. The right hon. Gentleman was going to drop the Port of London Bill, a Bill undoubtedly important for the commerce of the greatest port in the Empire, the greatest port in the world. The mere fact that the Bill had been suspended had created a great deal of trouble with the trade of this country, and yet it was going to be again suspended! In the interest of the trade of the country, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, it was not worth giving an extra couple of days to pass this Bill into law. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to drop the Valuation Bill. That such a Bill was necessary nobody would deny; the country had waited for it for many years, and a Royal Commission had sat upon the question and had reported. Everybody wanted one valuation authority, and the Bill was produced as a result of the Report of the Committee. The valuation question was a question of the most enormous importance—yet it was to be put upon one side, because the right
562
hon. Gentleman would not give a little time for the passing of a Bill. A Work-mans Compensation Bill had been promised in the King's Speech, and no one would deny but what that was a matter of great importance to hundreds of thousands of working men in the country, but no day was to be given to that. There was the False Statements Bill, as to which a pledge was given on its introduction. Then there was the Scotch Education Bill, a Bill to vary the educational measures of Scotland, which was so received by the House on its introduction that no one thought fit to go to a division upon it. It had been thoroughly considered up to the thirty-first clause, and now it was to be dropped. It was a Bill the Government thought necessary to reorganise the education of Scotland, it received a great deal of support in the House, and if not carried now would no doubt cause a great deal of inconvenience, because, as he understood, it would suspend the equivalent grant yet no time had been given for it.
Let the House now consider the Bills which were to be passed. The right hon. Gentleman was going through with the Defaulting Authorities Bill and the Bishopric of Birmingham Bill. There were two elements which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman thought sufficient to command his support in the latter Bill. One was that it was a Bishops' Bill and the other that it was a Birmingham Bill. Those were two Bills he was going to give time to, and both of them would take time. What was there in those two Bills to merit the right hon. Gentleman putting on one side Bills affecting the commerce, the working men, the local government, and valuation of the country? What was there in those Bills that the House of Commons at the fag end of the session should give its time, and sit after twelve o'clock, for the purpose of forcing them through the House. Why should that be done? There was trouble with regard to one Welsh county council, a trouble that was in process of solution at the present moment, and which would be probably settled in the course of a week, and yet the Defaulting Authorities Bill was to be forced through. The right hon. Gentleman had said it was a Bill with a central idea. That was true of all Bills; it was true of the Licensing Bill,

563
which was a Bill the one idea of which was to compensate publicans. This was a Bill with one main idea. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to indicate by that that very drastic measures were to to taken to rush this Bill through the House? He would ask the right hon. Gentleman quite seriously before he came to such a decision—this was a Bill which would cause a great deal of irritation and opposition—was it right that the right hon. Gentleman should add to that irritation, and prejudice the prospect of that settlement in Wales and Yorkshire, by resorting to means of this character, which would induce the people to believe that he meant to give no opportunity far discussing it. Was that what they were going to sit late for, to sit after twelve o'clock for, and to sit, late into August—simply to discuss a Bill of that character when there were important measures placed upon one side? It was a great comment on the methods of the Government, and upon the pressure which the Government obeyed rather than consider the commerce of the country. The right hon. Gentleman said this Bill must go through. Who were they who said it "must"? It was not the "must" that arose out of any real need of the country—it Was simply a political "must." The brewers "must" put though the Licensing Bill and the Bishops "must" in other cases. This was treating the House of Commons unfairly. The House ought not at this period of the session to be asked to pass through any measures except those of absolute necessity. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Cunard agreement must be passed, because he had entered into a contract. Was the reason why he was going to pass the Defaulting Authorities Bill, that he had also entered into a contract with regard to it, and so must go through with it? If so, the House ought to see that contract as they saw the Cunard contract. Then there was the Butter Bill and the Dogs Bill. Those were Bills in the interest of agriculture. The Dogs Bill, one would suppose, was a Bill that the Government would desire most to pass. It was a Bill to prevent a masterless dog from worrying the flock; these suffering dogs were to be treated in this Bill as dangerous. That was surely a much more interesting Bill than the Defaulting Authorities Bill, which if
564
passed would only raise a storm of indignation in the country and cause intense irritation. He submitted that in this case the Government were treating the House and the country most unfairly.
MR. GALLOWAYthought that the position with regard to the County Courts Bill should be fully explained. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had suggested that that Bill would not have-been necessary if it had not been that certain County Court Judges wanted their sa'aries increased.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not suggest that it was an improper thing for the County Court Judges to want their salaries increased, but that the Bill would, throw a great deal of extra work upon them, and it was not unnatural that they should desire an increase of salary.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid it should be made perfectly clear that the Bill was not introduced for that purpose. With regard to the Port of the London Bill, he would like to know whether it was to be dropped or to be carried forward in its present stage to next session by a Resolution. With regard to private Bill legislation he found himself in a somewhat peculiar position. It was not his wont to ask for facilities for private Bills, but he asked for the indulgence of the House on this occasion whilst he pleaded for some further facilities for the Musical Copyright Bill which was of great interest to his constituents. It was a Bill that won the first place in the ballot, and was a Bill which was regarded more as a Departmental than a private Bill. A very great grievance was suffered by numberless people who had done nothing to forfeit the sympathy of the House and who had every right to claim its protection in the enjoyment of the privileges they possessed. He felt sure if the right hon. Gentleman would give a little time after twleve o'clock, when the Government business was over, an agreement might be come to, and the Bill become law. In doing so the right hon. Gentleman would only be doing an act of justice to a number of people who were now being robbed of their property. He appealed

565
to his right hon. friend to give time for this measure.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he desired to endorse what had fallen from one or two previous speakers and to express his regret at the fate that had overtaken the Port of London Bill. It was a question of great interest to many Londoners. The position of the Government with regard to this Bill was the same as their position with regard to many others. This Bill was the result of a Royal Commission appointed a few years ago; that Royal Commission itself being the outcome of a Bill promoted by the dock companies. The Commission reported in a comparatively brief space of time, and this Bill was introduced in the previous session to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Bill having passed a joint Committee of Lords and Commons Came on on Report at an early stage of the session, yet not a single day was to be given to it. Had a couple of days been given to it last session it could have been passed and would now have been law. He contended that the Government had no right to carry this Bill over last session if they did not intend to carry it through in the present session. The action of the Government during the last two years had paralysed the trade of the Port of London and their conduct for the last four years had caused great injury to the Port of London itself. The right hon. Gentleman had said the opposition to this Bill arose from Metropolitan Members. To whom did the right hon. Gentleman refer. So far as the Metropolitan Members on the Liberal side were concerned, whether they thought it was a good Bill or not, they were prepared to give favourable consideration to it and not object to its passage. If the right hon. Gentleman would look into this matter he would find that the, opposition to this Bill came from the Unionist side, and the Unionist side alone. It was opposed by the two hon. Members for the City, and by the hon. Member for Uxbridge, representing the Thames Conservancy. Under these circumstances he thought the House ought to have had an opportunity of considering the measure. It was not fair to the
566
trade and commerce of the City of London that a Bill of this importance should be hung up for two sessions without a single attempt being made to discuss it. The real blame for the matter lay with the Government and not with the House, and he could only express his regret that the Government did not attempt to pass a Bill of this importance into law. By raising the question without settling it they had seriously damaged the trade of the Port of London.
The Aliens Bill had been introduced and dropped by the Government. A great deal of political capital had been made out of the dropping of that Bill by the Government. He himself was generally in favour of the Bill, but he was sorry to have to admit that he had come to the conclusion, looking at the matter from all sides, that the Government were never in earnest with regard to that Bill; that it was only a shop-window Bill, and that it was never intended to be passed. In that case the Government had most flagrantly broken their pledges. Nearly ten years ago they had pledged themselves to deal with this matter, and the late Lord Salisbury actually introduced a Bill on the question and passed it through another House. This was the first Bill mentioned in the King's Speech as a principal measure and one would have thought it would have been retained in the House, hut it was referred to a Grand Committee. He did not think Grand Committees were ever created to deal with Bills of this character. It could hardly be contended on behalf of the Government that they were entitled to send up their principal Bill of the session to a Committee of eighty-two Members, and he could only assume that it was never intended that that Bill should be passed.
Ma. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that among the Bills that were not to be dropped was the Irish Judicature and Development Grant Bill. It was included in the category of uncontroversial measures, but when it came to be dealt with, if ever it did, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman would find it was anything bet uncontroversial.
MR. BRYCEsaid there were three full days remaining for

567
Supply and he wished to ask the Prime Minister what Supply he proposed to take upon those days. He also desired to express his regret that the Scotch Education Bill was to be dropped. A great deal of interest had been shown in it, and many public bodies in Scotland had communicated with their representatives in Parliament in regard to that measure. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to introduce it next session, but they did not know whether a favourable opportunity would arise. He wished to say that if the Bill was introduced again next session that no Grand Committee would be satisfactory to the Scotch Memhers unless every Scotch Member was allowed to be upon that Committee. With regard to the Port of London Bill, he wished to know whether it would be possible to carry it over to the next session as was done last year. It was a Measure well worthy of consideration, and it was one of very great importance to the commercial community and many regrets had been expressed because it had not been proceeded with. What, had the harvest of this session been? It had practically been one Bill, and that was the only sheaf that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to bear on his shoulders, namely, the Licensing Bill. It was a great measure of temperance reform, and it was a very remarkable Bill because it had been passed against the wishes of temperance reformers. Another point worth mentioning was in regard to the failure of the new Rules of Procedure. The result of this had been that hon. Members had been obliged to come down to the House at an inconvenient hour. whilst the time had been mostly spent by supporters of the Government attempting to put off divisions. He thought the new rules had not improved either the quantity or the quality of the legislation the session. That was the result of the new Rules of Procedure which the House passed after such a large expenditure of time and trouble. If the House wished to do its business properly they would have to have some better Rules of Procedure.
SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEreminded the Prime Minister that in answer to a Question put by the right
568
hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet, he stated last year that the Port of London Bill would be carried over as a quasi-private Bill. It might be called a quasi-private Bill, but it was absolutely a public Bill and a very important one. It was brought in by the President of the Board of Trade and carried through the House of Commons extremely quickly, but upon the distinct understanding that they would be afforded a further opportunity of discussing it fully. He had listened with feelings akin to amazement at what the hon. Member for Poplar had said in regard to the trade of the Port of London being paralysed. Was the hon. Member aware that the last twelve months was an absolute record in the Port of London in regard to the trade transacted, and even during the last six months the record was a better one than the corresponding six months of last year. This Bill was rushed through the House of Commons and sent to a Joint Committee of the Houses of Lords and Commons, and that Committee sat for fourteen days only. And this was how a Bill, involving the entire system of docks in the Port of London, the Thames Conservancy, and the compulsory purchase of docks and undertakings aggregating to some £40,000,000 sterling, a charge which was to be thrown upon the rates of London, was treated. The hon. Member for Poplar said the Committee took a large amount of evidence, but surely this was not a Bill to hang up from session to session. He ventured to say that day by day and week by week the feeling was growing stronger and stronger that this was an impossible Bill. There were other schemes possible, such as the Barrage Scheme, which ought to be considered before £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 was thrown as a charge upon the shoulders of the ratepayers of the Metropolis. He understood that the Prime Minister had dropped this Bill. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that, the general feeling of the Metropolitan Members was against the Port of London Bill, and in the City of London there was a growing feeling that the measure was not one which ought to pass. As to the memorials which had been referred to, he thought, they could easily find where they had emanated from, and a good many of

569
them, he was inclined to think, had emanated from one source only.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he did not think anyone would deny that the House found itself in a very inconvenient position that afternoon, and whilst in that inconvenient position it was confronted with a very inconvenient demand. The demand now made upon the time of the House was a demand which it was usual for the Leader of the House to make at this period of the session. It might be asked on what ground was it justifiable to offer opposition to a usual demand for which there were excellent precedents. Any justification for voting against this Motion was to be found, not so much in the nature of the demand, but from the general circumstances of the session, which had been unusual in their character, and those circumstances had changed a usual demand into a very unusual demand. He did not understand why there was this imperative need of finishing discussions in the House by the 15th or 16th of August. Only two reasons had been put forward why they should close their discussions upon such a date. One of the reasons was a matter of common chaff, and it was that there was a certain sacred bird to be killed on the 12th of August, and hon. Gentlemen opposite were impatient to get away to undertake its destruction. The other reason was put forward by The Times newspaper, that they could not sit later than 17th August, because on that date the Prime Minister had to deliver an address before the British Association. He did not think the house would find in those two reasons any sufficient cause for submitting Members of the House to a great deal of inconvenience, still less any sufficient reason for wishing them to scamp duties which were important in the interests of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen had alluded to the scanty harvest which the Prime Minister had reaped that session, and it must have occurred to everyone who had listened to the universal chorus of complaints which had been directed against the Prime Minister from both sides of the House that this had been a
570
most miserable session, a most barren, worthless, squalid, futile, and profitless session. They had voted £140,000,000 for the expenditure of the country; they had passed the Licensing Bill, which would secure the brewer's vote at the election, and they were about to pass another Bill which would annoy the Principality of Wales. But apart from those important achievements no legislation of value, no administrative action of importance, had been expounded and made clear in the House. The only subject on which there had been any considerable discussion was the Finance Bill, and that was explained by the fact that our finances were in a condition of entire demoralisation and it was absolutely necessary that some protest should be made against the great size of the annual Budget and the increase of expenditure. He much regretted that the Prime Minister had not been able to do what he half promised to do, namely, give a day, or some period, for the discussion of the Report of the National Expenditure Committee. What was the good of having such Committees, with all their attendant labour and expense, if absolutely no notice was to be taken of their Reports? The right hon. Gentleman, of course, would not be able to give them any time now, but he would ask him to remember that this Committee was appointed on his own Motion, and that it was intended to set up machinery supplementary and complementary to his own new Rules of Procedure, and that in regard to the recommendations which it had made, although some were only carried by a small majority, the great mass of them were carried practically unanimously. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, in preparing for the campaign in the autumn, would endeavour to make some proposal of machinery which would enable the House to make something like effective examination of the Votes in Supply.
The Prime Minister had divided the Bills up into three classs—dead Bills, doubtful Bills, and Bills which must at all costs be made to live. He desired also to divide the work of the session into three categories; firstly, the legislation which had been put forward for show; secondly, legislation which

571
the House wanted and which the Govern-lment did not want; and, thirdly, legisation which the Government wanted and which the House did not want. In the first of these classes, of course, the Port of London Bill figured as a noteworthy example. Then there was the Valuation Bill, and he was not sure that the Irish Labourers Bill was not introduced for show. But the greatest example of this first class of legislation was the Aliens Bill. When this Bill was under discussion he ventured to point out to the Prime Minister that he must know from his own views on the subject that this was not the sort of Bill for Grand Committee, and the sending of it to Grand Committee was practically signing its death warrant. He ventured to say then, and he said it again, that the Government was not in earnest about that Bill, and did not desire to pass it. They only brought it forward in order to have an opportunity of saying they wished to deal with the subject, and in order to satisfy a demand made by those who were behind them. A variety of forces had acted upon the Government in regard to the Aliens Bill. His hon. and gallant friend the Member for Sheffield had all his life been advocating this kind of legislation; there were those associated with the protectionist movement who thought it akin to their general line of political thought; and Otero was in his own Party opposition from wealthy Jewish supporters—very proper opposition—and consequently the Prime Minister was forced to choose between the different conflicting forces. The Government decided to make a show, and on the very first excuse made haste to drop it. Not only did they drop the main Bill, but also another Bill which was introduced by the hon. and gallant Member, with a sort of tacit agreement with all those interested in the subject—a Bill dealing with criminal aliens alone. The Government allowed their followers—he might almost say instigated their followers, although perhaps that was rather a strong word—to block the Bill right after night. Of course it had no chance whatever of passing into law. If in the course of the autumn recess hon. Gentlemen opposite should have their houses burgled by foreign criminals, who dumped themselves on our shores in
572
competition with our existing industries, it would be upon the Prime Minister's head and upon the heads of the members of his Government that public indignation should properly fall.
As to the second class of Bills which the House wanted and the Government did not want, there was the Bill of his hon. friend the Member for the Elland Division, dealing with the taxation of land values. That was a Bill which the Government did not dare to resist, and it was passed by a large majority of the House, with the assent of nearly all the great municipalities of the country. There was the Trade Union Bill, which had for its object to amend the law relating to trade unions. It had a preponderating and. he ventured to think, a decisive volume of public support in the country. That again was a Bill which the Government did not dare to resist and it was carried in the House by a large majority, but in spite of urgent appeals from the members of the Labour Party and Members like the-right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, who had given these questions long and careful study, the Government had refused to give the smallest possible facilities, and the responsibility for refusing to deal with the labour problem rested absolutely with them.
The third class of Bills were those which the Government desired to pass and which, he thought, the House was reluctant to assent to. In that class was the Bill in which the hon. Member for Carnarvon was interested. There was also the Licensing Bill, which was now under discussion in another place. What a difference in the treatment of those Bills which were conceived in the interest of the right hon. Gentleman's Party and the Bills conceived in the general interest of labour. In the one case absolutely no facilities; in the other no restraint of any kind in the application of the most drastic form of closure and the absolute twisting and destruction of the ordinary procedure of the House. He thought the last instance, the guillotining of the Licensing Bill, alone supplied a reason why they should not this afternoon. endeavour to go out of their way toe convenience the Government. He heard a most distinguished Member of the.

573
House say, in connection with the procedure the Prime Minister had adopted in connection with the Licensing Bill, that it was nothing short of declaring war against the House of Commons and would justify reprisals of the most severe kind.
The Prime Minister said the other day that the programme of legislation introduced by the Government was of a moderate character. No one would deny that the legislation he had succeeded in carrying was still more moderate. How did it arise that with a moderate programme the Government, with a large majority behind them, were forced to drop important measures and to fall back on forms of arbitrary and unusual procedure? Obviously, there must be something wrong. There was something at work in the House of Commons. It was not the Opposition because the Opposition always opposed contemplated legislation. But there was something now at work in the House of Commons which had made it less easy for the Government to carry their legislation and which had led to great congestion and inconvenience of business. The right hon. Gentleman's Leadership of the House had been much praised in the newspapers whose editors he had ennobled or promoted. That was a fact which could not be disputed. He could not help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman trusted a little more to reason, and to taking the House into his confidence and frankly endeavouring to convince them of the justice of his measures, and if he were a little more able to assert that he possessed the confidence of the country, business would go through with greater despatch. When the right hon. Gentleman had a controversial measure which he wished to pass he did not introduce it at the beginning of the session. No; he brought it forward at such a period of the session as would enable him to say, "Obviously we have not time between now and the 12th of August to discuss the measure properly." And so the House had to discuss it improperly. How much time had they wasted—for it was wasted—in vain endeavours to find out from the Prime Minister whether he agreed with protection or not? When the right hon. Gentleman was asked a plain Ques-
574
tion, which would save him days, he did not give a plain Answer. He mocked at the ignorance of other Members of the House less intellectually subtle than himself, and who were absolutely unable to fathom his real mind on this question.
Last of all, the causes and the reasons which had delayed the Government business and had disturbed the good humour of the House, had been the increasing resort of the Prime Minister to the practice of putting down blocking Motions. Whenever there was an awkward question to be discussed the right hon. Gentleman, instead of preparing a good case, wrote out a blocking Notice and handed it in at the Table by proxy. Everybody knew what the form was. The result was that in a session not unusually encumbered with any great quality of legislation they had not been able to discuss a most all the important subjects which had been occupying the attention of the country. Supported by that valuable prop, the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters, with or without his careful supervision, had succeeded in preventing any adequate discussion of the vast changes contemplated in the Army, new points of development which had arisen in connection with South African labour; a very inadequate debate upon what he ventured to call the cruel and barbarous expedition to Tibet, and had not enabled the House to examine in any way the costly, profitless, and fruitless operations in Somaliland. By the use of blocking Motions this House was losing its function as the arena for the discussion of great questions interesting to the country.
There was one thing on which they might congratulate the Prime Minister. After all, they were nearly at the end of the session, and there was the Prime Minister still! The procedure of the House of Commons had been mutilatcd: Never mind A great quantity of money had been expended. Never mind! No legislation of any value had been passed. Never mind! But there was the Prime Minister, at the end of the session, a great deal more than many people could have expected or hoped for. He offered to the right hon. Gentleman.

575
most sincerely, his most humble congratulations on his achievement. These congratulations were absolutely sincere, because the right hon. Gentleman would make a great mistake if he supposed that any, on that side of the House, were in any hurry to witness the termination of the spectacle which had been presented that session. He apprehended there was no limit, short of the Septennial Act, to the right hon. Gentleman's capacity of holding out to retain office. But he ventured to think that the process was expensive. He estimated that the rent to be paid by the right hon. Gentleman would amount to 10,000 votes a month, or 120,000 votes a year, at the rate of 1,000 votes per Parliamentary day. That was the price which the right hon. Gentleman was paying out of the votes of his Party for the continuance of his Government in office under present conditions. And while they saw nothing in his Conduct of public affairs which should conduce to make more easy the passage of his legislation, at the same time they had no reason to regret the continuance of a state of things which could only lead to a much more precise and emphatic decision by the country when the hour of decision arrived.
MR. HEMPHILLsaid that, as a representative of an Irish constituency, he wished to enter his protest as to the way in which Irish legislation had been treated this year. Four Irish Bills had been introduced by the Government. All of these Bills were of considerable importance. One of them was promised last session by the Government, and it was used as a means for facilitating the passage of the Irish Land Purchase Bill. He alluded to the Labourers Bill. Now, the Irish labourers were a very important class which could not be neglected with impunity. They were very numerous anal very powerful, and hitherto they had been very contented under the most miserable conditions. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary promised that a Bill would be brought forward by the Government and passed this year to remedy the grievances of the labourers of which they had complained year after year. How had that promise been redeemed? It was quite true that after considerable delay a Bill
576
had been introduced. It had been criticised by Irish Members from every quarter of the House, and it was admitted to be a most lame and impotent Bill. But no Member from Ireland would undertake the responsibility of preventing the Second Reading being taken in the hope, which was rather encouraged by the Chief Secretary, that it would be amended in its passage through the House, because in the shape in which it was introduced it was not likely to be productive of the least benefit to the labourers. It was a mere sop, in order to rebut the suggestion that the Government had broken their faith with Ireland in regard to this question. The first thing the Government did was to send the Bill to the Grand Committee on Trade. He could not say what occurred in that Committee, because he was not a member of it. But he had heard that, after two or three days, it was stated on behalf of the Government that because of some obstruction offered in the name of the Treasury, it would be impossible to meet the demands of the Irish Members, or to amend the Bill in such a way as to make it productive of the slightest advantage to the labourers. As in the case of the Aliens Bill, the Government were very glad to take advantage of that, and avail themselves of the excuse to drop the Bill.
But there were other three Bills relating to Ireland, all very important. One of these was the Loans Fund Amendment Bill. That was a most important measure, affecting the very humblest and poorest class of the community. Unquestionably, from the evidence of the various officers throughout Ireland, considerable loss had been sustained by the very poorest class in the community. An Act was passed by the present Government three or four years ago for the purpose of removing the evils caused by a previous faulty Act. Numbers of poor people in Ireland put their money into debentures in this Loan Fund and it turned out that there was no money to pay the interest on these debentures, and the whole of their savings had been lost. Then a Bill was introduced for the purpose of remedying this grievance. And what was the fate of that Bill? It was one of

577
the measures which the Prime Minister assured the House was to he dropped—a Bill affecting the comfort and prosperity of the class on whom the peace and happiness of Ireland depended. Another Bill was the Irish Development Grant Bill. If that were to be proceeded with at three or four o'clock in the morning, possibly there would not have been a single Irish Member present. The Bill purported to sweep away two of the Judgeships in the Superior Court of Ireland, and to alter the whole judicial system which had existed in Ireland for centuries. He would not discuss the Bill, because he would not be in order; or say that he would oppose it when it came on, if he were in the House. But the Bill was to effect organic changes in the judicial system which had existed for centuries, and should not be introduced under circumstances which would not give the Irish representatives an opportunity of discussing or amending it if necessary He thought, at any rate, that the legal profession had a right to complain; and a Bill of that sort should not be rushed through the House when the English Members were not awake, and all the Irish Members were absent. He regarded it as the greatest possible farce to enter into a discussion of such a very important measure at five or six o'clock in the morning in an exhausted House.
Then there was the Irish Land Bill. That Bill, which would pass without much discussion, was brought in to remedy the defects of that much discussed measure, the Irish Land Purchase Act. But there were a great many hon. Members who would desire to discuss the principle as to whether the bonus should be given to the tenant for life.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman will not be in order in discussing the Bill.
MR. HEMPHILLsaid he would only mention that the Bill would be more satisfactory to Irish public opinion if it were passed when the Irish Members were present. For his own past, he did not see the necessity of Parliament proroguing on or about 12th August. Members who were worshippers of "St. Grouse" might indulge in their tastes, leaving behind Members who were more
578
intent on legislation. The House had often sat into September, not to speak of Autumn sessions; and it would be much better and more decent, if he might use the expression, in the eyes of the public if legislation were carried on deliberately up to the very eve of the prorogation.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it would perhaps be the most convenient course if he were to reply at that point of the debate. The debate had been very much of the character of the debates which had taken place before on similar Occasions, He had never known it admitted by the Opposition of the day that the Bills which the Government had passed were of any value or that any value was to be found except in the Bills which they did not pass. Bills seemed to become sur-rouaded with quite a lustre and a halo from the fact of their not succeeding in the struggle for existence, and the actual legislation which had been passed had always been regarded either as useless or worse than useless. It had been said that private Members had not had enough time, and that Supply had not been discussed sufficiently, and there had been an occasional seasoning of the ordinary elaborately prepared personalities of the Member for Oldham. Among the critics of the Government had been the hon. Member for Aberdeen, who pointed to the experience of the session as conclusive proof of the failure of the new rules. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in his criticism. In the debates on the new rules he never held out to the House the smallest prospect that the great prolongation of debate which had been the growing disease of the House for many years past would be effectually dealt with by those changes. It was not to these new rules or any modification of them that he had ever looked forward as affording a real issue from the embarrassment in which the House had undoubtedly long found itself. That change—if and when it came—must take a very different form, and all he could now point out to the House was this, that they had only to listen to the debate that had been going on that afternoon to see that if the double set of critics who always attacked the Government on these occasions were to be satisfied, the work of the session could not be got through

579
in twelve months. Parliament would sit the whole year and would leave its work unfinished. Some critics said that time enough was not given for criticising the Government; others said that a great amount of legislation was left undone. Considering that all the time not given to legislation was given to criticism and that all the time not given to criticism was given to legislation, it was clear that in a given number of months everything that was taken away from criticism was given to legislation, and that everything that was taken away from legislation was given to criticism, and there was no way out of that. When the hon. Member for Oldham, or some hon. Member taking the same line, attacked the Government for not having passed the Bills, which, as the Government did not propose them, they regarded as extremely valuable, and other Members maintained that more time ought to have been given to Supply, whilst a third set said that the ten days or eleven days given to fiscal discussions were not enough, or that five or six days given to the yellow labour discussion were not enough, the smallest common sense, the most moderate modicum of the rationality which a person would apply to his own affairs, would show that the House of Commons could not possibly meet all these demands without throwing upon itself a burden which would undoubtedly break down the whole representative system of the country.
He would pass to the questions put to him regarding particular Bills. He would mention first the Musical Copyright Bill, because this was the only session that he recollected in which the plea had been put forward by Gentlemen interested, in private Bills for one private Bill alone. He was obliged to reply, as he had done on many previous occasions, that a private Bill, if it were opposed, could not obtain facilities at the end of the session. No Government could give facilities, and Governments had always got into trouble by trying to do so. If, indeed, it were possible to conciliate the opposition to the Bill, which he did not think came from a very large number of Members, nobody would rejoice more than he. So far as he was able to judge, the Bill really did endeavour to find a remedy for a very hard state of things affecting
580
a very deserving section of the community. He had been asked about the Constabulary Bill. That was a Bill which it was desirable to pass, but it was not a Bill on which he could ask the House to spend a great deal of time. If he understood the matter rightly, it was required largely for the interests of the Treasury and indirectly for Ireland. As to the Bill relating to County Courts, he was certainly surprised to hear that the new Bill repealed the old one.
* SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: In express words.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Do I understand that it does not re-enact substantially the same measure?
*SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: It does not re-enact the same measure. Instead of giving to all County Courts increased jurisdiction it gives it only to some to be selected by the Lord Chancellor, and it omits one important provision as to costs in the High Court, viz., Clause 116 of the County Courts Act.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid such a measure could hardly'be described as a Bill repealing the old Bill. However, he need not go into those matters, as the Bill was not one which he thought it possible to ask the House to deal with at this late period of the session, since it would require considerable discussion. With regard to the Port of London Bill, it had been suggested that its only opponents were to be found among the Members for the City of London.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Principal.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not know how the hon. gentleman defined "principal." If he meant numerically the greatest he should say the hon. Gentleman was entirely incorrect. From information which had reached him he believed that the opposition came from a very much larger section. The procedure which had been suggested, that the Government should prove that opposition existed by trying to pass the Bill, had always when attempted been described by the Opposition as an egregious waste of time. Whether it would be possible to carry over the Bill was another question, and

581
if hon. Gentlemen would ask him about the matter at Question time in a day or two he would give a final answer on the subject. There had been some discussion about the Aliens Bill, chiefly by two hon. Gentlemen—one of them sitting on that Front Bench and the other the Member for Oldham—whose chief ambition had been to show that they had no hand in destroying the Bill; that it was entirely due to a pernicious Government that the Bill had been destroyed. He did not desire to deprive hon. Gentlemen of any satisfaction they might obtain from that line of argument.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether the Bill would be reintroduced next session.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had already stated the views of the Government on that point. He had been attacked for his management of Supply. In the first place, it had been said that on three occasions when Supply was under discussion h had procured the adjournment of the House before the dinner hour. But Members were aware that there were frequently occasions when more business was done by stopping at half-past seven than by continuing till midnight. A second criticism was that really important questions had not been discussed in Committee of Supply. He had endeavoured to pursue his steadily declared policy that the critics of the Government on both sides should, as far as possible, be consulted with regard to the allocation of the business of Supply. If the motive of those critics had been imperfectly expressed the Government could not be blamed for that.
There was one general criticism upon the work of the session with which he had the profoundest sympathy. Year after year a number of small Government Bills were introduced and failed to pass. There were many defects in their rules, but the one which it was of most importance, from the point of view of public interest, to remedy was to be found in the machinery for dealing with these smaller measures. The large Bill of the session the Government would always insist on passing. It might have
582
to be got through by methods which they all admitted to be clumsy and the necessity for which they all regretted, but it would be got through. There was no corresponding machinery for getting through small Bills, nor did he see any easy modification of their rules—any modification which would not be almost revolutionary in its character which would enable these Bills to pass. They could not do that kind of work by any form of Home Rule or provincial councils, because these Bills had an operation throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and must therefore be dealt with by an Assembly which had authority over the whole of the United Kingdom. He did not believe delegation to Grand Committee was sufficient to meet the difficulty, and his consideration of the question had not satisfied him that this great blot upon our Parliamentary institutions was one easy of remedy. He could only hope that those who had criticised the Government would devote some of their attention to thinking how this matter could be dealt with, and perhaps in some future time a means would be devised by which to remove this defect which all must regret.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the statement made by the Prime Minister was most alarming. The net result of the session's work so far as Ireland was concerned was that the Vote for Irish Education had been docked by £100. And, after that, the Prime Minister promised that he would kill the one Bill they wanted and pass another Bill for which nobody asked. English Members complained of the Government and of Parliament, but, after all, it was their own Parliament and their own Government—a poor thing, but their own. But in the case of the Irish people it was not their Parliament nor their Government. Could English Members conceive any Irish Assembly, however contemptible or illustrious, however democratic or aristocratic, whether it brought forward proposals of the most squalid or the most majestic dimensions, which, after six months of harassing labour, would have to confess that the net result of the whole thing was not nil but a minus quantity, namely, the loss of £100? The Prime Minister had now admitted that

583
there was no cure for this disease, and that next year and the year after the position would he as bad. The Prime Minister had divided British possessions into two categories—those obtained by peaceful occupation, and those which had been obtained by warlike conquest. He (the speaker) did not know into which category Ireland was placed. But, as regarded the future, the Prime Minister told them he saw no cure for the evil, and he asked those of them who were not in the Government, and who never would be in it, and who had no voice in this House except on sufferance, to devise a remedy. After all, if the Irish people had the smallest shanty of a Parliament of their own, he supposed that they would be able to legislate upon herrings, canals, commerce of some kind, and free trade and protection. There might be a "blocker," but they would probably be able to invent some means of getting round him. But to tell him that the net result of six months arduous labour on the part of a large body of Irish representatives would be the loss of £100 was a most miserable suggestion of what Parliament should be.
The Prime Minister suggested that he would drop the Irish Charitable Loans Bill. He admitted there was some opposition to it. But what was the Irish Loans Fund? It was a body managed by Dublin Castle, whose inspectors were appointed by Dublin Castle, and Dublin Castle invited honest people to invest their money in debentures to be lent out at reasonable interest on the faith of the security of British audit and management. The result was that something like £200,000 or £300,000 had gone, and the British Government calmly announced that they would not even pass legislation to enable it to be collected. This money was largely the money of pensioners, ex-soldiers, politicians, clergymen. He believed there were a few clergymen on both sides, and year after year this Government-managed business had failed to meet not only its interest but its principal. The total deficit did not amount to more than about £250,000, and yet the Government not only declined to meet that but refused the machinery of collection. The Prime Minister absolutely shone on occasions like this, and it required a very subtle
584
mind to appreciate his distinctions. The right hon. Gentleman knew what reality or unreality there was behind an attack such as had been made upon him, because he himself had attacked Governments a thousand times and had heard replies by the greatest masters of Parliamentary strategy. The hon. Member for Antrim had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended to go on with the Judicature and Development Grant Bill, but the Prime Minister said nothing about that Bill; he only referred to the Development Grant Bill. He would only suppose that the abolition of the Judges was going to be dropped and the development portion of the Bill was to be proceeded with. When the Prime Minister was asked a Question by one of his own supporters he remained as steadfastly silent on the subject as if he were asked a Question about free trade. While nobody was more anxious than himself to see established a kind of Irish Exchequer, for that was whet the Government were being driven into, he must say that the Irish Members should remember that all this was in aid of the British Treasury and the Irish landlords. While the Government refused to the Loan Fund debenture-holders the payment of monies practically guaranteed by the Government, they did suggest that at one scoop they should capture £150,000 of the finest fund in Ireland and apply it practically to the issue of stock to enable the landlords to be paid in sovereigns instead of paper. The Chief Secretary shook his head, and therefore he would not pursue the matter further; but that was the, interpretation he put upon the Bill. Whatever time was devoted to these two Irish Bills he thought they should be given a little notice of the intention to bring them forward, and that they should be brought forward at some reasonable period, if at all.
With regard to the Land Bill, he intended to support the Government throughout upon it, although he wished to propose Amendments in regard to the incidence of the bonus, as he believed its incidence had not been apprehended by the House or the country. But he considered that he was in honour bound to support the Government which came forward at the time when Irish Members

585
were unanimous in demanding that the bonus should be given in a particular way and agreed that £100,000,000 should be voted on the faith of an agreement between andlords andl hon. Members for Ireland. In the face of that bargain, made openly in the House of Commons, it was no secret arrangement made behind the Chair or in the Lobby, but a solemn bargain made between the Government and the Irish Party, it would redound to the everlasting discredit of Irishmen, whoever they might be, who went back on that solemn pact. But he thought they were entitled to discuss the incidents arising out of the transactions which were not apprehended at the time the Bill was passed. If he was told that time would not allow of the discussion of those matters he conceived he was so bound by the main principle of the Bill that he would not press his opposition to what he called mere details to the extent of needlessly occupying time. But that would only be on the condition that measures, which he apprehended nobody wanted—such as the proposal to alienate £150,000 of the Fines Funds and to grab money that was intended by the Local Government Act of 1869 to go in relief of taxation, for the relief of the Treasury or for landlord purposes, were not pressed. If the Government insisted on going on with Bills which were really contentious and asked him to give up the time that should really be occupied by the other Bill—that was not a proposition to which he could assent. He thought that, on the whole, this session in the way in which it had been consumed—he would not say wasted—would be a memorable one for Ireland. For himself, he did not think the Labourers Bill was such a great loss. What he thought would strike the people of Ireland, was the inefficiency of this Parliament to bring to the most troubled and most anxious portion of the Empire—the sick child of the family—relief, comfort, legislation, or even debate, and the confession of the Prime Minister of England himself that there was no remedy for the evil.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHmoved as an Amendment that Fridays be excluded from the operation of the Resolution.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to move that the Question be now put. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."]
MR. DELANY: I object. I respectfully object, Mr. Speaker, because I want to speak. I have something to say.
*MR. SPEAKER: I do not know whether the hon. Member has something to say or not, but I have not accepted the Motion. I called on the hon. Member for Anglesey to move his Amendment which I think is one that may be disposed of very shortly.
MR. DELANY: I hope you will not shut me out afterwards, Mr. Speaker.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid his Amendment would give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of relaxing the rigour of his proposal. The Prime Minister was the champion of the weekend holiday, and if he was going to sit up the greater part of every night in the week, he would need a little recreation on Friday or Saturday. The health of the Prime Minister was one of the assets of Parliament which should be carefully guarded. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that only one Bill in a session should be treated in a drastic manner. Inasmuch, therefore, as one Bill had already been drastically treated this session, he submitted that Friday should be exempted from this Motion, as the measure down for Friday next, though not a long Bill, was exceedingly contentious—
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing particular Bills; he must confine his remarks solely to the question of the omission of Friday.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid another point was that on Friday there would be no interval beyond the half-hour at two o'clock. He appealed for some modification of the Motion in the interests both of the Prime Minister and of the House generally.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 2, after the word 'except,' to insert the words 'on Fridays and'."—(Mr. Ellis Griffith.)

587
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the only reason the hon. Member had been able to put forward in support of his Amendment was the consideration of his (the speaker's) health, and he was grateful for the hon. Member's consideration. They would doubtless not rise at half-past five, the usual hour on Fridays, but lie could see no reason why the sittings should be unduly prolonged beyond that hour. While unable to accept the Amendment he thanked the hon. Member for the spirit in which he had moved it.
MR. LOUGHthought there ought to be some understanding with regard to Fridays,upon which day it should be remembered the House met at noon. There was an understanding the last time a rule of this kind was passed that the House should not sit beyond 6.30 or 7 o'clock on Fridays. He hoped the Prime Minister would assent to the suggestion, that as they met at 12 o'clock on Fridays the sitting on that day should not be unduly prolonged.
MR. DELANYsaid he wished to support the Amendment which had been proposed in order to relieve them on one night of the week from attending long discussions. He quite sympathised with the Prime Minister in the position in which he had been placed. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Louth had spoken of the great disappointment he had experienced in regard to Irish legislation that session, and he quite shared that disappointment. He had sat in the House of Commons through the whole of the session and he had been extremely disappointed at the attitude of the Government in regard to Irish legislation. They were primarily interested in two Bills.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Amendment.
MR. MOSSsaid he desired to join in the appeal which had been made with regard to Friday sittings. In the public interest he hoped the Prime Minister would make some statement with regard to the business of the House on Fridays. It was physically impossible
to transact public business efficiently or discuss measures late on Friday after the long sittings which would take place on the days preceding Friday. The Bills which would be brought in during Friday sittings could not be discussed, and ought not to be discussed under those circumstances, and therefore he joined with those who had appealed to the Prime Minister not to extend the length of the sittings on Friday to any great extent.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was not at all sure that this Amendment was necessary because the Resolution before the House referred only to the interruption of business at 12 o'clock, 7.30, and 5.30 on Fridays.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERthought the hon. Member for King's Lynn was mistaken, because he remembered that they sat of after 6 o'clock last session under the same Order. He wished to appeal to the Leader of the House to use the powers he would probably get very moderately, not only on Fridays but upon other nights. They all recognised that there was sure to be a long discussion at this period of the session upon the suspension of the Twelve O'clock Rule, but he hoped the Prime Minister would not prolong the sittings to a late hour in the morning. If the House sat after seven o'clock on Fridays it destroyed all the chances of a holiday for the week-end.
MR. LABOUGHEREsaid if the Prime Minister would meet them by getting up and stating that he did not intend to prolong the sittings on Fridays he thought his hon. friend would withdraw his Amendment, but the right hon. Gentleman, by refusing to do this, rather implied that he intended to continue the sittings late on Fridays. This was most distasteful to hon. Members on both sides, and he thought the Prime Minister would find it most disagreeable to himself. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would say a word or two and come to some sort of an agreement.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 138; Noes, 208. (Division List No. 291.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Asher, Alexander

Atherley-Jones, L.

Barlow, John Emmott

Harwood, George

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Partington, Oswald

Bell, Richard

Healy, Timothy Michael

Perks, Robert William

Blake, Edward

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Philipps, John Wynford

Boland, John

Higham, John Sharpe

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Holland, Sir William Henry

Power, Patrick Joseph

Brigg, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Reckitt, Harold James

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jacoby, James Alfred

Roberston, Edmund (Dundee)

Burt, Thomas

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Robson, William Snowdon

Caldwell, James

Joicey, Sir James

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cameron, Robert

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Runciman, Walter

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Causton, Richard Knight

Joyce, Michael

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cawley, Frederick

Kearley, Hudson E.

Sheehy, David

Channing, Francis Allston

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Kilbride, Denis

Soares, Ernest J.

Crombie, John William

Kitson, Sir James

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Crooks, William

Labouchere, Henry

Sullivan, Donal

Cullinan, J.

Langley, Batty

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Leamy, Edmund

Tennant, Harold John

Delany, William

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower)

Dobbie, Joseph

Lloyd-George, David

Tomkinson, James

Donelan, Captain A.

Lough, Thomas

Toulmin, George

Doogan, P. C.

Lundon, W.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Tully, Jasper

Dunn, Sir William

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Wallace, Robert

Edwards, Frank

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.)

Elibank, Master of

M'Kenna, Reginald

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Ellice, Capt E C(S Andrw'sBghs

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Weir, James Galloway

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Mooney, John J.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Farrell, James Patrick

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Fenwick, Charles

Moss, Samuel

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Murphy, John

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid,)

Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Grant, Corrie

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Ellis Griffith and Mr. Warner.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale)

O'Dowd, John

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Malley, William

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Dalkeith, Earl of

Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

Bull, William James

Davenport, William Bromley

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Butcher, John George

Denny, Colonel

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Campbell, Rt Hn J. A.(Glasgow)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Campbell, J H M(Dublin Univ.

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

Arrol, Sir William

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cautley, Henry Strother

Doughty, Sir George

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cavendish, V. C.W.(Derbyshire)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Baird, John George Alexander

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Duke, Henry Edward

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Baldwin, Alfred

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A(Worc.

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

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

Chapman, Edward

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W(Leeds

Charrington, Spencer

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

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Fielder, Edward Brocklehurst

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Finch, Rt. Hon George H.

Bigwood, James

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bill, Charles

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Fisher, William Hayes

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Bond, Edward

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antirm, S.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Brassey, Albert

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Flower, Sir Ernest

590

591

Forster, Henry William

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Gardner, Ernest

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Garfit, William

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

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

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Lowe, Francis William

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Gore, Hon S. F. Ormsby-

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

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

Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Macdona, John Cumming

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Grenfell, William Henry

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Gretton, John

Manners, Lord Cecil

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

Smith,Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Groves, James Grimble

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

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

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Maxwell,W J H(Dumfriesshire

Spear, John Ward

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Stanley,Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Middlemore,John Throgmorton

Stanley,Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Milvain, Thomas

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Heath,James (Staffords. N.W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Talbot,RtHn J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.

Heaton, John Henniker

Morrell, George Herbert

Thornton, Percy M.

Helder, Augustus

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Henderson,Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Tuff, Charles

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Myers, William Henry

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Horner, Frederick William

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Valentia, Viscount

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Nicholson, William Graham

Walrond,Rt Hn.Sir William H.

Hoult, Joseph

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Howard, J (Midd.,Tottenham)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Whiteley,H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Hozier,Hn. James HenryCecil

Percy, Earl

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pierpoint, Robert

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hunt, Rowland

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Kennaway, Rt.Hn. Sir John H.

Purvis, Robert

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

Kerr, John

Randles, John S.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Kimber, Sir Henry

Rankin, Sir James

Wylie, Alexander

Knowles, Sir Lees

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham

Renwick, George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Alexander Acland-Hood

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Main Question again proposed.
MR. CHARLES DOUGLASsaid he felt bound to say how seriously he personally, and he thought many other hon. Members also, regarded the abandonment of the Scotch Education Bill. He confessed that he was a little surprised that the hon. Members opposite, who represented Scotch constituencies, should allow the Bill to go derelict with so little protest to the Prime Minister. Of course, he quite realised that at this stage of the session there was not time to carry the Bill now. He felt that it reflected no very great credit on the legislative capacity of this House for the discharge of its business when, at such a
592
stage, the Government had to abandon a Bill which was practically non-contentious and against which no division had been taken; which had been discussed in the fairest way on both sides of the House, and which had been carried after considerable exertion to such a point that two or three more days of Parliamentary time would easily have been sufficient to allow of its being passed. The postponement of this Bill was a very grave and serious matter for Scottish education. He did not think it would be held by hon. Members of this House that the people of Scotland were less willing to undertake the labours of education than other people were. But it was an undoubted fact that at this

593
moment Scotland stood in a position of distinct inferiority as regarded the organisation of higher education than any other part of Great Britain, or even than every civilised Country in the world. That, in itself, was a state of matters which called for much more serious treatment than it had received in the House. It ought to have been a matter of the greatest urgency on the part of the Government to carry into law the Bill which they had introduced and which had been so favourably and generously received in every part of the House and in every part of Scotland. The postponement of the Bill was very serious from a practical point of view, because the money which had been granted to Scotland in lieu of that which had been spent under the English Education Act was at present being devoted to the relief of rates; and he was sure that every year that that was continued would make it more difficult to devote that money to higher education instead of to the relief of the rates. But more than that. Anyone at all familiar with educational work in Scotland knew perfectly well that the very introduction of the Bill in the House had given a confident hope that it would be carried this year, and that, in the meantime, there had been a great deal of arrest of higher education in Scotland. The certainty that a new scheme was about to be introduced made it impossible for those who had been doing good work in various districts—in the county councils and in the school boards—to proceed in the development of that kind of education until they knew what legislation in regard to it would be introduced. Still more serious was the fact that, if the Bill was withdrawn, they might not see it again, or, at any rate, any Bill half so good. The Prime Minister took a hopeful view of next session, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would give a definite pledge that the Scotch Education Bill would take an important place in the next King's Speech. He made not the least complaint of the way in which the Scotch Education Bill had been brought before the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, but because the Bill had been lost by the failure of the Government to make any serious attempt to carry it. It might
594
have been carried if only two or three more days had been devoted to it. Various essays had been made to bring in other Bills which had been dropped. Time had been spent on these Bills which might have been given more usefully to the Scotch Education Bill, and if so, it could have been easily carried. But they had also to consider the selection of the Bills which the Prime Minister had made. He would venture to suggest to the Prime Minister that he should turn his mind to, or suggest to his followers in Scotland, some explanation of the choice he had made in dropping this Scotch Education Bill.
The Scottish Unionists were a very estimable and ingenuous body of men, but they would be unable to explain to the people of Scotland why their Education Bill had been placed behind the Licensing Bill and the Welsh Defaulting Authorities Bill. These Bills had certain properties in common; both conferred pecuniary advantages on certain sections of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, although it would be seen that they were thoroughly disliked by the people by whom they were to be applied. The Scottish Unionists and their representatives who supported the Government must ask themselves what the reasons really were for the Government giving priority to the measures to which he had referred over the Education Bill which had been so long promised to Scotland. He did not raise this question for the purpose of recrimination, although recrimination was abundantly called for by the way in which this Bill and the Scotch Members had been treated by the Government; but he hoped the right hon. Geatleman would say whether he was prepared to reintroduce the Bill in the course of the next session.
MR. DELANYrose to continue the debate.
Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
*MR. SPEAKER: The Question is that the Question be now put.
MR. DELANY: I object, Sir. It is a marked insult to the Irish Members that not one of them should be heard

595
on this Question. I protest against it. [MINISTERIAL ironical laughter.] Hon. Members opposite will be on this side by and by, and they will see what will happen then.
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 134. (Division List, No. 292.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyue

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Fisher, William Hayes

Macdona, John Cumming

Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

McKillop, James (Stirlingshire)

Arnold-Forster,Rt Hn.Hugh O.

Flower, Sir Ernest

Manners, Lord Cecil

Arrol, Sir William

Forster, Henry William

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Foster,Philip S(Warwick,S.W.

Maxwell,Rt Hn SirH.E.(Wigt'n

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gardner, Ernest

Maxwell,W J H(Dumfriesshire

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Garfit, William

Melville Beresford Valentine

Baird, John George Alexander

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Middlemore,John Throgmorton

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Milvain, Thomas

Baldwin, Alfred

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon.Sir John Eldon

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Balfour,RtHn Gerald W.(Leeds

Goschen, Hon. Goerge Joachim

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

Balfour, Kenneth R. Christch.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Greene, HenryD.(Shrewsbury)

Morrell, George Herbert

Bhownaggree Sir M. M.

Grenfell, William Henry

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Bigwood, James

Gretton, John

Murray,Rt Hn A.Graham(Bute

Bill, Charles

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Groves, James Grimble

Myers, William Henry

Bond, Edward

Hamilton,Marq.of(L'nd'nderry

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Brassey, Albert

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Nicholson, William Graham

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Bull, William James

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Pemberton, John S. G.

Butcher, John George

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Percy, Earl

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

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Pierpoint, Robert

Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

Heath, James (Staffords.N.W.)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Heaton, John Henniker

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Helder, Augustus

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford,W.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Birghtside

Purvis, Robert

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Horner, Frederick William

Randles, John S.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Rankin, Sir James

Chamberlain,RtHn J.A.(Worc.

Hoult, Joseph

Reid, James (Greenock)

Chapman, Edward

Houston, Robert Paterson

Remnant, James Farquharson

Charrington, Spencer

Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham)

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hozier,Hon. James Henry Cecil

Renwick, George

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge)

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

Hunt, Rowland

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Colomb, Rt.Hon. Sir John C.R.

Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Kerr, John

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Keswick, William

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Davenport, William Bromley

Kimber, Sir Henry

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Denny, Colonel

Knowles, Sir Lees

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Dickson, Charles Scott

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Dimsdale, Rt.Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Lawrence,Sir Joseph(Monm'th)

Saunderson,Rt HnCol.Edw. J.

Disraeli, Coningsby, Ralph

Lee,Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareham

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Dorington,Rt. Hon. Sir John E

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln)

Doughty, Sir George

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Leveson-Gower,Frederick N. S.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Duke, Henry Edward

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

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

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Spear, John Ward

Dyke,Rt. Hon.Sir WilliamHart

Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham)

Stanley,Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

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

Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset

Fergusson,Rt Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r

Lowe, Francis William

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurs

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und.Lyne

Wylie, Alexander

Thornton, Percy M.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. Geogre

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. J

Tuff, Charles

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

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. Sir

Valentia, Viscount

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

Alexander Acland-Hood

Walrood,Rt Hn.SirWilliam H.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowees

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

NOES.

Abraham,William (Cork,N.E.)

Gadstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Grant, Corrie

O'Dowd, John

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Grey,Rt.Hon.Sir E.(Berwick)

O'Malley, William

Asherl Alexander

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Gordon, Sir W. Brampton

Partington, Oswald

Atherley-Jones, L.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Perks, Robert William

Barlow, John Emmott

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

Philipps, John Wynford

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bell, Richard

Harwood, George

Reckitt, Harold James

Benn, John Williams

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir ArthurD.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Blake, Edward

Hemphill, Rt. Hon, Charles H.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Boland, John

Higham, John Sharpe

Robson, William Snowdon

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Holland, Sir William Henry

Roe, Sir Thomas

Brigg, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Runciman, Walter

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hutchinson,Dr. Charles Fredk.

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jacoby, James Alfred

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Burt, Thomas

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Sheehy, David

Caldwell, James

Joicey, Sir James

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cameron, Robert

Jones,David Brynnior(Swansea

Slack, John Bamford

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Soares, Ernest J.

Causton, Richard Knight

Joyce, Michael

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Cawley, Frederick

Kearley, Hudson E.

Sullivan, Donal

Channing, Francis All ton

Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Kitson, Sir James

Tennant, Harold John

Crombie, John William

Labouchere, Henry

Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

Crooks, William

Langley, Batty

Tomas,David Alfred(Merthyr

Cullinan, J.

Leamy, Edmund

Thomas,J. A(Glamorgan,Gower

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Leese,Sir, Jos. F. (Accrington)

Tomkinson, James

Delany, William

Levy, Maurice

Toulmin, George

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Lewis, John Herbert

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lloyd-George, David

Tully, Jasper

Dobbie, Joseph

Louth, Thomas

Wallace, Robert

Doogan, P. C.

Lundon, W.

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds,S.)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lmark)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Dunn, Sir William

Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Edwards, Frank

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Elibank, Master of

M'Kean, John

Weir, James Galloway

Ellice,Capt E C(S Andr'wsBghs

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Whitley, George(York, W.R.)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Mooney, John J.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Farrell, James Patrick

Moss, Samuel

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Fenwick, Charles

Murphy, John

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Flynn, James Christopher

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

Question put accordingly.
The House divided:—Ayes, 216; Noes, 128. (Division List, No. 293.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte.

Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

Balfour,Rt.HnGeraldW. Leeds

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch

Allbusen, Augustus HenryEden

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Baird, John George Alexander

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Balcarres, Lord

Bigwood, James

Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn. Hugh O

Baldwin, Alfred

Bill, Charles

Arrol, Sir William

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

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Bond, Edward

Groves, James Grimble

Percy, Earl

Brassey, Albert

Hamilton,Marq.of (L'nd'derry

Pierpoint, Robert

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Harris, F.Leverton (Tynem'th

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Bull, William James

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Butcher, John George

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Purvis, Robert

Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Handles, John S.

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Heath, James (Staffords.N.W.

Rankin, Sir James

Cautley, Henry Strother

Heaton, John Henniker

Reid, James (Greenock)

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Helder, Augustus

Remnant, James Farquharson

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford,W.

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Renwick, George

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Horner, Frederick William

Ridley,Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

Chamberlain, RtHn.JA(Worc.

Hoult, Joseph

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Chapman, Edward

Houston, Robert Paterson

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Charrington, Spencer

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Horier, Hn. James HenryCecil

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Coates, Edward Feetham

Hunt, Rowland

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Colomb, Rt.Hn. Sir John C.R.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Sackville, Col. S.G. Stopford

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Myles

Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

Kerr, John.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Keswick, William

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

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Kimber, Sir Henry

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Knowles, Sir Lees

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Davenport, William Bromley

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Denny, Colonel

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lee,Arthur H(Hants.,Fareham

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Dimsdale,Rt.Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Spear, John Ward

Dorington, Rt.Hn. Sir John E.

Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.

Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

Doughty, Sir George

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Stanley, Rt.Hon. Lord (Lanes)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M

Duke, Henry Edward

Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Long, Rt.Hn. Walter (Bristol,S

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Dyke,Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

Lowe, Francis William

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

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Thornton, Percy M.

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

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Tuff, Charles

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Macdona, John Cumming

Tuke, Sir, John Batty

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Valentia, Viscount

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Walrond, RtHn. SirWilliam H.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W.F.

Webb, Colonel William George

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Maxwell,RtHnSirH.E. (Wigt'n

Wharton, Rt.Hn. John Lloyd

Flower, Sir Ernest

Maxwell,W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

Forster, Henry William

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick,SW

Middlemore,John Throgmorton

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gardner, Ernest

Milvain, Thomas

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

Garfit William

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

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

Montagu,Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Morgan,David J(Walthamstow

Wortley, Rt.Hon. C. B. Stuart

Gordon, MajEvans-(TrH'mlets

Morrell, George Herbert

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Wylie, Alexander

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Murray, RtHnA.Graham(Bute

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Myers, William Henry

Green, WalfordD(Wednesbury

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES,—Sir

Greene,Henry D.(Shrewsbury

Nicholson, William Graham

Alexander Acland-Hood

Grenfell, William Henry

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes

Gretton, John

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Pemberton, John S. G.

NOES.

Abraham, William(Cork,N.E.)

Asher, Alexander

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bell, Richard

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barlow, John Emmott

Benn, John Williams

600

601

Blake, Edward

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Boland, John

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Dowd, John

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Harwood, George

O'Malley, William

Brigg, John

Hayter, Rt.Hon.Sir Arthur D.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Partington, Oswald

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Higham, John Sharpe

Perks, Robert William

Burt, Thomas

Holland, Sir William Henry

Philipps, John Wynford

Caldwell, James

Horniman, Frederick John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cameron, Robert

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Reckitt, Harold James

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Jacoby, Jame s Alfred

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cawley, Frederick

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Runciman, Walter

Channing, Francis Allston

Joicey, Sir James

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Crombie, John William

Jones,DavidBrymnor(Swansea

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Crooks, William

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Sheehy, David

Cullinam J.

Joyce, Michael

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Slack, John Bamford

Delany, William

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

Soares, Ernest J.

Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galway

Kitson, Sir James

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Langley, Batty

Sullivan Donal

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Leamy, Edmund

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

Dobbie, Joseph

Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington

Tennant, Harold John

Donelan, Captain A.

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.)

Doogan, P. C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas, JA(Glamorgan,Gower

Dunn, Sir William

Lough, Thomas

Toinkinson, James

Edwards, Frank

Lundon, W.

Touhnin, George

Elibank, Master of

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Wallace, Robert

Eve, Harry Trelawney

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Walton, Joseph(Barnsley)

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Kean, John

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Fenwick, Charles

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Weir, James Galloway

Flynn, James Christopher

Mooney, John J.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Moss, Samuel

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Murphy, John

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Grant, Corrie

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Griffith, Ellis J.

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

J. H. Whitley and Mr. Trevelyan.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ordered, That, for the remainder of the session, Government Business be not interrupted, except at half-past Seven of the clock at an Afternoon Sitting, under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; and that at the conclusion of Government Business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1904–5.

  CLASS II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceed-
  602
  ing £2,960, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Expenses in respect of the Committee of Imperial Defence, in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury."
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said he did not propose at that stage of the discussion to make any broad statement of policy. He thought the House was thoroughly acquainted with the grounds which induced the Government to remodel the Committee of Defence. It was necessary for its new condition that there should be a staff which should assist the members of the Committee adequately to perform their work, and should also give them that element of continuity which he thought was so valuable a portion of the new machinery which had been created. He proposed to reserve himself to answer the Questions which would doubtless be

  603
  put to him from both sides of the House. He would only mention now the fact that one of the great incidental advantages which every Member of the House, he thought, would agree with him in regarding as a consequence of this Amendment was that the House could for the first time discuss certain military and naval problems in their entirety. Under the old system and the old rules the discussion on the Navy Estimates was strictly confined to the Navy, and the discussion on the Army Estimates to the Army. There were, therefore, excluded from the consideration of the House certain questions which it would, he dared say, be hard to discuss in detail with any advantage, but which should not be absolutely excluded from general consideration.
  SIR A. HAYTERobserved that, whatever its merits might be, the proposal was not the proposal of the Esher Committee, which was that there should be not only a principal secretary, but two naval, two military, and two Indian assistant secretaries. Those secretaries had been reduced to two.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURwas understood to say that there would probably be an Indian representative.
  SIR A. HAYTERagreed with the Prime Minister as to the great advantage of the proceedings of the Defence Committee being brought before the House of Commons, as since its initiation in 1895 it had been a somewhat nebulous body which Members of the House had never heard of or seen. He thought the proposal as regards staff was a very moderate one; he had assisted at certain War Office Committees, but he had never heard of any Committee of any size which had not a secretary to record its proceedings. It was very necessary, with a body that would have to deal with matters of the first importance, that they should have some person responsible for keeping the records and preparing the documents necessary for the proper working of the members of the Committee. He anticipated great advantages from the deliberations of a body which would be able to consider naval and military affairs together, and to come to definite conclusions from which he believed considerable economies ought to result.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that all students of this question would heartily welcome the formation on some definite basis of the Committee of Imperial Defence. When they considered the gravity and the ramifications of the questions that would come before the Committee, they must agree that the Estimate now put forward was a very moderate one. If, however, this Vote was to be simply a sub-head of the Treasury Vote, to be discussed at the end of the session, he thought it would not be in its proper place. He was glad the wishes of the House had been so far met, but he would point out that when he originally brought to the notice of the House in 1888 the waste and confusion which resulted from the entirely separate discussion of naval and military policies, his proposal was that before the estimates were discussed there should be a statement made by a Minister of the Crown defining the general principles of Imperial Defence by which the policy of the Government was guided. He suggested, therefore, that this Vote in future should be brought forward prior to the introduction of the Army and Navy Estimates, so that it might render more effective the discussions on Vote A and Vote 1 of those Estimates. He regarded the establishment of this Committee as the greatest step that had been taken for many years in the direction of putting our defensive system on a proper basis. Hitherto there had been no machinery by which various parts of the Empire might be brought, so to speak, into focus, and he welcomed this Committee as a means of enabling Ministers to see in true perspective the real necessities of the Empire. The experience of the last forty years showed that we had been drifting about without any real policy at all, and he regarded that as mainly due to the fact that Prime Ministers had no means of co-ordinating the various views brought before him, with the result that the strongest Minister of the day was able unduly to influence general policy in a particular direction by the views of his Department.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

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

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1904–5.

  CLASS II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,960, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the Year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Expenses in respect of the Committee of Imperial Defence, in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury."
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB,continuing his speech, said he had already drawn attention to the beneficial effect of this Committee to record and collect information so that the Prime Ministers of future times could have the broad concrete facts brought before them. There was another advantage which would be to the advantage of the House itself,namely, that the main principles would now have an opportunity of being heard and discussed in this House, and in that way and from that fact it would percolate down. Thus there was a hope that, in the future, public opinion would be formed on a true basis and broad issues, and from that we might hope for continuity of policy based on facts. He emphasised the great importance of the step taken by the Government. There had been no greater intellect in this House than that of the late Mr. Gladstone, yet what happened to him for want of such a Committee as this? When this country was alarmed in 1870 that we might be invaded what did Mr. Gladstone say? He tried to allay the feeling of alarm in the country by proclaiming that while the ironclad fleets of other nations could circle round our shores at fifteen miles an hour the Volunteers could get from point to point at twenty or thirty miles an hour. That showed that he had not had the salient points of the British position brought before him as a whole. Had
  606
  this Committee been in existence Mr. Gladstone could not have put forward such a false view of our situation as that. Then with regard to the garrisoning of our coaling stations, our coal was distributed all over the world without any protection at all. He (Sir John) for years had pleaded for moderate defence for it, and then came the Carnarvon Commission to inquire into the matter. If this Committee of Defence had been in existence they would have had reasonable protection given to our coaling stations and there would not have been this exaggeration of fortifications necessitating gigantic garrisons as a protective force. One of the questions to be considered by the Committee was the excessive garrisoning of our coaling stations. He had said so much about this matter in the past that it was not necessary now to go into details, but if he knew anything at all he knew something of the manifold difficulties which had to be faced by the Defence Committee owing to the total absence of principle on our part, through which we had got into a position of wastefulness that it would. take us a long time to escape from.
  He believed that the new advisory machinery now set up would enable us to get clear of our military confusion, but it would take a long time before its full fruits were reaped, though every day we should be gaining something. He looked upon the discussion in Parliament on this Vote as bringing the country and the Government to a position of being able to form a sound judgment on sound principles. He remembered being quite startled in one of the Committee-rooms upstairs, when Lord Randolph Churchill was presiding over the inquiry into our naval and military expenditure. He remembered a representative of the War Office calmly stating that if our Fleet was damaged or inefficient for the space of three weeks there would be no difficulty in the way of France throwing 150,000 men upon our shores, and when he saw Lord Randolph Churchill swallow such a statement as that without question he wondered how long this sort of thing was going to continue. He should have thought that the question, if the Defence Committee had been in

  607
  existence, would have been how were they to get over? He mentioned this fact because he thought that anyone who claimed to be a statesman could not and ought not to accept a statement like that without seeing whether it was a feasible statement or not. It was a question of ports, harbours, and means of transport, a maritime and not a military problem. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean would remember perfectly well the most unseemly wrangle which occurred in this House between the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War on the question of transport and of the possibility of France being able to do what the War Office asserted, and it was perfectly obvious that had Ministers had an opportunity of studying both sides of the question by means of such a Committee as this such a wrangle would never have occurred, because they would have weighed both the naval and military aspects in the balance and a true solution would have been found.
  He felt most strongly that the question of the defence of this Empire was not so much a question for experts as for statesmen. Every hour that he had lived he had been more impressed with the fact that one must not follow blindly the opinion of experts in high policy. It was a question for statesmanship, and the effect of this Committee was that it was a step forward and that all future statesmen would be able to examine both sides of the question. They knew the resources they had at their command and that they would have to study not only efficiency in defence but economy as well, and as time went on we should have more and more a rational and continuous system based on some sort of principle. Ministries would pass away, and Members of this House would pass away before the enormous advantages of the step taken by the formation of this Committee of Defence would be realised by the country. What was stated by the Norfolk Commission with regard to the possibility of France being able to collect troops at the ports of that country in a short period was no doubt true, but how were they to come over? How were they going to collect their transport? The collection of transport
  608
  necessary to enable them to land upon these shores in military form would be a matter not of hours, nor of days, but of months. The advantage he saw in the step which had been taken was great, and he felt that the Government deserved infinite credit for having initiated something upon which could be built up a continuous system upon settled principles. They had to look at the Empire as a whole, and they had to apply to it reasonable principles. The defence of the Empire was the biggest problem man ever had to solve, and it could only be solved by the application of proper principles. Successful war depended on two things; to be at the right place at the right time, and the vital question to settle was the question of distribution. Organisation is subservient to distribution. Reeasonable probability pointed to where our forces, and the nature and amount of our forces were required then, and not till then, should we approach the question of organisation. He saw already in the scheme presented to the House the beginning of the education of that House in studying the operations of the Defence Committee. For the first time in our Army scheme a principle had been laid down, and hereafter he had great hopes that the application of the principle would be extended. His right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War had a better chance in this matter than any Minister ever had before for the reason given by Lord Wolseley who went up and down the country saying, "Before the military authorities are called upon to provide an Army they ought to be informed clearly and distinctly what kind of Army the country want. If that were done there would be no difficulty in providing the force required." Nobody then was prepared to tell Lord Wolseley what kind of Army was wanted. The Committee of Defence could now tell the military authorities what kind of an Army was wanted. He most warmly approved of the step that had been taken by the Prime Minister in this matter.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he welcomed the reconstruction of the Defence Committee. The hon. Baronet who had just spoken had not in the least exaggerated the value it would be to the country in the future. They should now congratulate themselves on the fact that the defence of this country

  609
  was a matter for which the Prime Minister of the country was directly responsible. The right hon. Gentleman would have behind him a body supplying him with all the information he required in order that he might treat the question in a statesmanlike manner. In past days Prime Ministers had to fish up information from all sorts of holes and corners and had nobody to give them the assistance they required. It was, in his opinion, a very great advantage that this Committee should have been started in a humble manner in order that as things grew it might be added to. He did not suppose as time went on that two sections would be the limit. This Committee would have to carry out duties analagous to those carried out by the principal committee of the Prussian army. It was well known that it took the German staff, not a certain number of months or years, but decades to get that general staff to the high state of efficiency at which it at present stood. We had a more difficult task to perform, and he presumed that little by little this staff would be increased. No doubt in the future there would be one representative for India and someone, if not actually deputed by the Colonies, who would have colonial experience, who would be in touch with our great Colonies, and who would be able to point out, in case of emergency, what those Colonies would be able to do and what amount of support they would be able to rely on from the mother country.
  The Prime Minister had stated in May or June of this year that one of the difficult duties falling on such a body as this would he questions of this nature, questions which could not be dealt with in this House as they related in a certain measure to Army and Navy. In reference to the Navy alone it would be a question for them to decide what cruisers formed a proper complement to a fighting fleet and what number of cruisers would be required to patrol the seas for the protection of our commerce. The question of coaling stations was more important still, and on this particular question there was a lamentable spectacle of the naval and military authorities almost fighting over this matter. The Navy objected to take over the coaling stations because it clearly saw that it would entail an increased naval force, a
  610
  larger Marine force, and that would entail a larger Vote, and they foresaw that in the future, in consequence, they might have to go short in the matter of guns or the building fund. On the other hand the military authorities objected to have their units broken up in order to defend the coaling stations, as it impaired the quality of the units as a fighting force. He himself had always been in favour of garrisoning the coaling stations with Marine forces. The Marine was far more suited to this work than the ordinary soldier. Now that we had this Committee of Defence it would be possible for the Prime Minister to lay down precisely what proportion of the defence was to be undertaken by the Navy and what by the Army.
  There were those who held the view that at any moment we might be called upon to fight in the Indian Empire, and those who had specially studied this question knew that the great Power which we dreaded in India could only make an attack on the Indian Empire after several stages. It was not a contingency we were now called on to face, but one which we might be called on to face, but there were other contingencies which we had been called on to face more than once. On several occasions we had sent from India bodies of troops, and had lowered the garrisons of that Empire, but the time might come when it would not be wise to draw any body of troops from India without replacing them from here. The Defence Committee would place themselves in the position of the German staff, and they would have plans of campaign drawn up to meet those various contingencies, and we should not then see what we had seen for centuries. an attempt to provide for the Army and the Navy without knowing what the value of one or the other was. That was why they had two Army Corps schemes, very different in their nature. First the House was told that three Arms Corps would be required in order that they might be landed on other shores if necessary, and now they were told that only 15,000 or 16,000 men were wanted for home defence. The present. Secretary of State for War did not say so.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): Yes, I do.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman would perhaps point out next Monday what force he had in addition to the 16,000 men prepared at any moment to go abroad. He did not think he could do that without going for complete mobilisation. In the last two years there had been two different schemes put before the country. He was not blaming the present Secretary for War or his predecessor. They were doing their best to act up to the demand of the country. His opinion was that the Defence Committee would enable them to avoid all these difficulties. That body would lay down exactly what was needed in the way of naval and military defence, whether for home, India, or the Colonies. For these reasons he heartily supported the construction of the Committee.
  *MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid the Secretary of State for War, in his speech the other day, and also in the Memorandum which had been circulated, said that the recommendations of the Committee of three had been adopted verbatim et literatim. They all rejoiced to hear that. However they might differ on points of detail, broadly speaking the recommendations were of enormous value to the Army, the defences of the country, and the Empire generally. But the Estimates before the House did not embody the recommendations of the Committee with regard to what was called the "permanent nucleus." He should like to quote exactly what the Committee suggested. They said—
  "Before proceeding to discuss the reconstruction of the War Office we are impelled to urge the immediate provision of what is in actual fact the corner stone of the needed edifice of reform."
  "The permanent nucleus of the Defence Committee should consist of:—
  "I. A Permanent Secretary, who should be appointed for five years, renewable at pleasure."
  "II. Under this official, two naval officers, selected by the Admiralty, two military officers chosen by the War Office, and two Indian officers, nominated by the Viceroy, with, if possible, one or more representatives of the
  612
  Colonies. These officers should not be of high rank, and the question of their appointment should be limited to two years. The duties of the permanent nucleus of the Defence Committee would be:—

  "A. To consider all questions of Imperial Defence from the point of view of the Navy, the Military Forces, India, and the Colonies.

  "B. To obtain and collate information from the Admiralty, War Office, India Office, Colonial Office, and other Departments of State.

  "C. To prepare any documents required by the Prime Minister and the Defence Committee, anticipating their needs as far as possible.

  "D. To furnish such advice as the Committee may ask for in regard to defence questions involving more than one Department of State.

  "E. To keep adequate records for the use of the Cabinet of the day and its successors."

  Those duties were of enormous extent' and it seemed to him that the staff proposed, perhaps it might be as a commencement, was insufficient to perform the duties placed upon them. The Prime Minister was good enough to say that hon. Members might ask Questions. That was a matter on which the right hon. Gentleman might reply. As far as he himself was concerned, he should be rather glad if the recommendations of the Committee of three were not very closely followed in this direction, because it seemed to him that, if the permanent nucleus which was referred to as the corner stone was made too strong, there was very considerable risk of the work they were doing, or would do, overlapping with the work which should he performed by the general staff of the Army. In this discussion to-night the fact that a general staff had been or was about to be set up at the War Office had been somewhat left out of sight. He had never been able to understand how it came about that the Committee of throe referred to this permanent nucleus as a general staff. They said it was to—
  "Fulfil the main functions of a general staff as they are now understood all over the civilised world by statesmen who have considered the necessities and conditione of Empire."
  It did not seem to him that they had anything whatever in common with a general staff such as was known in connection with foreign armies. He supposed that the German staff was a kind of model, but there was no separate Committee of this kind connected with the

  613
  German organisation. He saw great necessity for having a Defence Committee, but he rather feared if it was made too strong it would be apt to set up a division of responsibility. Division of responsibility was one of the principal reasons for the breakdown of our system at the start of the war in 1899. At that time, as was well known, the Commander-in-Chief was entrusted with the duty of preparing strategical schemes, but the Secretary of State had the advantage or the disadvantage of four other advisers. That was the principal cause, he thought, of some of our great failures. There were too many advisers, and it was always possible to say So-and-so advised this and So-and-so advised that, and consequently when anything went wrong the soldiers were blamed, or the War Office was blamed, for what was really the result of our false system. He thought every safeguard should be taken now when they were laying the foundation of a valuable structure. There should not be any overlapping of that kind in future, no division of responsibility, no conflicting advice, which always must lead to disaster. In this case, according to the recommendations of the Committee of three, the Prime Minister had really what was a general staff of his own. The Secretary of State had also a and it seemed quite possible that there might arise a serious conflict of opinion between those two bodies, and in the end when they tried to fix responsibility no one would know who was responsible. The general staff had many functions, but the principal function was to provide the Government, when asked for it, with a thoroughly thought-out and complete strategical plan for any military situation which might arise. That was done two years before the war broke out between Germany and Denmark. Von Roon wrote to his friend Moltke asking whether he had thought of the possibility of a collision with Denmark. He replied in the affirmative, stating that so many men and guns would be required, and enclosing a sketch for the first act. That was really general staff work. In Japan at the present time they had an illustration of how splendidly the general staff had come to the assistance of the nation in time of war. Where would the Japanese Govern-
  614
  ment have been if they had had two or three different bodies advising them, and two or three different systems of obtaining advice? He felt sure that they would have fallen to the ground. He had put these points forward in the hope that some discussion would follow. While strongly supporting the Government in all they were doing now, and feeling that a great step was being taken in advance, he hoped that the danger of conflict between the general staff attached to the Prime Minister and the general staff of the War Office might be avoided, and that as much responsibility as possible should he thrown on one or other of these bodies.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the hon. and gallant Gentleman had complained that the staff of the new secretariat was insufficient. He could not but think that it would be possible for the secretariat to call in any staff that might be necessary. What the Committee had to deal with was the permanent staff of the Department, and he considered that ample for the permanent work. They could turn to the Intelligence Department of the Admiralty, or the Intelligence Department of the War Office, to work out any plan or details they required to have before them. The present proposal was the fourth form which the Cabinet Committee of Defence had taken. The first was that initiated by Lord Rosebery in the latter days of the Government over which he presided. Then came the announcement made by time new Government of 1895–1896 as to the new and extended form they had given to the Cabinet Committee. That second Committee was a failure. That it was a failure could be proved by the public statements that had been made. There was, for instance, the Colonial Conference, the documents laid before which body constituted a public scandal, and which threw back possibly for ever that Kriegsverein of which the House heard something the previous night. In addition to this, there was the evidence laid before the Duke of Norfolk's Coma-mission in January of this year. The third form, which the Cabinet Committee adopted late in 1903, was announced by the Prime Minister, and now the

  615
  House had the fourth form. In the interests of economy as well as of efficiency he strongly advocated the collation of the views of the two services. It was the only way to reduce expenditure and also of getting the best value for the money spent on the two services. Within the last few years there had admittedly been a great waste in our national expenditure. It was understood that the invasion theory of this country had been abandoned. The Secretary of State for India said a few days ago that one of the chief critics of expenditure during the earlier years of the Government was now responsible for the War Office. He further stated that many critics had urged a reduction of Army expenditure, but that no one had supplied a scheme by which that reduction could be effected.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,)said that what he pointed out was that the Prime Minister. by placing his right hon. friend at the War Office, had given the best security for the reduction of expenditure. On that occasion he went on to say, pointing to the Opposition side of the House, that the critics of the Government had not yet shown that they had any plan in their minds, and that his right hon. friend had stated that reduction of expenditure could be accomplished mainly by the reduction of the number of men.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he heartily desired to see carried out the policy which the Government had announced in regard to a reduction of the Regular Army, which had been largely kept up on the basis of the invasion doctrine now repudiated. There was another invasion bogey which had to some extent taken the place of that they had succeeded in killing. It was the supposed need for Army Corps to reinforce the defence of the Indian frontier. The Government had continued to be impressed by the difficulty which the defence of India against invasion presented, and they had not solved that difficulty. They were defending their expeditionary force across the sea by the necessity of having large reinforcements for the Indian frontier, and Lord Curzon the other day said that
  616
  if we had the misfortune to go to war with Russia we should have to attack Russia on the Indian frontier. That was as complete a bogey as the invasion theory of our own shores. Russia was not in a position rapidly to strike against India, because the transport difficulties were such that it would be years before it would become necessary to repel an invasion of India. The Government, however, were not clear in their views on that subject. He trusted that the Prime Minister and the civilian members of the Committee would exercise their own intelligence on this problem, and would not allow themselves to be guided entirely by expert opinion. It was notorious that the whole of the expert advisers of the Government had at one time believed that we could fight Russia in the Caucasus. A dream more wild to those who knew the facts and the country never entered into the mind of man. Therefore he hoped that the Prime Minister would subject this doctrine to as rigid a scrutiny as he had subjected the doctrines of invasion connected with this country.
  There were other important questions which could not be settled by the Admiralty and the War Office, but by the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. There was our position in the Mediterranean. It was all right at present, but obviously the time was coming when the development of the submarine would affect the whole course of operations in that part of the world. They could not trust that question to the Admiralty alone, because it involved great political considerations connected with Malta, Egypt, the subject of alliances, and other political considerations. There was also the question as to the best places for our naval bases. These rested largely on policy, and partly on the development of invention and future changes in the Channel in time of war. It was extremely probable that we should be driven more and more to use bases in the Irish Channel or on the east coast of Scotland; and the question must be considered by the Prime Minister in conjunction with the Treasury. He was quite sure, if he could make his hon. friend understand the views which he held. that the hon. Gentleman would be at one with him in

  617
  saying that that was the only sound way of reducing expenditure. Of course, there were similar questions which would obviously come continually before a body of this kind. There was a most interesting subject suggested the other day by the Secretary of State for War, and there was also the whole question of the defence of our secondary naval bases. There was in every fortress in modern times a book which showed why it was defended and how best it was to be defended. What was wanted by this Committee was that some record should be kept which should show the reason for every step that had been taken for the defence of the Empire. In that way only would it be possible to secure a continuous policy and prevent the present gross and scandalous waste of effort and money.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I reply now it will prevent me speaking again. I may say at once that I have heard the encomiums paid to this Defence Committee by confident critics, who rightly regard it, as I emphatically desire the country to regard it, as being at present only in a tentative and relatively embryonic stage. I should write myself down a fool if I suggested for a moment that I am confident that we have reached the acme of organisation or that no additions or modifications were required in our arrangements. But that the Committee has done and is doing work which seems to me to he of the utmost value I can assure the House confidently, and when in due course our successors come into office and have the opportunity of seeing the records which we have left, whether they agree with our conclusions or not, they will feel that a great deal of work has been done by the Committee which, without the Committee, could never have been done at all. I must say how much in this matter we owe to the late Secretary of State for War, the present Secretary for India, and to the First Lord of the Admiralty. I do not say that the idea of this reform of the Committee originated wholly with them, because in matters of this kind almost every good invention has several legitimate fathers. But in a Cabinet Memorandum which they circulated they did more than any other two persons to
  618
  start the movement upon a sound basis and whenever any one speaks with gratitude of the work of the Committee, they will not forget the names of the two Ministers of the Crown who deserve so much of the praise.
  The hon. Member for Stepney asked me about the German general staff. I have never agreed with that phrase. While we have a great deal to learn from all the great military Powers on the Continent, it would be perfect folly on our part to try to model our arrangements on theirs. Our circumstances are different. Our Empire is different. Our whole political constitution is different. But while we ought to have our eyes and ears open to anything which they can teach us, a blind mechanical imitation would be the pro-foundest mistake which we could make. I do not contemplate that the Defence Committee can ever resemble the German general staff, partly because that staff is, if not wholly occupied with Army matters, at all events to the extent of 90 per cent. of its work so concerned. I think that my hon. friend need not fear that the Defence Committee will in any sense trench upon the responsibilities which properly lie in the first place with the Admiralty or the Army Department, and in the second remove with the Cabinet as a whole. In truth, I think that one of the great merits of the Defence Committee is that it has no executive authority at all. It has no power to give an order to the humblest soldier in His Majesty's Army or the most powerless sloop under the control of the Admiralty. I think that that is especially valuable from a point of view not yet touched upon—namely, the relations between the Defence Committee and those self-governing Colonies of the Empire over which no office in this country has any control at all. I hope that when any problem of defence which touches them nearly comes up, and even when they take a closer interest in the problems of Imperial defence as a whole, we may have the advantage of their assistance in our councils. But. I am certain that the self-governing Colonies will never allow any representative of theirs to come to the Defence Committee if the Defence Committee with

  619
  that addition had the smallest authority to impose obligations, financial, political, military, or naval, on the colonies which they represent. But we are so constituted that the only thing the Defence Committee may give, either to a Department at home or to the Cabinet or to the Colonial Governments, is advice.
  It is quite true that, so far as the Home Departments are concerned, advice from a Committee which contains the Prime Minister, and which practically never meets without having the assistance of the Secretary of State for War, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the head of the Army general staff, the head of the Army Intelligence Department, the First Sea Lord, and the head of the Naval Intelligence Department—it is, I say, practically certain that a Committee so constituted is likely to have its advice taken by the Departments; but we have a great many functions to perform which go outside the jurisdiction of any of those offices. There are the self-governing Colonies, and anything they can do or are ready to do for Imperial defence. There is India. It is, no doubt, intimately connected with the problem of defence and with the Government of this country, but the Cabinet cannot give orders to India in the same sense, or with the same facility, or, indeed, in any way corresponding to the way in which they give orders to the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Secretary for War. It is, therefore, from that point of view of the very first importance that our functions should be so restricted that we cannot interfere with administration in any way either at home or abroad. It is only by thus strictly limiting our functions that we can have that authority which I hope we shall more and more gain in the general scheme of Imperial defence, and that our opinions will carry that weight which will be all the more effective because there is behind them no power of coercive authority.
  It must be remembered—I make this remark, which, perhaps, is almost parenthetical in its character, because I do not want expectations raised—I am always anxious to keep expectations low about the work of the Defence Committee. I never wish to blow its trumpet or to exaggerate its merits; but
  620
  may I remind the Committee that the questions we have to deal with are incomparably more difficult than those which fall to the general staff of the German Army? The main military problem with which they are daily and nightly occupied is, after all, relatively a simple one. They know exactly the number of their own troops and the number of the troops of the coterminous countries. They have every opportunity of learning about their discipline and efficiency, and they know the limited number of ways in which an invasion can be effected. Well, that is a very simple problem, but we have two problems which, I admit, are in a way almost as simple—namely, the problem of home defence and the problem of India. These are relatively isolated military and naval problems which can be considered, as it were, on their merits, and as questions which can be reasoned out round a table with some tolerable certainty that you have before you all the problems with which you will practically have to deal.
  As regards home defence that was one of the very first things which the Committee took in hand. We discussed it at many consecutive meetings, and I finally drew up a full report embodying our view. That report will remain on record for the benefit of our successors, not indeed to bind them, but as a basis upon which they can make their own investigations upon a subject which changes from year to year, and on which no final conclusions ought even to be admitted, but which with the due revision which doubtless it will receive in years to come will, I think, always be ultimately based upon the conclusions at which we have arrived.
  Then the other clear and definite problem with which we have to deal is the question of Indian defence. That was the only part of the right hon. Baronet's speech from which I felt myself at liberty to dissent. He ruled India out of the present practical military problems, on the ground, quite good as far as it goes, that the problem of the attack on India is largely a question of transport. So it is. But the right hon. Baronet must remember that, though it would be a very difficult, certainly a very serious, military problem for the Russians, our only

  621
  possible enemy in that part of the world—though I trust that they will never be our enemy in fact—this country cannot allow the, limit of countries which lie between us and Russia to be eaten up gradually, and these secondary bases to be made.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I do not wish to interrupt, the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but I was replying to a statement of Lord Curzon that if these considerations should unfortunately at any time lead to war between ourselves and Russia that war must be fought out on the North-West Frontier of India. My observations suggested that Russia could be attacked in other parts of the world, and that it would not necessarily be on the North- West Frontier.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, but on the North-West Frontier, at all events of Afghanistan, the Russians, we have to admit, are strong and are every day tending to grow stronger. Their difficulty has always been one of transport. There was a time when the Russian invasion of India was a genuine scare, and a scare, I think, of the most foolish description, although some of the wisest of our forefathers were deeply impressed by it. But the Russia of which they were afraid was, from the point of view of transport, which the right hon. Gentleman most rightly thinks is the key to the whole situation, a very different Russia from the Russia of to-day. They have already one line of railway directly meeting the frontier of Afghanistan, and they are on the verge of having a second line of railway directly meeting that frontier, and it is possible, in future, that these means of communication, so important to increase, may be increased further. Everybody will recognise that I am discussing an abstract military problem. Every nation in the world which is coterminous with a military Power has to assume, for the sake of argument, that some day or other they may be at war, and I am acting on that, assumption. The problem of the defence of India from invasion from the North-west cannot be dismissed in the phrases which have been used, I think, by the right hon. Baronet, and which certainly were used
  622
  by the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind me. The right hon. Baronet in this regard made a solemn and well-founded appeal to the Government not to be guided too much by expert opinion. I think we ought not to be too much guided by expert opinion; and one of the great advantages of the Defence Committee is that your chief sailors, soldiers, and politicians are brought together round a table. I have known great soldiers who, when you pointed out to them that such and such a course was really practically impossible on account of the cost it involved, or for some other reason, said:—"That is not my affair, but your affair. I have only got to deal with the ideal army as it ought to be." Nobody has got to deal in this world with an ideal case. He has to deal with the thing he can get, and he has to make the best of it. One immense advantage of these informal conversations around a table by the chiefs of the Army and Navy, and those who are responsible for the time being for the conduct of public affairs, is that each comes into direct contact with the point of view of the other, each is subjected to the cross-examination of the other, each can be forced to give his own opinion in writing, and, finally, when some kind of conclusion is arrived at—and all our conclusions are, or ought to be, provisional—that conclusion, at all events, is the result of prolonged conversations embodied in formal documents in which all the reasons as regards the main question—I do not mean as regards each particular question—are set out. Those seem to me to be the main points that have been raised in this debate. If any further questions are asked, I shall be glad to do my best to answer them, but I have endeavoured to give as material an insight as I can into the existing practice and working of the Committee, which has met every week since it has been reconstituted, and has done work, far indeed from covering the whole complicated question of Imperial defence, but which will prove of use either to us or our successors.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The last part of the Prime Minister's speech, I think, has touched the real point, and given us

  623
  what is the essence of the reasons for the establishment of the Defence Committee. I could not help thinking, when he alluded to the value of the informal conversations across the table of the Defence Committee, that we are having this evening a sort of informal conversation rather than a debate of a most interesting and informing kind. Though I have some reserves to make, I would submit to the Committee whether one of the first fruits of the work of the Defence Committee which we may very well welcome is not the sort of speech we have had from the Prime Minister this evening, a speech which was informing and interesting to the House, not pressing the Committee for any conclusions, not committing them to anything, but a really informing and educating speech, very tentative in its character. But I would ask the Committee to think whether the sort of speech we have had from the Prime Minister is not one which might be very greatly expanded by future Prime Ministers when the Defence Committee has been longer at work. The Prime Minister has removed one apprehension which may have weighed with some Members who have not been altogether satisfied with the appointment of the Defence Committee. He has said that the Defence Committee is to have no executive power. Well, if it has no executive power, I trust I am justified in saving that it has removed nothing from the control of the House of Commons.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Prime Minister dwelt on the question of the Indian frontier. I should like to give a little more definiteness as to what he said as to questions of policy on the Indian frontier. We wish on this side of the House, and I hope the feeling is shared on the other side, to regard the problem of the Indian frontier as one of defence.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
  SIR EDWARD GREY: We have heard it suggested that there have been military circles which regarded the Indian problem as one not solely of defence but as a question of how you might, in the course of certain eventualities, be prepared to press home an attack on Russia. If
  624
  the Imperial Defence Committee has provided the means by which policy may be so considered that you can have a statement definitely before the House that the problem of the Indian frontier is one of defence, you have something definite in the way of policy to put before the House which we have never yet had put before it, because we have had no opportunity previously of discussing these questions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cheered the right hon. Gentleman because I agreed with him, and then it occurred to me that, as a cheer is necessarily inarticulate, my agreement might be misunderstood. The problem of the North-West Frontier, is, in our opinion, purely a question of defence, but that does not mean that the defence is necessarily to be conducted behind that frontier.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I admit that we are in an early stage. This is a problem which has really never been discussed in the House, but the point of view I want to put forward is this—that the problem of defence is very different from the problem of an advance beyond the frontier. If it is defence you have got the whole of the difficulties of the frontier on your side. They are an asset in your defence. That is the sort of problem we expect to be considered by the new Committee of Defence and the sort of problem which we expect to receive new definiteness and new clearness in the way it is presented to the House of Commons.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Prime Minister said, and I do not intend to disturb the impression, that the Vote now before the Committee has been received with considerable sympathy, but I cannot go quite so far as the Esher Committee has gone. They have, I think, been a little anticipatory in their congratulations upon the appointment of the Committee of Defence. It is still in its infancy, and the House of Commons will welcome it not by its establishment but by its results. We have not yet got the results, and we must wait for them before we can quite rise to the pitch of the

  625
  Esher Committee in welcoming the establishment of the Committee of Defence. One result we have already got. We have already got a discussion, not merely of Army questions or of Navy questions, but of the two combined. The House of Commons has never been able to discuss questions of defence as a whole. It is sometimes asked—Is it, after all, very important that the House of Commons should discuss such questions? I stand by discussion in the House of Commons, because without discussion there is no control. But discussion is also an opportunity for keeping the House of Commons in touch with important problems. It is an opportunity to the Government of the day for educating the House of Commons. Speeches from the Government, whatever the Government may be, carry considerable weight in the House of Commons, and they have an educative and informing effect upon the country at large. The House of Commons and the country have never had a chance yet of being instructed and informed on the question of Imperial defence. The result has been that the House of Commons has been most inefficient in its criticism and control of Army and Navy Estimates, because it has had no real policy which it could make a starting point for its criticism. I look upon the Defence Committee, if rightly used—because everything depends upon that—as being a possible instrument by which you may secure efficiency and economy. That is what we want. What we are oppressed by is a sense of waste caused by overlapping between the two services. We have had vast preparations; we have had no plan behind them, and that must entail waste. If the Defence Committee is rightly used it ought to give us a plan, and ought therefore to make our preparations both more efficient and more economical.
  There is one point of view with regard to the Defence Committee which may excite apprehension. Hon. Members may say, "You have already your War Office making very large and enormous demands upon the expenditure of the country; you have your Admiralty also making very large demands; you are now going to create a third body, which
  626
  is going to add to the demands." That is the point I want to deal with. You have already two Departments making, as I consider, conjointly, in the total, excessive demands upon the expenditure of the country. If you are going to add a third which is to make separate demands, I admit I should demur to that exceedingly. But, rightly used, I think the Imperial Defence Committee ought to so lay down the policy as to restrict the Army and the Navy respectively, and consolidate these two separate demands into one great demand for Imperial defence, which will in its total be less than the two separate demands. Therefore it is as a possible instrument for efficiency and economy that I look upon the Defence Committee. There is one more possible objection. I can understand people saying: "You have got your Defence Committee; it is to have a permanent secretary, who will be a very powerful man. When one Government goes out of power it will leave behind it records laying down propositions with regard to Imperial defence which will be an almost insuperable obstacle to its successor if its successor takes a different view of the needs of Imperial defence." In other words, that it will settle such a degree of continuity of policy that one Government will be able more than it can now to bind its successor. But successive Governments now come in committed to enormous Army Estimates and enormous Navy Estimates, and I do not see that the continuity of policy, because it is gathered into one hand, is likely to be a more insuperable bar to future economy than it is now, when you have it in two separate Deparments which have never been under any real control. The Imperial Defence Committee must never be allowed to become an independent machine which is to run the Government. It must be an instrument to be used by the Government, and the person on whom the responsibility will rest for seeing that it is used for the Government is undoubtedly the Prime Minister. I quite admit that with a Committee of this kind, with a permanent secretary who is an able and powerful man, you have the danger that with a weak Government the Defence Committee may become the master of the Government.

  627
  It is so with the permanent officials of any Department, and it rests with the Prime Minister to see that nothing of that kind takes place.
  I think we ought not to pass by the question of the appointment of the Defence Committee without at least a tribute to the memory of Lord Randolph Churchill, with whom, if I may judge from the Report of the Esher Committee, the germ of the idea really rests. He recommended that in the interests of economy—because he was a great economist—you should co-ordinate the Army and the Navy under one head, and he recommended a Minister of Defence who should be supreme over both. I am not sure that I consider the reason which the Esher Committee have given for dismissing that suggestion is sufficient; I think it is a possible alternative well worthy of consideration. The first question that will arise in the minds of us all is why nothing of this kind has been done before. I am glad the Prime Minister has not used the argument, which he has used in other matters, that this is solely the proposal of the present Government and that nothing of the kind has been suggested by the Liberal Party. But I would point out that in the last twenty years the Liberal Party has only been in office for two complete sessions of Parliament. Therefore when I say that the question arises in our minds, Why has nothing of the kind been done before?—I would deprecate any retort against the Liberal Party, for no reproach rests with them in the matter.
  The Prime Minister is to be the President of the Defence Committee. The Esher Committee says that the Prime Minister ought always to be President. I do not think we need anticipate the future in that fashion. It is quite right that for the present the Prime Minister should be President. The Defence Committee has to overtake an immense amount of arrears; its business is to introduce both efficiency and economy, and that being so its work ought to be directly supervised, not only by the present Prime Minister, but by any Prime Minister that may succeed him in earlier years. I speak with the freedom of one who has never been a
  628
  Cabinet Minister, and therefore from the point of view of an ordinary citizen, when I say that the Prime Minister is the most important Minister of the whole Cabinet. Therefore, whatever Department has for the moment the most important work to do, that Department ought to have the constant attention of the Prime Minister. The work of the Defence Committee is one specially for the superintendence of the Prime Minister. It may be that in happier times such superintendence will be unnecessary, and, that being so, I do not see why the Prime Minister should necessarily always remain the active president of the Defence Committee. But we shall never get economy and efficiency in expenditure unless the Prime Minister for a time superintends closely the work of the Defence Committee. This will bring him into contact with the naval experts and the military experts, and it may be said that if he is weak they will get the better of him, and lead him into extravagant expenditure. You cannot provide against that. You can no more provide against a weak or an incompetent Prime Minister than against a weak or incompetent admiral. But the Prime Minister is less likely to be run by the experts if he is brought into contact with them than if he meets them at the Defence Committee. Any Government which proposes, large reductions in the expenditure on the Army and Navy will be confronted with great difficulties. It is one thing to ask for reductions; it is another thing to propose them in the House of Commons. The Government who propose them will have great difficulties unless the Prime Minister has been fortified by contact with the naval and military experts of the Defence Committee. If the Prime Minister is able to say that the Estimates he presents to the House are Estimates which the Defence Committee consider sufficient for the defence of the Empire, he will convince the House that they are brought forward, not in the interest of economy alone, but are sufficient also for the needs of the Empire. The scheme must be judged by its results. I am not sure that it is the best thing that might have been devised, but until this was devised there were no means by which the House of Commons might have a policy as a whole put before it and might be really

  629
  placed in a position to judge of the needs of Imperial defence. In so far as it is to be used as a means for economy and as a means for putting before the House of Commons annually the problem of Imperial defence, I welcome and support it.
  *COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid he most heartily welcomed the Defence Committee. He thought that the Defence Committee would be able to obviate the delay which had occurred in the past in connection with the calling out of the Reserves, whereby many thousands lives had been lost. He, however, differed from the feeling which appeared to be accepted at the present time that this country could rely on the Navy alone. The sanity of the nation would never permit it. He was very glad indeed that the Secretary of State for War proposed to keep a force of Regulars in this country. This country had been invaded on several occasions. In Mahan's Life of Nelson it was supposed that an enemy 40,000 strong could cross on a calm night very rapidly. Therefore, they should not run away with the idea that this country could rely for defence on the Navy alone. If the Navy were on the spot it might be all right; but in the event of a long war the Cabinet would be asked to send ships to reinforce fleets in the Atlantic, the North Sea, or the Mediterranean; and after a time very few ships would be left.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that the proposal of a Defence Committee had been very favourably received by the Committee as a whole. He thought it was one of the fruits of the discussions, the acrimonious discussions, they had had last session. It was those discussions which directed the attention of the Prime Minister to military affairs.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid his attention was aroused long before the discussions to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that certainly the result did not mature until then, or had not sufficiently matured to enable the right hon. Gentleman to
  630
  hold the views he now held. The Report of the Esher Committee showed that the criticisms which they had directed against Army policy were altogether right; and that they marched abreast of military sentiment. The Prime Minister said that the present Secretary of State for India had a share in the credit for this Committee. That might be quite true. Nobody knew how much he might have recommended; but certain he was that the right hon. Gentleman by endeavouring to stereotype into the Army system all the expansions made under stress of war directed a large amount of attention to the Army, so that in that sense he might claim for himself to have been the parent of the recent reform. The secretariat which the Prime Minister had created, for he would be looked upon as the principal creator, was put forward by him in a very inoffensive manner and in a manner which had been recognised and praised by the right hon. Baronet. The Prime Minister had said it was a modest proposal; it was because they thought the secretariat a modest proposal and because it was not regarded as being a revolutionary change that it had received such a large measure of support from all shades of military opinion in the House. The hon. Member for Stepney had spoken of the scale and scope of the Committee, and suggested that it would be a great dander if it were to be a parallel to the German general staff. He was sure every one would agree with that. The utility of this secretariat would be destroyed if it departed from being an advisory machine at the service of the Cabinet. It might be true that there were great miscalculations of the forces required to overcome the Boers, but he was not sure that those miscalculations would have been prevented by such a secretariat. He had always defended the general military conduct of the first portion of the war, terminating with the capture of Pretoria. The miscalculations were moral rather than material, and were not matters upon which the secretariat of strategists would necessarily be able to give proper and accurate information.
  One danger about this secretariat was that it was n instrument which, though it might be used in the interests of economy, might equally be used

  631
  for the purpose of expanding expenditure and establishment. There was also the possibility of too great attention on the part of the Prime Minister to the details of Imperial defence. The present head of the secretariat, who was a man of great capacity, vigour, and energy, might be said to exhibit at once the advantages and disadvantages of his office. By his very qualities he would obtain a predominant influence over the men who ruled the Army and governed the policy of the country. It would be of great value to the Minister in charge to have such a man at his elbow, but it was very possible that he would become the real brain and governing spirit of Army policy. He understood that the officers to be employed were to be not of high rank, and were to return to their regiments at the expiration of their period of service. The tremendous secrets with which the Committee would have to deal would therefore be entrusted in the course of time to a considerable number of officers. That was a serious, though perhaps not an insuperable, objection. It would be much better that these officers should be on the general staff, and after their term of service should return thereto, as there were considerable dangers connected with such officers, on returning to their regiment, discussing points of strategy in the confidence of the mess-room, dangers which must be apparent to all.
  Another consideration was that connected with the presidency of the Committee. He could well believe that the present Prime Minister, being greatly interested in these matters, and having a mind trained in dealing with all sorts of great problems, was the best man that could be found for that office. But, after all, very few Prime Ministers would possess the aptitude or the taste for the kind of work involved. It frequently happened in this country that the man who was made Prime Minister was appointed to that position not because he was the most vigorous and perspicacious person who could be found, but because he had come to represent certain great principles and stood for a certain kind of Government. For that very reason he was generally a somewhat aged man, not much tted to go into great masses
  632
  of detail of a highly technical character. The Minority Report of the Hartington Commission would have avoided the difficulty by placing the land and sea forces of the Crown under a Minister of Defence who should also be the treasurer of those forces. But the advantages of the course now being taken were overwhelming. It would provide an opportunity for discussion in the House of Commons, and, by providing a much needed link between the two services, afford the possibility of there one day being established a more reasonable ratio between the naval and military expenditure of the country.
  He was glad to hear that this Committee would have no sort of executive power. It was to be a body of men trained to inform the executive authority. The Cabinet had the issues of peace and war in its hands. Was it to decide these matters on knowledge or in ignorance? If on knowledge it must be allowed to select the best methods of obtaining a regular supply of the knowledge required in the most convenient form. That would undoubtedly be provided by this Committee and no one would be inclined to grudge the comparatively insignificant annual cost involved. He did not deny that it would be foolish for the country to pin their faith entirely to the blue water school; it would at any rate be a great pity that they should entirely blot out of their minds the responsibility which morally devolved upon every citizen to defend the soil on which he lived. He had always strongly urged that it was in the development of a great Volunteer citizen Army, living not in barracks, but in tents, coming up for temporary training and not serving as professional soldiers, that they would find the insurance against the very improbable contingency of invasion, and also an outlet for that invaluable manly sentiment without which no nation covld really be considered patriotic. The invasion school was very popular last year, and was mainly responsible for the theory of the then Secretary of State for War as to the necessity of having 30,000 "stiffeners" to be spread about among the Volunteer forces of the country to enable them to resist invasion. The absurdity of having so overwhelming a command of the sea that we could transport three Army Corps

  633
  to India, and, at the same time, so miserable and ineffective a command of the sea that we were exposed to invasion, was vividly exposed on one occasion by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, an exposure which probably led to the abandonment of the theory.
  He recognised, as every hon. Member of the House must recognise, how presumptuous it was for a Member of Parliament to attempt to deal with this question. If India was invaded with a small force then there was an Army large enough on the spot to deal with it; and on the other hand, if it was invaded by a great force then there must be time allowed to collect transport railways, and obtain the most elaborate information for a great defence. During the course of the late war the Prime Minister made a speech at Manchester for which he was very much abused, and in which he stated that it was not possible for this country to be ready to meet attacks everywhere at a moment's notice, and he said all that was necessary was to have enough troops on the spot to make sure that they could hold out until the vast forces of the British Empire could be brought into the field. Those were the lines on which this question ought to be approached. The Army on which we might have to depend in time of war would bear no relation to the hidebound armies of the War Office. We could put far more troops into the field than any War Office would ever boast that we could. We must realise that it was on armies of improvisation that we should have to depend for great emergencies. The military system which we should adopt ought accordingly to bear a much closer resemblance to that of the United States than to that of European nations. The United States relied on a small Regular army and the power in time of emergency to levy masses of the citizens, trusting to the size of their country and their isolation for time to develop great armies. In the same way we might rely on our isolation and our Navy for time to develop our resources.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the utility of a scheme of this kind could only be proved by experience. A Committee of this kind was very valuable to the nation, and the Prime Minister deserved every credit not only for devising
  634
  this scheme, but also for giving his time and energy to it after calling it into being. They were, however, to a large extent in the dark as to the work of this Committee, and of course there must be a certain amount of reserve in regard to it. It was evident that at least in one department of Government we had now got something like a scientific approach to a great problem. The first result for which the country would look would be a definite pronouncement in regard to the relations of the Army and the Navy. There was nothing more deplorable in the history of their finances than the millions which had been wasted owing to an imperfect conception of what our naval and military policy ought to be, and all for the want of some body which would combine the supreme naval and military talent of the nation, and which ought to apply itself to the production of a national scheme of defence. The Prime Minister was entitled to every credit for having conceived such a body, and it was for the House to see that that body gave them something like a definite result. On a body like that they had a chance of bringing the Imperial policy of the defence of the country into some kind of relationship with the Colonies. He had always felt that a great step was taken when the Canadian Minister sat upon this Committee a short time ago. The Defence Committee ought not to be a rigid body, but ought to be able to come into relation with the distant parts of the Empire.
  Nothing was more natural than that its creator, the Prime Minister, should be an integral part of the Committee. But was it essential that the Prime Minister should he stereotyped as the head of the Committee? The Committee should contain the heads of the two services, and should be in close relation with the Finance Minister. If there was one thing required upon this body it was economy, and unless they made provision for the influence of those responsible for economy and efficiency upon the organisation of this body, the Committee would not be a success. The presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was essential in the case of a Committee of this kind. Upon him depended how much cloth they had got to cut their coat from, and this showed the necessity of the Prime Minister keeping an open mind as to the shape this Committee was to assume in the future. He

  635
  could see enormous advantages in the introduction of the element of permanence and continuity into our policy of Imperial defence. He thought this discussion had been a valuable one because it had allowed an interchange of ideas not all upon a Party basis, but with the idea of making the most of an institution which for the first time had been brought into existence in this country. He hoped that it would be possible to have many more such discussions as they learned more and more of the work of the Committee. Of course, the details of the work of this Committee were much better kept secret, but if this Committee was worth anything at all they would see the effect of its deliberations in the general policy adopted. They would see the result in the Estimates of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to our naval and military requirements, and in plans of coordination of which in the past they had had too little experience. If those aspirations were realised then they would know something of the existence of this Committee. As those materials were placed before Parliment they would be able to judge whether this Committee had been a success or not. Of course, there must necessarily be a great deal of reserve about a scheme which could only be judged by how it worked in practice. They did not grudge the Prime Minister the credit for having called something new into existence, and for having thrown his energy into the accomplishment of a scheme of this kind, and they looked forward confidently to the fruition of the seed which he had sown. They would watch the results very closely, and he trusted that in this new instrument they had found something by which good results would be accomplished not only for this country, but for the most distant parts of the Empire.
  CAPTAIN JESSELsaid that fears had been expressed that the Committee of Defence would throw a great deal of work upon the Prime Minister, and hon. Members had expressed doubts whether the right hon. Gentleman would be able to devote that amount of attention which was necessary to make its work successful. He though they might congratulate themselves upon the Ministerial side of the House upon
  636
  having a Prime Minister who had devoted a great deal of time and attention to the work of this Committee, and if he continued that attention and was kept in power by a majority of this House then they had no fear upon that score. The hon. Member for Oldham said that the Prime Minister ought to be a young man, and that he must have had some military experience to qualify him for the work of this Committee. It seemed to him that if a Liberal Government came into power they might select the hon. Member for Oldham as a person who fulfilled those two conditions. After all, one of the principal duties of the Prime Minister was to see to the security of the country. It was also part of the business of the Prime Minister to see that the finances of the country were properly and economically administered. In a matter of this kind a good deal depended upon the men who ran the machine, and to have a secretary to this Committee like the one they had got was a very great improvement upon anything which they had had in the past. This system secured a proper record of what had been done in the past, and this must be greatly to the advantage of the Empire. He did not think he was mistaken when he said that he thought there had been a good deal of misapprehension in regard to the exact functions of this Committee. It had been said that the working of this Committee was to be analogous to the working of the general staff in the German and other foreign armies, but from what the Prime Minister had said that was evidently not the case. This Committee was simply to be an organisation for the collection of information for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet itself. In that respect it rather corresponded not so much to the general staff of the German army, but to the military committee of the German Emperor. At the same time he was very glad to hear the Prime Minister say that they did not intend to adhere too slavishly to foreign methods. The defence of this Empire was a totally different thing to the defence of any other nation. A comparison had been made with Japan, but the Japanese had no Empire abroad and no colonies, and in that respect the British Empire

  637
  was perfectly distinct from any other country in the world.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that upon this question he was hardly able to take the same view as that which had been expressed by some of his colleagues. If anything could have persuaded him to give a hearty approval to this Committee it would have been the speech of his right hon. friend the Member for Berwick. He had insisted that this Committee should be judged by its results, which could only be seen by the plans laid before the House for Imperial defence, by the reduction of expenditure, and by the co-ordination of the services, which would tend to the improvement of both. They had heard similar observations from other right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Members who had spoken upon this subject. He had examined the Paper circulated by the Prime Minister upon this question, and he had listened to his speech, but he had failed to find the slightest justification for the high hopes which hon. Members had expressed. The Prime Minister had promised to answer any further Questions upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman had not said anything about co-ordinating the naval and military forces, and he had not said that there would be any reduction in expenditure. This Committee had been in existence for some seven years, and he wished to ask the Prime Minister if he could give the Committee any information as to the work the Committee had been doing during those years?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The present Committee is a wholly different one.
  MR LOUGHasked if the Committee had come to any decisions. There had not been any reduction in the national expenditure. He thought a fuller description of the work of this Committee should be given to them than they had got. One paragraph in the circular which had been issued said that any information required by the Committee from a Department would be procured in such a manner as the head of the Department would from time to time direct. Why such a limitation? Why should this body not be able to obtain this information unless the head of the Department
  638
  desired to give it? This Committee was, to make continuity of method possible. Did that mean in the treatment of naval and military expenditure? Why was! there not some report made to the House of Commons? They had heard nothing of the real work of the Committee except what was contained in a great many imaginary speeches. The Prime Minister had said that this Committee had met every week, hut they had not heard what had been done. He wished to know how their work was going to reduce expenditure. He was suspicious of the very name of this Committee. It was called the Defence Committee, but defence against what and whom? this country was perhaps the greatest Power in the world,butto his mind this word "defence" was analogous to the word "attack." He was very much afraid that the work of this Committee would not he carried on in the careful spirit which had been described to-night by everybody but its author. The Prime Minister had not made any such promises, and he had not given any such glowing account of its work. When reference was made to the Indian frontier the Prime Minister said that it must not be considered that their policy of defence was confined to one side of the frontier alone. Did he think that the best way of defending India was to annex Tibet? The right hon. Gentleman said that the Committee was very restricted in its power, and that too much must not be expected from it. All the House had been furnished with up to the present was the cost of the Department. They ought to have a little more information as to the extravagant basis upon which this Department had been placed, and the Prime Minister ought to tell the Committee something about the relationship between the Committee of Defence and the great Government spending Departments. Every speech had turned upon questions of economy, but the Prime Minister had told them nothing about this question. He wished to know if the formation of this Committee held out the slightest hope of any reduction in the Estimates.
  MR. C OURTENAY WARNERsaid that upon a Committee of this kind it was necessary that the Prime Minister should be strong enough to insist upon a reduction of expenditure, and not

  639
  listen so much to military and naval advisers. The right hon. Baronet had said that debates such as this led not only to education of the House of Commons, but also of the country, and that was a most important thing at the present moment, because the wildest ideas prevailed as to what was required for the defence of this country. There was another great advantage, and it was that the House would have the opportunity of impressing upon the controlling member of that Committee important points which the House and the country thought were necessary in relation to our defence. Then there was the expenditure on naval and military works, and the want of co-ordination of that expenditure with the ordinary work of the War Office and the Admiralty. This Committee might do something to stop the confusion of these Estimates, and they might place naval and military expenditure under one head. If this Committee had existed before he thought the late Lord Salisbury would have taken great interest in our military preparations, and the Government would, not have been in that state of ignorance in which they entered upon the South African War. Another important point was that the assistance of the Colonies in regard to national defence would be brought more into harmony, and they would probably be able to get more assistance from the Colonies through this Committee informing them what was wanted. The Treasury Minute stated that this was to be a consultative and advisory Committee. He hoped they would be consultative and advisory, not only to the Government, but that the House would get the benefit of a little of their advice. Many Members of the House were not intimately acquainted with Army matters, and they wanted the advice of somebody in touch with the military advisers of the Crown. What an enormous advantage it would have been to the Secretary of State for War if he had been able to know the number of infantry, cavalry, and guns required for the South African War. One of the duties of the Committee would be to ascertain these things accurately. He thanked the Prime Minister for the information he had given that night. In days gone by the Defence Committee
  640
  had been praised over and over again, but until that night they had not been told what their work was. The speech of the Prime Minister was exactly what they wanted in that House. They desired information as to what the Committee were doing and were likely to do. They should like to have a statement as to what were the forces required, but if they could not get that, at least let them know something of what was going on, and show that the Committee was not a mere sham to cover up the deficiencies of other Departments.
  MR. WHITLEYasked that a reply should be given to the Question raised by the hon. Member for West Islington. He noticed that one of the old bad faults of the Estimates had been revived. There was a footnote in regard to the salary received by the secretary of the Defence Committee. The late Mr. Hanbury and the hon. Member for King's Lynn had always attacked the method of contracting the amount of the face of the Estimates in the way followed in this case. He must say that it was a great disappointment to him that an Estimate of this kind should be brought in. If the post was worth £2,000, that amount ought to be put into the Estimates. The present method falsified the Estimates, and he hoped the Prime Minister would be able to give the Committee some explanation of this Vote. He begged to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,860, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Whitley.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought he could show that the broad position which the Government had taken up was justified. It was perfectly true that they ought, as far as possible, to avoid having special salaries for individual different from those normally attaching to the office. But when they were starting a new office, and they thought the had found the man specially competent to fill it, it was absolutely necessary to take into account his actual position Sir George Clarke was Governor of Victoria when he was summoned home by telegraph to take part in the Esher

  641
  Commission. He gave up an extremely good place, and he asked neither fee nor reward for his services. That had to be taken into account when the Government asked him to accept his present place. It was impossible for him to draw the pension which he had earned; and the Government felt that when they summoned Sir George Clarke to undertake this new office, they had a man possessing very special qualifications for it—a man of great tact and knowledge who had the confidence of his own profession and of the Navy.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it might be that this was a very fair salary to pay Sir George Clarke; but the Committee did not know what his functions were. The point was that they were passing a Vote for £1,500 and they were paying £2,000. If Sir George Clarke was to be paid £2,000 as secretary of the Defence Committee, why had a Vote for £2,000 not been put down in the Estimates? Let it be shown, on the Paper itself, what was the sum the Committee was really voting. If they took up any ordinary town Council's accounts, they knew exactly what was being paid; but here they did not know what was actually being paid. He trusted his hon. friend would press his Motion to a division as a protest against this method of keeping the Imperial accounts.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he shared the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman as to Sir George Clarke's special qualifications, and no one could take exception to the salary paid to him. What they objected to was this slipshod method of bookkeeping. There were very valid objections to the payment of personal salaries. If £2,000 was to be paid to Sir George Clarke, that salary should be fixed and continued to the succeeding secretaries; otherwise it right he a premium to another Minister to chose a less efficient secretary. There was another instance of a distinguished officer who drew a personal salary, Lord Roberts still continued to draw his salary as Commander-in-Chief of the Army. Although that distinguished soldier had a right to very exceptional treatment, especially when they con-
  642
  sidered the way in which he had been bundled out of the War Office, it seemed to him that if they were going to give personal salaries to distinguished public servants, over and above their ordinary salaries, there would be a very serious leakage. He did not wish to make any reflection on Sir George Clarke or to cast any doubt on the question of his qualifications, but he protested against the system of personal salaries, and it was necessary to make a protest in that connection. There should be a fixed rule from which there should be no departure. Sir George Clarke was not the only distinguished servant the country had. There were men at the Treasury who were often consulted on matters outside their own Department. There was, for instance, the Mowatt Committee, which was entirely outside the work of the Treasury and for which no salary was given. The salary which was given to Sir George Clarke was given in consideration of his organisation of the new Department. But he would not do any more than any public servant. For instance, the Department of Agriculture was organised. but he did not know that the first occupant of the secretaryship received a larger salary than his successors. His objection was not personal to Sir George Clarke. If it were true that his services could not be secured for less than £2,000 the proper course was to make that the salary. But if it were possible to get an equally good man at a lower figure then the salary should be reduced. In any event he desired to enter his protest against the system of personal salaries.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said he wished to explain that the Committee had before it the sum to be voted for the salary actually paid to Sir George Clarke, and in another column the salary which was considered normal for the post and which would be assigned to his successor. He agreed that it was desirable as a general rule to have a fixed salary for any given post, open to review from time to time when circumstances arose, but it was not in the interest of the public service that they should be deprived of the advantage of obtaining the help of a

  643
  particular man who had special qualifications for a particular post because the normal salary of the post might be in-sufficient. They believed that £1,500 normally would be a sufficient salary. If it should be found impossible, when Sir George Clarke retired, to fill the post with a really competent and able man at that salary, the Government then in power would have to consider whether they ought to propose a higher salary.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he wished to warn the Committee that if they allowed exceptional treatment in one case they would pay through the nose for it. He did not object to this salary, but he noticed that the only advantage which the country had hitherto derived from the Committee of Defence was the payment of a new salary. A personal salary would lead to a great deal of favouritism. He knew perfectly well that if a man had a friend he thought he was deserving of a larger salary than another man. Lord Palmerston was once asked if he always gave positions to the best man, and he replied "invariably." He was then asked how he knew that the men he appointed were the best men; and he replied, "The man I like best is the best man." Personal salaries would carry the system of favouritism right through every Department of the State. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham said that he did not object to the salary. He himself did. They had had organisation and reorganisation of the Army, and they now found that further reorganisation was necessary. He took exception to putting the control of these matters into the hands of civilians. His idea of the reorganisation of the Army would be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should say what sum could be afforded, and that military experts should then give us the best result they could for the money. If they obtained half-a-dozen Japanese sergeants and committed the task to them, they would be far more likely to produce an effective and a cheap Army than the right hon. Gentleman who had said that that was his ambition. When the new reorganisation had been carried out the Army might be more efficient, but it would not be cheaper.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that if he were as pessimistic as the hon. Member
  644
  for Northampton he would be exceedingly unhappy. He could not compete with his hon. friend in his knowledge of the organisation of the Japanese Army, with which he appeared to be thoroughly acquainted. But he was quite prepared to admit, on hypothesis, that there was a good deal to be learned from the Japanese. He agreed with the objection raised in this case to the system. He did not see why the salary of Sir George Clarke should not have been stated in the Estimates as £2,000, with a note to the effect that the future salary of the office would be £1,500. He thought that £1,500 was a sufficient salary for a secretary. But he agreed with the Prime Minister that if they asked a man of the capacity of Sir George Clarke to fill the office they could not offer him less than the salary it was proposed to give him. Regarding as he did the Department as in its infancy, but with great possibilities for the future, he could not vote for the reduction moved by his hon. friend. The Estimate was a small one, but it ought to lead to a reduction of some millions in expenditure, and if it did not produce that result in a short time he should then join in the protest of his hon. friends. He regarded the Committee as having great possibilities. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean as to the manner in which its work might develop; therefore he was not prepared to vote for any reduction at present. He would judge by results, and if those results were not satisfactory he would be prepared on a subsequent occasion to take a different line.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had somewhat misrepresented the objection taken to this proposal. Three reasons had been urged for this larger salary, first, Sir George Clarke's personal character and peculiar qualifications; secondly, the fact that he had given up a valuable and important position in Australia; and, thirdly, that he had had to organise a new Department. If a personal salary was to be given to this office, the grounds on which that step was taken ought to be defined with the utmost precision, so that they could

  645
  be referred to on subsequent occasions. If that were done it would to some extent modify his objection to the Vote in its present form.
  *SIR BRAMPTON GURDONobjected to the creation of a strong and powerful office in the secretariat to the Defence Committee. Ministers came and went—the present Ministers did not, but under ordinary circumstances Ministers did come and go; the experts would have only a limited term of office, but the secretary would be always there, and if he was a strong man he would practically be Commander-in-Chief of both
  Navy and Army. Any new Minister desirous of instituting a change of policy would find great difficulty in dealing with this permanent officer. He thought the proper Committee of Defence was the Cabinet—not the mass meeting of Conservatives at present so designated, but a Cabinet kept within reasonable limits: and that, he believed, was the proper body to co-ordinate the policy of the Admiralty and the War Departments.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 48; Noes, 149. (Division List No. 294.)]

  AYES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan,W

  Runciman, Walter

  Asher, Alexander

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Boland, John

  Labouchere, Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Brigg, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Lloyd-George, David

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Caldwell, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas,JA(Glamorgan, Gower

  Cawley, Frederick

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Tomkinson, James

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Toulmin, George

  Cullinan, J.

  Moss, Samuel

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Murphy, John

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Edwards, Frank

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Elibank, Master of

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Dowd, John

  Brampton Gurdon and Mr. J. H. Whitley.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Randles, Tohn S.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts John Bryn (Eifion)

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Chamberlain, RtHn.JA(Worc.

  Forster, Henry William

  Allhusen,AugustusHenry Eden

  Chapman, Edward

  Foster,PhilipS.(Warwick,S.W.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Charrington, Spencer

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gibbs. Hon. A. C. H.

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cochrane,Hon.Thos.H.A E.

  Green AValford D.(Wednesbury

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S

  Gretton, John

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Grey,Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Groves, James Grimble

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

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Balfour,RtHn Gerald W(Leeds

  Davies,Sir HoratioD.(Chatham

  Hamilton,Marq.of L'nd'nderry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

  Hay, Hon. Claud George

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon.Sir Joseph C

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Doughty, Sir George

  Heath. James (Staffords. N.W.

  Brassey, Albert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hunt, Rowland

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Jessel,CaptainHerbertMerton

  Butcher, John George

  Ellice,Capt EC (S. Anclrw'sBghs

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

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

  Kerr, John

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Keswick, William

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Knowles. Sir Lees

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fitzroy,Hon.Edward Algernon

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants,Fareham

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Percy, Earl

  Spear, John Ward

  Legge, Co. Hon. Heneage

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stanley,Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk

  Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Stanley, Rt.Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rankin, Sir James

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Renwick, George

  Tuff, Charles

  Massey-Mainwaring,Hn.W,F.

  Ridley,HonM.W.(Stalybridge

  Valentia, Viscount

  Maxwell,RtHnSirH.E.(Wigt'n

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir WilliamH.

  Maxwell,W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Whiteley,H. (Ashton und.Lyne

  Morgan,David J(Walthamstow

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Wylie, Alexander

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Murray,RtHnA. Graham (Bute

  Shackleton, David James

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Norman, Henry

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Pemberton, John S.G.

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

  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 59. (Division List No. 295.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.

  Allhusen,AugustusHenry Eden

  Dimsdale, Rt.Hon.Sir JosephC

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Doughty, Sir George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dyke,Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Massey-Mainwaring,Hn.W.F.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

  Maxwell,RtHnSirH.E. (Wigt'n

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Balearres, Lord

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Ballour,RtHn Gerald W(Leeds

  Forster, Henry William

  Morgan,David J(Walthamstow

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Foster, Philip S(Warwick.S.W.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Mount, William Arthur

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Murray,RtHn.A.Graham (Bute

  Brassey, Albert

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Green, WalfordD.(Wednesbury

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Greene,Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Percy, Earl

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Butcher, John George

  Gretton, John

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Campbell,J.H.M. (DuhlinUniv.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hamilton,Marq.of L'nd'nderry

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cavendish,V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hay, Hn. Claude George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Camberlain,Rt Hn.J.A.(Worc

  Heath,ArthurHoward (Hanley

  Renwick, George

  Chapman, Edward

  Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

  Ridley, Hon.M.W. (Stalybridge

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hope,J.E. (Sheffield,Brightside

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

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

  Jessel, Captain Herbert. Merion

  Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Kerr, John

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Keswick, William

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Craig,Charles Curtis (Antritm, S

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead

  Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Spear, John Ward

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Stanley,Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk

  Walrond,Rt.Hm Sir WilliamH.

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Stanley,Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

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

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Tuff, Charles

  Wylie, Alexander

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  Runciman, Walter

  Asher, Alexander

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hormman, Frederick John

  Shackleton, David James

  Berm, John Williams

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Boland, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Brigg, John

  Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sullivan, Donal

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Levy, Maurice

  Taylor,Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Caldwell, James

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas,JA(Glamorgan,Gower

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Tomkinson, James

  Cullinan, J.

  AltArtlittr, William (Cornwall)

  Toulmin, George

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Moss, Samuel

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murphy, John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Edwards, Frank

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Norman, Henry

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

  Ellice,CaptEC(S.Andrw's Bghs

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  O'Brien, Partick (Kilkenny)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Rickett, J. Compton.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Churchill and Mr. J. H. Whitley.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Roberts. John H. (Denbighs.)

  Question put accordingly, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,960, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Expenses in respect of the Committee of Imperial Defence, in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury," and agreed to.

  Resolution to be reported upon Friday; Committee to sit again this day.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE (MONEY).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)who rose amid Opposition cries of "Grey," said that he wished to make a statement which he had previously promised to make. Under a series of Acts of Parliament it had directed that certain works should be executed and the cost of them charged to capital to be repaid within a minimum period of years. For the purpose of providing
650
this money the Treasury was only authorised to borrow on a single form of security—terminable annuities That was not now a marketable form of security. They had been wholly taken up in the past by the National Debt Commissioners. The funds at the command of the Commissioners were no longer sufficient for the purpose, and he was, therefore, obliged to ask the Committee to authorise the Treasury to borrow on a different form of security—namely, Exchequer bonds. As to the amount of capital expenditure, the figure of £10,000,000 which he gave during the discussion on the Budget had been somewhat reduced. The amount which it would probably be necessary to borrow would be £9,250,000—£4,500,000 on account of the Naval Works Act, £3,500,000 on account of the Military Works Act, £750,000 on account of the Telegraph Acts, £219,000 under the Uganda Railway Act, £17,000 on account of Land Registry Buildings, £197,000 under the Public Buildings Expenses Act, and £50,000 under the Public Offices (Government) Act. All these works had been approved, and all the borrowing authorised by Parliament. He moved a Resolution authorising the Treasury to borrow by means of

651
Exchequer bonds any sums which they were authorised to borrow by means of terminable annuities.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to borrow, by means of Exchequer Bonds, any sums which they are authorised to borrow by means of terminable annuities, the principal of and interest on such Exchequer Bonds to be charged on the Consolidated Fund, and to make provision for the discharge of any sums so borrowed out of moneys annually provided by Parliament."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised a point with which he was not familiar, and which was of some novelty. He rose for the purpose of moving to report Progress, although not necessarily to ask the Prime Minister to close business. But there was a long programme on the Paper, and they ought to have some statement from the Government as to how much of that programme they proposed to take. This novel point could not be discussed at so late an hour. He thought that there should be some discrimination as to the kind of business to be taken at these late sittings.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Edward Grey.)
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said he did not altogether disagree with the observations of the right hon. Baronet, and he thought the right hon. Baronet's objection was a very reasonable one. He, however, did not propose to ask the House to do more than pass the preliminary Resolution standing on the Paper. The right hon. Baronet said that the hour was late, but discussion could be made on the Second Reading, Report, and Third Reading of these Bills—the Capital Expenditure (Money) Bill, the Cunard Agreement (Money) Bill, and the Anglo-French Convention (Expenses) Bill.
652
Under these circumstances he asked the Committee to agree to passing this Resolution.
MR. LLOYD - GEORGEsaid he did not like to contradict the Prime Minister on a question of the traditions of the House; but this was not a purely formal stage. It was a novel proceeding, as it was the first time that such a Bill had been introduced into the House. It was a practical admission that they were borrowing so much money that they could not trust to the ordinary sources. That in itself was, surely, of sufficient importance to be considered very seriously. He, therefore, submitted that the matter should not be taken at that hour of the morning. The Resolution was of far-reaching importance, the Cunard Agreement marked a departure in the policy of this country, and the Anglo-French Agreement was also of great importance.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not propose to take the Anglo-French Agreement that night.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that that was some concession. Why should they not confine themselves to the Shop Hours Bill? They were anxious to assist the Government in getting that Bill through. It was preposterous to start such a Motion at one o'clock in the morning. The next thing the Government would do would be to introduce the Budget at three o'clock. [An HON. MEMBER: Oh.] The hon. Member had never prolonged discussion, because he had never taken an articulate part in the proceedings. He maintained that highly contentious business such as that now proposed. should not be taken at such an hour. To proceed with it would be a perfect farce.
MR. BUCHANANsaid he thought the Prime Minister had not met the Motion of his right hon. friend as fairly as he might. No doubt this was an important stage which ought to be fairly and fully discussed. The nearest analogy to the Motion was the Naval Works Bill and the Military Works Bill, on which a full statement had always been made on

653
their introduction. Even the Prime Minister would not say that the Report stage would be taken at a reasonable hour. This was a Bill of a very far-reaching character; and it would add £10,000,000 to the floating debt. One of the first duties they were constantly urging on the Government was to decrease the floating debt; and yet they were asked at that hour of the morning, without any adequate explanation, to increase it by £10,000,000. He thought his right hon. friend was amply justified in making his Motion. In the interest of decency of debate they ought to have a better opportunity of discussing the matter.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he did not think that the Prime Minister understood the importance of the proposal. The Bill would facilitate what economists had been declaiming against for years. Yet at this period of the session the Government had introduced a Bill to facilitate a practice which had been generally condemned. He hoped the Prime Minister would proceed instead with the Shop Hours Bill.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that his right hon. friend was perfectly justified in his Motion. The fact that the Prime Minister had dropped the fourth Order made the matter somewhat more satisfactory; but he submitted that it would be a great pity if after a long, friendly, and good - tempered discussion on the War Office Vote, they should now, through a little hot-headedness, descend to an ill-tempered discussion, and have to struggle through one of those prolonged sittings which were so injurious to the health of Members and detrimental, not only to public business, but to the reputation of the House. He would urge the right hon. Gentleman to drop Order No. 3 as well as Order No. 4. In any event this Resolution would have to be discussed, and discussed in detail. This Resolution was not formal, as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to imagine; and even if it had been customary in ordinary circumstances to assent to such Resolutions without lengthy discussion he submitted that that could not occur in view of the unusual financial circumstances in which they
654
found themselves. It was the first time in twenty years that they had been called upon to make such a departure, and to issue new Exchequer bonds at a time when the conditions of credit were not at all favourable. The right hon. Gentleman, in asking the Committee to assent to this Resolution, was asking them to, assent to something they could not apprehend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer read out a number of figures very rapidly; and it was impossible to grasp their import. If the right hon. Gentleman would agree to report Progress now, they would be able to see the figures in the morning, and be in a position to give an intelligible decision upon them. He would call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that they were now beginning a regular course of late sittings. His right hon. friend did not propose that the Government should not proceed further; and he indicated the Shop Hours Bill. Was it not possible for the Prime Minister to make some response to his right hon. friend which might avoid a very unpleasant result? Having regard to the financial situation, those who deeply regretted the great increase of expenditure were bound to challenge all financial business in a manner that had not been customary of recent years, and if a reason was to be looked for it might be found in the necessity for the introduction of such a measure as that now under discussion.
MR. RENWICK: Windbag!
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that for the second time an offensive expression had been used across the floor of the House. No notice was taken of the first, but he now desired to ask if it was in order for the hon. Member for Newcastle to call his hon. friend a "windbag." [MINISTERIAL laughter.] Such gross breaches of order might be a subject for merriment to hon. Members opposite, but he submitted that they were out of order, and that the hon. Member for Newcastle ought to be called upon to withdraw the expression.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I think the expression "windbag" is offensive, and I trust the hon. Member will withdraw it

655
At the same time, I hope the hon. Member for Oldham will say nothing likely to provoke such expressions.
MR. RENWICK: Perhaps it was a little strong language. [OPPSITION cries of "Withdraw."] I withdraw it.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I was not aware, Sir, that I had said anything of a provocative character.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has addressed the Committee four times in the space of two or three hours, and therefore he must not be too particular if observations are made indicating that the patience of the Committee is severely tried. I have done my best to get a fair hearing for him, but I hope he will not try the patience of the Committee too far.
MR. MOSSasked whether there was any rule as to the number of times a Member might speak in Committee.
*THE CHAIRMAN: There is no rule, hut if a Member addresses the Committee very frequently and repeats over and over again the same observations he must not be surprised if he is met with some cries of impatience.
MR. TREVELYAN: Have you called my hon. friend to order for repeating himself?
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he gathered the Chairman's criticism was directed to the quantity of his utterances, and not to the quality. He could not have been repeating his arguments for then the Chair would have called him to order. With great respect he submitted that the quantity of his remarks was a matter for the rules of the House, and not for the Chair. Desiring, however, to show respect not merely to the Chair but to its occupant, he would conclude his remarks by accepting the withdrawal of the hon. Member for Newcastle, although he thought the word was one against which they were bound to protest.
SIR EDWARD GREYwas surprised at the heat generated on the other side of
656
the House. The Motion to report Progress had been supported in a most conciliatory spirit, and had been interpreted by his hon. friends in an even more definitely conciliatory form than as originally moved. A positive invitation had been given to the Government to proceed with the Shop Hours Bill, and he hoped the Prime Minister would take note of the fact. The right hon. Gentleman in meeting the Motion might have been a little less curt. ["Oh."] He did not say nor did he mean "discourteous"; he said "curt." The Prime Minister had said this was a purely formal stage of the two Orders he proposed to deal with; but the contention of the Opposition was that very important matters were involved which required fuller consideration than could be given at two o'clock in the morning. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman might have said that as the present was a formal stage he would bring forward, at any rate, one of the subsequent stages of each Bill at an hour before midnight when it could he properly and adequately discussed. If the right hon. Gentleman would give a definite promise to that effect he would be prepared, personally, to withdraw the Motion.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was very sorry that the right hon. Baronet should have thought that his exposition was so brief. He thought it would need a great straining of language to show that any principle of importance was raised by either of these Bills. The question was not whether the Committee would add to our debt. These matters had reference to obligations which the country had entered into and the repudiation of which would not be conducive to economy. Then he was told there was the Savings Bank question, but he submitted that that did not come up on this Bill legitimately. What they had to deal with in this Bill was one simple proposition, carrying out obligations entered into by this House deliberately, and therefore there was no alternative but to take the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken. He did not think honestly that that could be described as a proposition which required a long debate. Then the Cunard Agreement was

657
an obligation distinctly entered into by the House of Commons by Resolution which was not taken after twelve o'clock, but which he quite admitted might have been taken at an earlier hour to-day. How could it be said that in regard to either of these money Resolutions the Government in the smallest degree had abused the legitimate claims which they had upon the time of the House. He hoped the hon. Baronet would agree with him when he said that they had done their best to meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite.
Sin EDWARD GREYsaid he asked the right hon. Gentleman about affording an opportunity upon a subsequent stage of these two measures.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he could not see how such an undertaking could be given.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that if every stage was to be regarded as being just as formal as this he must persist in his Motion. But if the Prime Minister would undertake that one of the subsequent stages in each case should be brought on at an hour when it could he discussed, he was prepared to withdraw his Motion.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew very well what was going on in the City, and he might inform the Prime Minister that it was most important if anything was done to increase this debt. It was a very important and a thoroughly controversial measure. Under these circumstances he did think they were justified in asking that they should have a discussion upon one stage taken at some reasonable hour. They were told earlier in the session that they were to have a day set apart for discussion upon the Cunard Agreement. They could not call what took place a discussion when the matter was brought on after midnight. They were quite willing to allow this measure to go through if the Prime Minister would give them one single stage upon which they could discuss the matter. In regard to the expenditure upon the Army and Navy and upon Uganda they had again and again asked to be allowed to discuss those questions, but now at the end of the session, when the Twelve O'clock Ride had been suspended, the Government were
658
forcing all those questions upon them, when they knew very well that there could not be that important discussion which was necessary, and they called that keeping their pledges! Pledges had been given in regard to this particular Resolution, and this Cunard Agreement was regarded as a most important matter in the City. They were not seeking in any way to obstruct the business. Surely when they were simply asking for one single day to discuss a stage of this subject they were not asking too much. His contention was that Bills of this kind ought to be completely discussed at least once. This was all the more urgent because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had sprung upon them a change in regard to this Bill.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman really could not meet with any agreement on this side of the House. If he had followed the history of the question he would know that a day had been promised for the discussion of the Agreement. What actually took place last session was that the discussion of the Agreement was deferred over and over again, and finally on the 12th of August there was an extremely brief discussion in a very empty House. The matter could not be dealt with then, and the House had had no real opportunity of discussing it. It was hardly fair to have it rushed through in this way. If the right hon. Gentleman persisted in the proposal it would mean that arrangements would be made by Departments, and the House of Commons would lose all control. He hoped the Prime Minister would consider the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick, namely, to take a formal stage to-night, and the later stages at a time when hon. Members could have a daylight discussion on the subject.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he wished to support what had fallen from his hon. friend. The way the House was treated in the matter of the Cunard Agreement was really a scandal. The promise of a day was given last session, and that promise had not been redeemed.
Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 127; Noes, 54. (Division List No. 296.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Mount, William Arthur

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

Morray,RtHn.A Graham (Bute

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Pemberton, John S. G.

Arrol, Sir William

Forster, Henry William

Percy, Earl

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Foster,PhilipS.(Warwiek,S.W.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bagot,Capt.Josceline FitzRoy

Galloway, William Johnson

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Rankin, Sir James

Balcarres, Lord

Green,WalfordD. (Wednesbury

Reid, James (Greenock)

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

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Balfour,Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds

Grenfell, William Henry

Renwick, George

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gretton, John

Ridley, Hn. M.W. (Staly bridge

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Groves, James Grimble

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Brassey, Albert

Hall, Edward Marshall

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hamilton,Marq.of (L'nd'derry

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Butcher, John George

Heath,ArthurHoward (Hanley

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Campbell,J.H.M. (DublinUniv.

Heath, James (Staffords.N.W.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hope,J.F. Sheffield,Brightside)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Hunt, Rowland

Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East

Cecil,Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

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

Chamberlain,Rt Hn.J.A.(Wore

Kerr, John

Spear, John Ward

Chapman, Edward

Keswick, William

Stanley,Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk

Charrington, Spencer

Knowles, Sir Lees

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester)

Coates, Edward Feetham

Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

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

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

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Tuff, Charles

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Leveson-Gower, FrederiekN.S.

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Charles Curtis (AntrimS.

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

Walrond, Rt. Hn.SirWilliain H.

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Webb, Colonel William George

Davenport, William Bromley

M`Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne

Davies,Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Manners, Lord Cecil

Wrightson Sir Thomas

Dickson, Charles Scott

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Wylie, Alexander

Dimsdale, Rt.Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Maxwell,RtHnSir H. E.(Wigt'n

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Doughty, Sir George

Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

Wyndham-Quin, Col.W. H.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Milvain, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Alexander Acland-Hood

Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

Morgan, David J(Walthamstow

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

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

Morrell, George Herbert

NOES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harcourt,LewisV. (Rossendale

Shackleton, David James

Asher, Alexander

Higham, John Sharpe

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Horniman, Frederick John

Soares, Ernest J.

Benn, John Williams

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Boland, John

Joyce, Michael

Sullivan, Donal

Brigg, John

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Bright, Allan Heywood

Kilbride, Denis

Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Labouchere, Henry

Thomas,JA (Glamorgan,Gower

Caldwell, James

Levy, Maurice

Tomkinson, James

Causton, Richard Knight

Lyell, Charles Henry

Toulmin, George

Cawley, Frederick

Moss, Samuel

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Cullinan, J.

Murphy, John

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Doogan, P. C.

Norman, Henry

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

Edwards, Frank

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary,Mid

Elibank, Master of

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Allice,CaptEC(S. Andrw'sBghs

Rickett, J. Compton

Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Grey, Rt.Hn. Sir. E. (Berwick)

Runciman, Walter

Griffith, Ellis J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 53; Noes, 127. (Division List No. 297.)

AYES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Griffith, Ellis J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Asher, Alexander

Harcourt, LewisV. (Rossendale

Shackleton, David James

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Higham, John Sharpe

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Benn, John Williams

Horniman, Frederick John

Soares, Ernest J.

Boland, John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Brigg, John

Joyce, Michael

Sullivan, Donal

Bright, Allan Heywood

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Kilbride, Denis

Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Thomas,JA.(Glamorgan,Gower

Canston, Richard Knight

Levy, Maurice

Tomkinson, James

Cawley, Frederick

Lyell, Charles Henry

Toulmin, George

Cullinan, J.

Moss, Samuel

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Murphy, John

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Doogan, P. C.

Nolan. Joseph (Louth, South)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Edwards, Frank

Norman, Henry

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

Elibank, Master of

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

Ellire,CaptEC (S.Andrw'sBghs

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Rickett, J. Compton

Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Finch, Ht. Hon. George H.

Murray, RtHn A. Graham(Bute

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Murray, Col.Wyndham (Bath)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

Pemberton, John S. G.

Arnold-Forster,RtHn.Hugh O

Forster, Henry William

Percy, Earl

Arrol, Sir William

Foster, Philip S.(Warwick,SW.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Galloway, William Johnson

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Gibbs, Hon. A.G.H.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gordon, J. (Londonderry,South

Rankin, Sir James

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Green,Walford D.(Wednesbury

Reid, James (Greenock)

Balcarres, Lord

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Grenfell, William Henry

Renwick, George

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

Gretton, John

Ridley,Hon.M.W. (Stalybridge

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Groves, James Grimble

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hall, Edward Marshall

Royds, Clement Molyvneux

Brassey, Albert

Hamilton, Marg. of (L'donderry

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St John

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Heath, Arthur Howard Hanley

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Butcher, John George

Heath, James (Staffords.,N.W

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Campbell,J.H.M. (DublinUniv.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East

Cavendish,V.C. W. (Derbyshire

Jessel, Captain HerbertMerton

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerr, John

Spear, John Ward

Chamberlain,RtHm JA (Wore

Keswick, William

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Chapman, Edward

Knowles, Sir Lees

Stanley, Rt.Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Charrington, Spencer

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G. (Ox f'dUniv.

Coates, Edward Feetham

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Tuff, Charles

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.

Valentia, Viscount

Corbett, T. L. (Down North)

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

Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Webb, Colonel William George

Dalkeith, Earl of

M`Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne

Davenport W. Bromley

Manners, Lord Cecil

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Davies,SirHoratio D (Chatham

Massey-Mainwaring,Hn. W. F.

Wylie, Alexander

Dickson, Charles Scott

Maxwell,RtHn Sir H.E.(Wigt'n

Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

Dimsdale,Rt.Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriess

Wyndham-Quin, (Col.W. H.

Doughty, Sir George

Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire

Douglas, Rt.Hn. A. Akers-

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Milvain, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Sir

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Alexander Acland- Hood

Dyke, Rt.Hn. Sir WilliamHart

Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthmstow

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Fergusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r

Morrell, George Herbert

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Mount, William Arthur

Original Question again proposed.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not give the Committee any adequate explanation of the Bill. It was a Bill of the most important and far-reaching character. It amended seven Acts of Parliament, and made other alterations not alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He gathered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to provide money by setting up terminable annuities to be repaid in about thirty years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was in difficulties, and could not any longer get money from the National Debt Commissioners for these particular purposes. As he understood it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to substitute for the existing form of terminable annuities, set up under the various Acts concerned, the issue of Treasury Bonds. He did not tell the Committee if there was any limit to these bonds or what the duration of them would be; and he said absolutely nothing as to whether a sinking fund would be established.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that with regard to the rate of the exact currency of the bonds he must be guided by the circumstances of the time at which they were issued. Provision would be made by the Treasury for the discharge of the loan out of sums to be annually provided by Parliament within a period not exceeding the period fixed by the Act which authorised the borrowing.
MR. BUCHANANasked if the new bonds would be in the same position as the existing Exchequer Bonds.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid they would be in the same position except as regarded a special provision for a sinking fund.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to raise £9,250,000, and set up a security of a much more permanent character than that which now existed. At present there was a floating debt of between £49,000,000 and £50,000,000 outstanding. The policy down to 1899 was to reduce that debt as far as possible; and great progress in that
664
direction was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. Since then £13,000,000 of Treasury Bills and £20,000,000 of Treasury Bonds had been issued as the result of the war; and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer was proposing a very considerable addition to this particular form of debt. He thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was evidence of the financial embarrassment in which the recent expenditure of the Government had involved the country. They were piling up expenditure year after year, and were endeavouring to meet it by borrowing money under various Acts of Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was always fond of pointing to his hon. friend the Member for Dundee and saying that it was he who began the Naval Works Acts. He would not defend his hon. friend beyond saying that the first Naval Works Act was an Act far a special purpose. The present Government, however, turned it into a system; and they could not be altogether disappointed when they found an important part of that system breaking down. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to give the Committee an assurance that there would be no further extension of this pernicious and wasteful system.
MR. LYELLsaid that there was one statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which ought not to be allowed to pass without criticism, and that was that no new principle was involved in this matter, because the Committee were already committed to the expenditure which was now proposed. It seemed to him to be an analogous case to that of a small boy who stole apples, his defence being that the apples were eaten, and that, therefore, all moral delinquency had ceased. He hoped some information would be given on the matter.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that up to the present this money was always raised by terminable annuities which provided their own sinking fund. As far as he understood the matter, the money would be provided for the extinction of this debt year by year. That was not quite the same thing as a terminable annuity.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the charge appeared in the Votes now, and would appear in the Votes in the future.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid there was one objection to that course, and that was that a future Chancellor of the Exchequer might not carry out the course adopted by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would have been better if there were terminable annuities. Another objection was the rate of interest they would have to pay. Three and a-half per cent. would have to be paid for this money. Bad as was the credit of the Government—and as long as these expedients were adopted it was not likely to improve—they could get the money at 3 per cent., instead of 3½ per cent., by an issue of Consols. The so-called floating debt was becoming practically permanent, and seeing that there was no prospect of the money being paid off, that extra ½ per cent. was a serious matter. A further issue of Consols would have a less detrimental effect upon prices than subterfuges of this kind. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give some indication of the amount to be raised by terminable annuities it would remove some of the objection entertained to this Resolution.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINwas understood to say that the sum depended upon the amount deposited in the savings bank this year, but he should think it would be about £3,000,000.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid the debate had been justified by the information which he derived. It now appeared that £6,500,000 and not £9,500,000 was raised by Exchequer bonds, and £3,000,000 by terminable annuities. The Committee was entitled to have some estimate of the additional burden that was to be laid upon the country. How were the annuities which appeared on the Votes each year to be applied? Further, how much was to be placed on the Estimates against this £9,500,000? Would it be 4 per cent. to cover interest and some repayment of capital, or what would it be? He protested against the Committee being asked at two o'clock in the morning in the month of August
666
to endorse a huge loan of this description. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have done better to have stated, when he dealt with the general financial situation of the country, that he was likely to be in these straits; the House would then have been better able to estimate the real financial position. The ordinary means of providing for works accounts were entirely exhausted. By placing these bonds upon the market the right hon. Gentlemen would not only have to pay 3½ per cent. interest, an amount unprecedented in the last fifty years, but he would be actually depressing his own stock.
MR. AINSWORTHsubmitted that this expenditure had been sanctioned on the clear understanding that the money would be provided for by terminable annuities. He remembered the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that they could not issue terminable annuities beyond a certain amount, because the quantity taken up by the public was strictly a limited question. The Government had now reached that limited amount. In one of the largest municipalities in Great Britain the chief magistrate told him that their indebtedness cost them less than 3 per cent. Why should the British Empire be unable to borrow at a worse rate of interest than a municipality? Because the Government did not understand finance. The only road to success in finance was economy. It would now go forth to the City of London that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could no longer issue terminable annuities, and that he was obliged to issue Exchequer Bonds at 3½ per cent. to be repaid from time to time. He thought they were entitled to ask what time, and they ought to know also how much would be set aside for this. purpose in the Budget next year.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked why it was necessary to ask for money for capital expenditure in regard to the Uganda Railway, seeing that the railway had been completed and no further capital expenditure ought consequently to be required. The line had been quite completed and the viaducts finished, the committee formed to construct the railway had been dissolved, and the railway

667
had been handed over to the British East Africa Protectorate. Under these circumstances they ought to have some information why the House was still asked to vote £219,000 for this purpose which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to go into the market to borrow.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the sum mentioned remained over for payment this year.
MR. TOULMINasked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made any estimate of the cost of raising this sum of money in this way. He thought some reasons ought to be given why Exchequer Bonds had been chosen. He did not know whether it was preferable to issue for a long or a short period on such an occasion as this, but there was the great disadvantage that when they matured they would have to he renewed, and each time they had to he renewed fresh charges were incurred. The advantage of terminable annuities is that their operation is regular, and their effect on the market can easily be ascertained and provided for. The real reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has
had to take this step is that he has been borrowing as much as he has been paying off. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had provided more money for the reduction of the National Debt, the National Debt Commissioners would have had more money in hand, and this recourse to Exchequer bonds would not have taken place to so great an extent. He should like to know whether the extra cost involved in raising this money would be charged against the naval and military services. Would the annual Estimates be increased by that extra amount? Would the annual payments entirely extinguish the Exchequer Bonds as would have been done in the case of terminable annuities?
MR. TOMKINSONrose to continue the discussion.
Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 122; Noes, 53. (Division List No. 298.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hunt, Rowland

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dalkeith, Earl of

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Davenport, William Bromley

Kerr, John

Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O

Davies,Sir HoratioD.(Chatham

Keswick, William

Arrol, Sir William

Dickson, Charles Scott

Knowles, Sir Lees

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dimsdale, Rt.Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Doughty, Sir George

Lee,ArthurH(Hants.,Fareham)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Balcarres, Lord

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

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

Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

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

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

Fergusson, RtHn.Sir J.(Manc'r

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Brassey, Albert

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Manners, Lord Cecil

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John.

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Massey-Mainwaring. Hn. W. F.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Forster, Henry William

Maxwell,RtHn.Sir H.E(Wigt'n

Butcher, John George

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

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

Campbell, J.H.M(DublinUniv.

Galloway, William Johnson

Milvain, Thomas

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Gordon, J.(Londonderry,South

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Green,Walford D.(Wednesbury

Morrell, George Herbert

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Grenfell, William Henry

Mount, William Arthur

Chamberlain,Rt Hn.J.A(Worc.

Gretton, John

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

Chapman, Edward

Groves, James Grimble

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Charrington, Spencer

Hall, Edward Marshall

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hamilton,Marq of(L'nd'nderry

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Coates, Edward Feetham

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Rankin, Sir James

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

Renwick, George

Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Staly bridge

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

Webb, Colonel William George

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Spear, John Ward

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Stanley Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

Wylie, Alexander

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Tuff, Charles

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Valentia, Viscount

Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Walrond, Rt.Hn.Sir WilliamH.

NOES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Horniman, Frederick John

Shackleton, David James

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Benn, John Williams

Joyce, Michael

Soares, Ernest. J.

Boland, John

Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan,W.

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Brigg, John

Kilbride, Denis

Sullivan, Donal

Bright, Allan Heywood

Labouchere, Henry

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Caldwell, James

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas,J A(Glamorgan,Gower

Causton, Richard Knight

Lyell, Charles Henry

Tomkinson, James

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Moss, Samuel

Toulmin, George

Cullinan, J.

Murphy, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Doogan, P. C.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Edwards, Frank

Norman, Henry

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Elibank, Master of

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

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)

Rickett, J. Compton

Griffith, Ellis J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

Runciman, Walter

Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

Higham, John Sharpe

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 123; Noes, 53. (Division List No. 299.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Davenport, William Bromley

Knowles, Sir Lees

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dickson, Charles Scott

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

Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.HughO.

Dimsdale, Rt.Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Arrol, Sir William

Doughty, Sir George

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Balcarres, Lord

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

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Manners, Lord Cecil

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

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Massey-Main waring, Hn. W. F.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maxwell,RtHn.Sir H.E(Wigt'n

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

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

Brassey, Albert

Forster, Henry William

Milvain, Thomas

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Galloway, William Johnson

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Butcher, John George

Gibbs Hon. A. G. H.

Morrell, George Herbert

Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.

Gordon, J.(Londonderry,South

Mount, William Arthur

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Green,Walford D.(Wednesbury

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

Cautley, Henry Strother

Grenfell, William Henry

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Gretton, John

Percy, Earl

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Groves, James Grimble

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Chamberlain,Rt Hn.J.A(Worc.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Chapman, Edward

Hamilton,Marq of(L'nd'nderry

Pretyman, Ernest George

Charrington, Spencer

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rankin, Sir James

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Reid, James (Greenock)

Coates, Edward Feetham

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Renwick, George

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

Ridley, Hon M.W.(Stalybridge

Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

Hunt, Rowland

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.)

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Kerr, John

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Keswick, William

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lanes.)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wylie, Alexander

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Tuff, Charles

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Valentia, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

Walrond, Rt.Hn.Sir WilliamH.

Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

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

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Spear, John Ward

Webb, Colonel Williams George

Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

Whiteley, H.(Ashtonund.Lyne

NOES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Horniman, Frederick John

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Shackleton, David James

Benn, John Williams

Joyce, Michael

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Boland, John

Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan.W.

Soares, Ernest J.

Brigg, John

Kilbride, Denis

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Bright, Allan Heywood

Labouchere, Henry

Sullivan, Donal

Caldwell, James

Levy, Maurice

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Causton, Richard Knight

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thomas,J A(Glamorgan,Gower

Cullinan, J.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Tomkinson, James

Doogan, P. C.

Moss, Samuel

Toiihnin, George

Edwards, Frank

Murphy, John

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Elibank, Master of

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Flavin. Michael Joseph

Norman, Henry

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

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

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

Grey, Rt. En. Sir E.(Berwiek)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Rickett. J. Compton

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Mr. Trevelyan and Mr. Buchanan.

Higham, John Sharpe

Runciman, Walter

Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to borrow, by means of Exchequer Bonds, any sums which they are authorised to borrow by means of terminable annuities, the principal of and interest on such Exchequer Bonds to be charged on the Consolidated Fund, and to make provision for the dis-
charge of any sums so borrowed out of moneys annually provided by Parliament.
Question put, "That the Chairman do report this Resolution to the House."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 123; Noes, 53. (Division List No. 300.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Coates, Edward Feecham

Grenfell, William Henry

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Gretton, John

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Groves, James Grimble

Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hall, Edward Marshall

Arrol, Sir William

Craig, Chas. Curtis(Antrim S.

Hamilton,Marq.of (L'donderry

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Dalkeith, Earl of

Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Davenport. W. Bromley

Heath, Jas. (Statlords. N. W.)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Davies,Sir HoratioD.(Chatham

Hermon-Hodge, Sir RobertT.

Balcarres, Lord

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

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

Dimsdale,Rt.Hn. SirJoseph C.

Hunt, Rowland

Balour,RtHoGerald W.(Leeds'

Doughty, Sir George

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton,

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Kerr, John

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Keswick, William

Brassey, Albert

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Knowles, Sir Lees

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dyke,Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

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

Lee,ArthurH.(Hants. Fareham

Butcher, John George

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Leveson-Gower,Frederick N.S.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Fitzroy, Hon.Edward Algernon

Long,RtHn. Walter(Bristol,S)

Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbyshire

Forster, Henry William

Loyd. Archie Kirkman

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Foster Philip S.(Warwick S.W.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

Galloway, William Johnson

M`Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Chapman, Edward

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Manners, Lord Cecil

Charrington, Spencer

Gordon,J.(Londonderry,South

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W.F.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Green,WalfordD.(Wednesbury

Maxwell RtHn.Sir H.E(Wigt'n

Maxwell W.J.H(Dumfriesshire

Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Milvain, Thomas

Robertson. Herbert (Hackney)

Tuff, Charles

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Valentia, Viscount

Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Walrond,Rt.Hn Sir William H.

Morrell, George Herbert

Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Mount, William Arthur

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Webb, Colonel William George

Murray,Rt.H.A.Graham(Bute)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Percy, Earl

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Wylie, Alexander

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Rankin, Sir James

Spear, John Ward

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

Reid, James (Greenock)

Stanley, Hn.Arthur(Ormskirk

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stanley, Rt. Ho. Lord (Lanes.)

Renwick, George

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

NOES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Higham, John Sharpe

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Horniman, Frederick John

Shackleton, David James

Benn, John Williams

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Boland, John

Joyce, Michael

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Brigg, John

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan.W.

Sullivan, Donal

Bright, Allan Heywood

Kilbride, Denis

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Labouchere, Henry

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Caldwell, James

Levy, Maurice

Thomas,JA (Glamorgan,Gower

Causton, Richard Knight

Lloyd-George, David

Tomkinson, James

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Lyell, Charles Henry

Toulmin, George

Cullinan, J.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Doogan, P. C.

Moss, Samuel

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Edwards, Frank

Murphy, John

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Elibank, Master of

Nolan, Joseph (Louth,South)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Norman, Henry

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hn.HerbertJohn

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary,Mid

Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Griffith, Ellis J.

Rickett, J. Compton

Mr. Soares and Mr. Herbert Roberts.

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rosendale

Runciman, Walter

Resolution to be reported this day.

CUNARD AGREEMENT [MONEY]
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,)in moving this Resolution, said that in Clause 10 of the agreement the Government undertook to provide a loan for the building of two ships named in the agreement. The Government were bound to advance this loan to the company in order that the vessels specified in the agreement might be completed. It was proposed to raise the money by means of Exchequer Bonds.
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
674
£2,600,000, as are required for making the Advances to the Cunard Steamship Company (Limited) under an Agreement with that Company, dated 30th July. 1903, and approved by the House of Commons 12th August,1903, to authorise the Treasury to borrow money, by means of Exchequer Bonds, for the issue of such sums or the repayment thereof, the principal of and interest on such bonds to be charged on the Consolidated. Fund, and to make other provisions relating to the sail agreement."—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)
MR. WILLIAM JONESsaid it was impossible to discuss the matter at that late hour. He should like to give the Prime Minister an opportunity of fulfilling his pledge that a full opportunity would be given for the discussion of this Motion. Therefore he would move to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. William Jones.)
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought that the hon. Member's proposal was unreasonable. There was nothing to discuss except a matter which, if they were treating it individually, they would think the plain simple duty of honest men who had entered into an agreement. He did not see why the House of Commons should be less honest than the Members who composed it. He suggested that it really required no debate, and it was irrespective of the hour of the day whether they should or should not carry out their plain duty.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he would remind the Prime Minister that on 12th May of this year, in reply to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, he stated that he could not promise a day for the discussion of the Cunard agreement before the Whitsuntide holidays. When the Prime Minister made an answer of that kind, surely in the common understanding of what passed across the floor of the House between the Leader of the House and the House of Commons as a House, it did lead the House justifiably to contemplate that some better time would he given before the close of the session than half-past three o'clock in the morning. The Colonial Secretary demurred to that?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I demurred to it.
SIR EDWARD GREYthought the Prime Minister was doing what he thought he might fairly say was a very unusual thing—putting a narrow, legal, and technical interpretation upon the language he had quoted. In future they were to understand that whenever the right hon. Gentleman said he could not promise a day before the Whitsuntide holidays, that was to be interpreted that probably no time would be given.
MR. A. J. BALFOURhoped the right hon. Baronet, when he used that form of language again, would think in future, as he hoped the right hon. Baronet thought in the past, that he meant exactly what he said. No Leader of the House could forecast the whole business of the session or tell what course the Opposition would take in furthering or
676
in not furthering the Government business, and so difficult was it to arrange business and so careful was every Leader of the House who knew his trade not to give pledges that he could not fulfil, that pledges must be interpreted literally in the sense in which they were given.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that that was to say the words must be interpreted in the narrowest possible sense, and that when the Prime Minister said that he could not promise a day before the Whitsuntide holidays, they were to take it that no reasonable time would be given at all before the end of the session.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not the conclusion to be drawn from what I said. I could not promise a day before the Whitsuntide holidays, and by implication I could make no promise one way or the other with regard to the rest of the session.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid all he submitted was that Members who were interested in this discussion, and who in May last were displaying a desire to have a discussion on this subject, and got from the Prime Minister the answer he then gave, were entitled at least to be disappointed and to express their disappointment now when they found they had no opportunity at all. The Prime Minister was not treating the House fairly in this matter. The Opposition had not been unreasonable. The first Motion to report Progress was not intended to stop business; it was intended to effect some discrimination in the business later and was accompanied by an offer to take other business. The Prime Minister said he proposed to take Orders 1 and 2 on the ground that they were purely formal stages, and upon that he (the speaker) offered to withdraw his Motion and to agree to those stages being taken as formal, provided an undertaking was given that on a subsequent stage of each Bill discussion should be admitted. He fully expected the Prime Minister to agree to it, but when he asked directly whether such an opportunity would be afforded he was met by a blank negative. That was why he

677
thought the right hon. Gentleman was not treating the House fairly. To ask the Committee to pass two measures on the ground that they were formal stages, and that there would be subsequent opportunities for discussion, was to allow the Committee to suppose that those opportunities would come at a time when they might be availed of. He was glad the discussion on the Motion went on, because if it had stopped after the Prime Minister's statement, and it had been found afterwards that the subsequent stages were to be equally formal and brought on when discussion was equally impossible, there would have been a misunderstanding between the right hon. Gentleman and the House more unpleasant than anything which had occurred in Parliament within his memory. He had been a Member of the House for a good many years, and he had seen several Leaders of the House, but he had never seen the House so treated, and nothing had occurred in his memory to leave behind it so unpleasant a feeling. And what led up to it? There had been no waste of time previous to the Motion to report Progress. It was true he had spoken on the Imperial Defence question longer than he had intended, and he was sorry he had done so, but it was not his intention to deal with anything, but the merits of the question. The Motion to reduce the Vote on a comparatively small but not altogether unimportant point was not followed by a long debate, and in the division many of the Opposition voted with the Government. The whole discussion was as friendly as could be wished. Then came what he had described to the Committee, and when they finally proceeded to the discussion the closure was applied at a time when debate had certainly not lost interest and when more than one important question had been raised but no answer given. What had happened would leave the feeling that the Government were not making a fair use of the power at their disposal; it would deepen the feeling which had began to take possession of many Members, that discussion in the present House of Commons was a farce, because the Government treated the House with a want of consideration which had never been exampled, at any rate in his memory, by any previous Government or any previous Leader of the House.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there was no man in the House with whom he was less desirous of coming into conflict than the right hon. Baronet, for whom he had the sincerest regard. When the right hon. Baronet made an attack upon him he was sure he did not simulate a passion which he did not feel, which he should have suspected in the case of a person for whom he had less respect, but certainly the grounds for such indignation were the flimsiest he could imagine. It was extremely probable that the right hon. Baronet would one day stand where he (the speaker) now stood as Leader of the House, and then when he had to give answers dealing with the time of the House he would he uncommonly surprised if he was told that when he said a day could not be given before a particular date it meant that a day was to he given after that date.
SIR EDWARD GREY: We have not asked for a whole day.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was trying to reply to the personal attack upon himself. If he said that a day could not be given before Whitsuntide it could never mean that a day should necessarily be given after Whitsuntide He could not agree with the right hon. Baronet's account of what had passed. He had never heard a more profitable discussion than that which took place up to quarter to twelve, but after that the debate degenerated and lost caste. The House that afternoon, by a large majority, in consideration of the amount of business yet to be transacted, had given the Government power to proceed with their Bills after twelve o'clock; and the Government had cut down their demand upon the House to the passing of two Resolutions of a formal character. If any one had cause of complaint it was the Government, who were suffering from the action of the Party opposite, and all because they had asked for a small instalment of the business of the nation which was necessary to carry out the honourable obligations of the House.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the old traditions of the House and had stated that they used to sit late. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the

679
House also used to meet earlier, and in the old days there was no closure and no guillotine Resolutions, but now they had all sorts of methods of preventing discussion, and they had resorted to other methods after the new-fangled notions were introduced more or less by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had created this purely as a formal stage to carry out what he had called honourable obligations. It was quite true that this contract was ratified by the House, but there were two important considerations to be taken into account. The Prime Minister had overlooked the method by which the money was to be raised. It was going to be raised by Exchequer bonds, and that was a very serious departure, which would affect very much the credit of the Government. Surely that was a question which ought to be discussed very fully. An important question of public policy was involved. Supposing the House of Commons came to the conclusion that it was not desirable to carry out this agreement for reasons of public policy; circumstances might arise under which it might be better to buy up the contract although it had been signed. It was a question now of the character of the agreement, and whether it was desirable now to proceed with it. With regard to the opportunity promised for discussing his agreement, he thought that nine out of every ten Members who heard the speech of the Prime Minister upon that question would have come to the con usion that he promised to give a day after Whitsuntide if he proceeded with the matter. That was really a pledge that he would give a day to discuss this question. The right hon. Gentleman a ked how was he to know what course the Opposition would take? What course could they take in view of the facts and the events of the last few months? They had in power a Government which had absolutely forfeited the confidence of the country and they were proceeding with business which they had no mandate to proceed with. It was their first duty to resist any proposal brought in by the Government if they did not approve of it. He asked the right hon. Gentleman what he would have done if he had been Leader of the Opposition? He ventured to say that the opposition the right hon. Gentleman would
680
have given to the measures of a Liberal Government would have been of a more fierce and persistent character than any which he himself had had to encounter. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had any reason to complain of the Opposition with which he had been faced. He thought the Government had been treated too leniently and that they had no right to complain of the treatment they had received at the hands of the opposition. Under these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman must have known the course which the Opposition would take. His right hon. friend had made a perfectly fair suggestion in regard to the Cunard agreement. What about Friday? Why did the Prime Minister not put it down as the first Order on Friday and go on with the Parsons Bill afterwards? The House of Commons was asked to discuss the Cunard agreement at this hour in the morning (four o'clock).
An HON. MEMBERsitting on the back Bench on the Ministerial side of the House interjected a remark which was not heard in the Gallery. The remark was followed by a cry of "Sit down," to which another Member replied "Go to bed."
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I rise, Sir, to order I venture to say that an hon. Gentleman made an interjection in the debate which is calculated to be deliberately insulting to my hon. friend. I appeal to you, Sir, to use the authority of the Chair to control and restrain him.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I did not catch the observation. I wish it were in my power to control and restrain all the people in this House who make insulting observations. I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the remark if it was offensive.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not complain. He could perfectly see that the hon. Member was in a condition of excitement and was not responsible. When interrupted he was supporting the reasonable suggestion that an opportunity for discussing this matter should be given on Friday in daylight. Why should the Prime Minister give all the best time to that very spiteful little Bill which he was going to bring forward on Friday? Why did he not give the House opportunities

681
for discussing the real business of the country? After all this was the real business of the country, because it involved matters in relation to the defence and the commerce of the country. The Cunard agreement ought to be brought forward at a time when they would have a fair opportunity for scrutinising it. There was the whole of next week when that could be done, but the Prime Minister was giving no opportunity for debating the matter at all. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not now promise to give an opportunity for discussion next Friday, making this matter the First Order of the day? [Cries of "No."] He thought it was a perfectly reasonable offer. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well what would happen if he did not agree to this. Was not this the sort of thing that would happen every night unless the Prime Minister gave them an opportunity for discussing the agreement? He was not speaking in any spirit of defiance. He was speaking with some experience of what happened in the House when the right hon. Gentleman and his fiends were in Opposition. He remembered how they used to keep hon. Members up, moving Motions for the adjournment of the House and to report Progress, because, as they thought, the Front Opposition Bench had refused reasonable requests from the then Opposition. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was serving the best- interests of the House of Commons by the course he was now taking. After all, Members of the Opposition were not responsible for these things being thrown to the fag end of the session. The Licensing Bill was guillotined anti forced through the House in five or six days, and the present state of business was not due to the measures of the session having been over-debated. They had not been debated at all practically. The state of business was due to something else. The right hon. Gentleman had his difficulties no doubt, but he had managed to get out of them very well up to the present. The management of the business of the House was not in the hands of the Opposition, and, therefore, if important questions were driven to the fag end of the session the Opposition were not responsible. Was it fair that they should be compelled to discuss great financial problems involving a
682
complete departure from precedent and affecting the defence and commerce of the country at this hour?
MR. RUNCIMANpressed the Prime Minister for an answer to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick. Would the Prime Minister treat as formal the stage of the Cunard agreement which he proposed to take now, and give an opportunity on a later stage for discussing the matter?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not mean that this question was not formal.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid that there could be no reasonable discussion of this question at four o'clock in the morning. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to carry on this principle through all stages of the Bill they ought not to discuss the Bill at all. When the right hon. Gentleman was in Opposition he would not have agreed to such a procedure as he was now forcing on the Committee. Were they not to discuss the status of these vessels in view of events now passing in the Far East? The idea was preposterous. The truth was that the Prime Minister did not mean to give any day for discussing this Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he meant what he said. He could not say whether there would be any discussion at all.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid that as to the question put by the hon. Member for King's Lynn there was no mention of Whitsuntide. It was a perfectly gratuitous interpolation on the part of the Prime Minister to say that no day would he given before Whitsuntide. He was quite sure that what was wanted was that a clear day should be given, or even half a day, before the end of the session, in order to enable those who had such strong views in regard to this agreement to give expression to them. The right hon. Gentleman must know that a discussion after twelve o'clock would be absolutely futile. There would not be more than 110 Members in the precincts of the House, and such a discussion would be perfunctory in the last degree.

683
The action of the Prime Minister in suggesting that the Committee could discuss this important question at a quarter past four in the morning was nothing more nor less than flouting the House of Commons.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that his hon. friend had drawn attention to the fact that there had been an honourable engagement to give a day to the discussion of this question, and which the Government was bound to keep. But, after all, it rested with the House or the Committee to approve or reject such an engagement. He ventured to point out to the Prime Minister whether they were not getting into rather an unsatisfactory and difficult situation. If the Prime Minister wanted to get his business through he ought to act in a more conciliatory mariner. If the right hon. Gentleman adopted a course of give-and-take, and made a fair bargain with hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, this struggle might be altogether avoided. All parts of the House were interested in pledges given being
carried out. He did not suggest that the Prime Minister had broken a promise, but there was a general impression that a proper opportunity would be given for the discussion of this question. And why not? It was a very important question, and had acquired a new importance in consequence of the Morgan combine. It was a proper thing that the Committee should discuss it; and he submitted that it was a reasonable interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Committee would be given an opportunity for discussion. That impression might be erroneous; but was the right hon. Gentleman willing to profit by a false impression?
Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 123 Noes, 53. (Division List No. 301.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dimsdale,Rt.Hn.Sir Joseph C.

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

Anson. Sir William Reynell

Doughty, Sir George

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Donclas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Arnold-Forster,Rt.HmHughO.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Arrol, Sir William

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Manners, Lord Cecil

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dyke,Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

Bagot, Capt, Josceline FitzRoy

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

Maxwell,RtHnSir H.E(Wigt'n

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Fielden, Edward Broeklehurst

Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Milvain, Thomas

Balcarres, Lord

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

Fitzroy, Hon.Edward Algernon

Morgan DavidJ.(Walthamstow

Balfour,RtHnGerald W.(Leeds

Forster, Henry William

Morrell, George Herbert

Banbury,Sir Frederick George

Foster,Philip S.(Warwiek.S.W.

Mount, William Arthur

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Galloway, William Johnson

Murray,Rt.Hn.A.Graham (Bute.

Brassey, Albert

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gordon J.(Londonderry,South

Percy, Earl

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Green,Walford D.(Wednesbury

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Butcher, John George

Grenfell, William Henry

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

Gretton, John

Pretyman, Ernest George

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Groves, James Grumble

Rankin, Sir James

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hall, Edward Marshall

Reid, James (Greenock)

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Hamilton,Marq.of (L'donderry

Remnant, James Farquharson

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Renwick, George

Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley)

Ridley,Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Chapman, Edward

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

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Charrington, Spencer

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hope, J.F.(Shetfield,Brightside

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Coates, Edward Feetham

Hunt, Rowland

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Kerr, John

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Keswick, William

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Craig, Chas. Curtis(Antrim, S.

Knowles, Sir Lees

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Law. Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)

Davenport, W. Bromley

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

Davies SirHoratioD.(Chatham

Legge, Col. Hon Heneage

Spear, John Ward

Dickson, Charles Scott

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Webb, Colonel William George

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Whiteley,H.(Ashton und Lyne

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Tuff, Charles

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Valentia, Viscount,

Wylie, Alexander

Walrond, Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

NOES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Horniman, Frederick John

Shackleton, David James

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Benn,John Williams

Joyce. Michael

Soares, Ernest J.

Boland, John

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Brigg, John

Kilbride, Denis

Sullivan, Donal

Bright, Allan Heywood

Labouchere, Henry

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Levy, Maurice

Thomas David Alfred(Merthyr)

Caldwell, James

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas,JA (Glamorgan, Gower

Causton, Richard Knight

Lyell, Charles Henry

Tontkinson, James

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Moss, Samuel

Toulmin, George

Cullinan, J.

Murphy, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Doogan, P. C.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Warner, Thomas Courtenav T.

Edwards, Frank

Norman, Henry

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Elibank, Master of

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E.(Berwick)

Rickett, J. Compton

Griffith, Ellis J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Harcourt,Lewis V.(Rossendale

Runciman, Walter

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M Arthur.

Higham, John Sharpe

Samuel, Herhert L.(Cleveland)

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 52; Noes, 123 (Division List No. 302.)

AYES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Horniman, Frederick John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Soares, Ernest J.

Benn, John Williams

Joyee, Michael

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Boland, John

Kennedy,VindcentP.(Cavan,W

Sullivan, Donal

Brigg, John

Kilbride, Denis

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Bright, Allan Heywood

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Lloyd-George, David

Thoinas,J A. (Glamorgan,Gower

Caldwell, James

Lyell, Charles Henry

Tomkinson, James

Causton, Richard Knight

Moss, Samuel

Toulmin, George

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Murphy, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Cullinan, J.

Nolan, Joseph(Louth, South)

Warner, Thomas, Courtenay T.

Doogan, P. C.

Norman, Henry

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Edwards, Frank

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Elibank, Master of

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Rickett, J. Compton

Grey,Rt.Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Runeiman, Walter

Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Higham, John Sharpe

Shackleton, David James

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Brassey, Albert

Coates, Edward Feetham

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Arrol, Sir William

Butcher, John George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Campbell,J. H. H.(Dublin Univ.

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ed. T. H.

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Dalkeith, Earl of

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

Davenport, William Bromley-

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

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

Chantberlain,Rt.Hn.J.A(Wore.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Balfour,RtHn Gerald W.(Leeds

Chapman, Edward

Dimsdale,Rt.Hon.Sir Joseph C.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Charrington, Spencer

Doughty, Sir George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lees. Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Dyke,Rt.Hon.Sir WilliamHart

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Fergusson,Rt.Hn.Sir J.(Mancr'

Leveson-(Gower. Frederick N.S.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Finch, Rt. Hon. Georee H.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Finlay, Sir Eobert Bannatyne

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Fitzroy,Hon.Edward Algernon

M'Killop, James (Stirlingrshire)

Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Forster, Henry William

Manners, Lord Cecil

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

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

Massey-Mainworing, Hn. W. F.

Spear, John Ward

Galloway, William Johnson

Maxwell,RtHn.SirH.H.(Wigt'n

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Gibbs Hon. A. G. H.

Maxwell,W. J.H (Dumfriesshire

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Gorden, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Milvain, Thomas

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Green,Walford D.(Wednesbury

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Grenfell, Williain Henry

Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

Tuff, Charles

Gretton, John

Morrell, George Herbert

Valentia, Viscount

Groves, James Grimble

Mount, William Arthur

Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Murray,Rt.Hn.A.Graham(Bute

Wattle, Colonel C. E.

Hamilton,Marq.of(L'nd'nderry

murray, col. wyndham (Bath)

Webb, Colonel William George

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Perey, Earl

Whiteley,H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Heath, James (Stafford, N.W.

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Wylie. Alexander

Hermon-Hadge, Sir Robert T.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Hope,J.F.(Sheftield, Brightside

Rankin, Sir James

Hunt, Rowland

Reid, James (Greenock)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Jessel, Captzlin Herbert Merton

Remnant, James Farquharson

Alexander Acland-Hood

Kerrr, John

Itenwiek, George

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Keswick, William

Ridley, Hon.M.W. (Stalybridge

Knowles, Sir Lees

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Original Question again proposed.
*MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the Cunard Company, if it went into the market to obtain money in the usual way, would certainly have to pay over 4 per cent., so hat the Government were advancing money to the company at 1¼ per cent. less than the market considered safe. Beyond that, the Government paid a subsidy of £150,000 with respect to two steamships. The Cunard Company would repay £130,000 of the loan and £35,000 in interest. So that the company would pay £15,000 per annum to the Government, and would be insuring for themselves, at the end of twenty years, the entire ownership of those two vessels which the Government were financing at the startlingly low rate of 2¾per cent. From the present state of the money market he calculated that it would cost the Government something like 3½ per cent, to float their Exchequer bonds, so that in that transaction alone there would be a dead loss to the Government of ¾ per cent. on the loan of £2,500,000. That was a thoroughly bad business transaction. The whole genesis of this transaction grew out of Admiralty requirements and the state of panic which the Government did a great deal to foster at the time of the formation of the
688
Morgan Combine. The Secretary to the Admiralty defended the proposal by saying that one of its main objects was to allay the panic which had somehow captured the British people. If the Government had known anything about shipping they would have known that the Morgan Combine, given its inception, was doomed to failure. The whole control had now practically drifted back to Liverpool under, he believed, Mr.smay. It was stated that these vessels were not to perform the ordinary duties of cruisers: it was therefore to be assumed that they were to act as scouts or despatch vessels. But how could so enormous an increase of the nation's indebtedness be justified merely for the purpose of securing two scouts or two despatch vessels? Moreover, if it was necessary to embark on this undertaking, why did the Government at the same time withdraw from similar undertakings with regard to other companies? It was material to the question to consider the vessels in respect of which this agreement was entered into—the cross registered tonnage and the value at which the Government would be hound to purchase the vessels if in time of war they considered it necessary to do so. The "Lucania" and the "Campania" were advancing rapidly in age; their tonnage

689
was 12,900, and under this agreement the Government would be compelled to purchase those vessels at £350,000, or £28 per gross registered ton. The whole tonnage of the fleet from top to bottom was 110,000, and the sum at which the Government would be compelled to purchase was £1,990,000. The total market value of the shares of this company when the agreement was drawn up was £1,200,000, and since that time the Government had undertaken to purchase a portion of the property represented by those shares for £1,990,000. That was one of the reasons why they found their credit running out and why they had to resort to all sorts of schemes in order to raise the wind. The Cunard Company was under an obligation to allow their boats out on hire, if necessary, at a certain rate, and what was that rate? If the speed was above twenty-two knots the charge was 30s. per gross registered ton. There was no ship-owner in the country who was not prepared to allow his vessels out on hire for ever at that price. Recently they had had a chance of testing these figures and he had found that out of the whole list of 117 vessels of a fairly fast speed only a few received over 20s. per gross registered ton. What did the "Aurania," which was just under seventeen knots, receive? The agreement stated that if she steamed seventeen knots she would get 20s.
*THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,)said these terms were in existence at the time trader the old agreement which had been embodied in this agreement. He thought the hon. Gentleman opposite was a business man and he ought to know that when they made terms for compulsory hire they were higher than when they were made in the open market.
*MR. RUNCIMANsaid this company undertook to place their fleet at the disposal of the Government upon those terms. Supposing the Admiralty went into the market at the beginning of the next war. If they were able to hire vessels at anything under these rates, did the hon. Gentleman mean to say that the Cunard Company could not come down
690
and insist upon the Government taking some of their vessels? Was the hon. Member not aware that by this agreement the Government practically settled the price?
*MR. PRETYMANsaid the hon. Member had stated that the "Aurania" was obtained at a much less rate.
*MR. RUNCIMANsaid he could not understand why the "Aurania" was chartered at 16s. per gross registered ton at a time when she was entitled to 17s. 6d. according to the agreement.
*MR. PRETYMANsaid that the Cunard Company had to take at that time, and they would have to take in future, whatever they could obtain in the ordinary market in competition with other companies, and that was what was obtained for the "Aurania." The Cunard Company were bound by this agreement to let the ships to the Admiralty at that rate, but the Admiralty were not bound to take them at that rate. This was binding on the company but not Oil the Admiralty.
*MR. RUNCIMANsaid that he quite understood the position indicated by the hon. Gentleman, but that did not at all meet the point. The agreement would give an enormously high profit to those engaged in this particular service. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would explain how far we could rely on the old figures incorporated in the new agreement. Perhaps he would further tell the Committee what was to be the exact standing of these vessels. Were they to be vessels like the Volunteer Fleet—of a semi-mercantile and semi-warlike character? If they were to be vessels similar to the Russian Volunteer Fleet what would happen if one of the new Cunarders happened to be at New York at the moment when we went to war with another Power? Of course, the House did not know at present the exact bearing on this scheme of the questions raised by the recent passage of the Volunteer Fleet through the Dardanelles, but he ventured to suggest that the complications which were arising with regard to that fleet would considerably

691
handicap us with regard to the employment of these Cunard vessels if they happened to be outside our waters when hostilities broke out. The House ought to have an opportunity of discussing the whole of this question, not at 5 o'clock in the morning, when it was impossible to have a full discussion, and when a large number of hon. Members were prevented from being there.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid his hon. friend stated a little earlier that it was not possible to have an effective discussion of the subject at this hour of the morning. He thought the Committee would be generally of opinion that the hon. Gentleman had erred on the side of modesty, for he had just delivered a comprehensive and vigorous speech, in which he had shown a profound knowledge of the whole of this complicated subject. He ventured to say that a more lucid statement had rarely been heard, and it argued not less for his hon. friend's vigour than his intellectual strength that he had been able to deliver such a speech. His hon. friend had laid before the House the details of this extraordinary agreement. It was quite clear that for an annual payment during twenty years of £15,000 the Cunard Company would ultimately become the possessors of these two great ships of the value of £2,600,000. The value of the company's fleet in being was only estimated by them at a sum of £2,000,000. This wonderful argument was due to the President of the Board of Trade, who was thrown into a state of panic by the Morgan combination.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDappealed to the Chairman for a ruling as to whether the agree-
692
ment or the raising of the money was the proper subject for discussion.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is the means of raising the money, but in discussing the, means of raising the money it would be in order for the hon. Member to discuss the agreement.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he would endeavour not to trespass long upon the indulgence and attention of the Committee. He should like to say that this shipping agreement was the twin brother of the Sugar Bounty Convention.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can discuss the Sugar Bounty Convention.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he did not mean to do more than mention it. This agreement and the Sugar Bounty Convention were the product of the right hon. Gentleman's brain at the time when all those new ideas of taxation were abroad. Everybody knew that the great steel combination had broken down and that the great shipping combine had also broken down, and was the laughing-stock of everybody except the shareholders. He did not pretend that this question should be settled on financial or even purely economic grounds. He recognised the fact that the blue-ribbon of the Atlantic was a thing that they ought not to forget. It had its sentimental value apart from its practical value, which no politician who took a comprehensive view of the question could possibly ignore. Of course, the Admiralty had to consider the question from a naval and military point of view. The question of

693
the value of cruisers and scouts was now being discussed, but why should the Admiralty have gone to a private company to solve the problem instead of solving it for themselves? He admitted that to have steamers running at 24½ knots an hour would enable us to send troops on an emergency to some critical point; but he thought that, on reflection, it would be found that we had made an extremely bad bargain, no matter with however laudable an object. He trusted that when the Committee stage was reached there would be full discussion as to whether we had or had not made bad terms with the Cunard Company. He held that numerous facts, which were accumulating, showed that when a Government interfered in the affairs of trade they frequently committed blunders.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he regretted the somewhat unreasonable and unconciliatory attitude which had been shown by the Prime Minister. He anticipated that after what had taken place that night there would be many other nights like it. He contemplated going away at the end of this week and leaving others to take up the duty of denouncing the Government and all their works. The junior Member for Oldham must then represent the Liberal Party in the House. He had wanted to discuss the question of Uganda, but the Prime Minister got up and moved the closure. As to this Cunard agreement, they knew that it had been rushed through the House on 12th August last year, when there was no possibility of discussion, and when there were only about eight Members in the House when the division
694
was challenged. The Prime Minister had made a most solemn engagement that the matter would be properly discussed. A more foolish and silly arrangement than that which was now under discussion had never been entered upon. He regarded it as most unfair to other shipowners. They were giving large sums of money to this company to build ships which would be employed in their own trade, when there was no war, and when the probability was that the country would not be at war with any modern Power. The company would be able to charge smaller rates than other companies, and that would be unfair. He denied that this was a good speculation. The representative of the Navy had not explained what advantage would be derived from these ships, and whether it would not have been better to have built ships of their own. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would give an explanation. At present there was some difficulty with Russia owing to the action of the volunteer fleet in the Red Sea; and complications of a similar character might arise if they accepted these new ships as ships of war. In the event of war they might find themselves in conflict with France, Germany, or the United States. If the Secretary to the Treasury was able to show him what advantage would he derived from the ships he would be prepared to accept his view in preference to his own.
*MR. PRETYMANsaid the gravamen of the attack upon this agreement was based upon two main grounds. One was that they were not getting value for their money and that the Cunard Company were getting very much the best of the bargain. In that connection he might

695
be allowed to quote the words used in the debate on this subject last year by two Gentlemen on the Benches opposite. The hon. Member for Gloucester said—
"He really did not think the Cunard Company had much to congratulate themselves upon. On the whole he was inclined to congratulate the Cunard Company more upon their courage in taking this contract than upon their luck in getting it."
The late Sir William Allen, who also had considerable knowledge of shipping matters, said—
"He thought this was purely a matter of business, and that from the financial point of view the Government had got the best of the bargain."
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Experience has dissipated these predictions.
*MR. PRETYMANsaid that at any rate they showed that this was an open question among authorities on the other side of the House, and the Committee should not accept it as proved that as a purely business matter the Cunard Company had got anything more than the value they were giving in return. The other point raised was that since the agreement was entered into in a moment of panic everything had changed. He entirely traversed that statement. Nothing had changed from the point of view of the Admiralty. The only thing that had changed was the case as regards the Atlantic combine. How far that change had been brought about by the very fact of this agreement being in existence he left the Committee to estimate. What the Admiralty were getting in return for this agreement were ships of a speed which would enable them to command the Atlantic. There were in existence at this moment four steamers
696
of considerably greater speed than any steamer owned in this country. Bearing in mind recent events, the position of the food supplies of the country, and the fact that there were four steamers on the Atlantic which we could not catch, he thought it would be worth a large sum to obtain vessels which would secure to them—
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Are there no warships that could catch these steamers?
*MR. PRETYMANsaid the range of a warship was measured in a totally different way to that of a merchant ship. Atlantic liners were constructed on very different lines to warships. The new Cunarders would be able, if necessary, to command the Atlantic. They would be able to catch any ship which could be placed on the Atlantic to injure their trade and stop their food supplies.
SIR EDWARD GREY: How soon will they be ready?
*MR. PRETYMANsaid the orders for the ships had already been given by the Cunard Company. One was being built on the Tyne, the other on the Clyde. He believed something under two years was the term within which the ships would be completed.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that he did not think the hon. Gentleman was serious in one suggestion he made that this agreement contributed in any degree to smash up the international combine. The hon. Gentleman's idea was that this agreement had something to do with the failure of the Morgan combine.
*MR. PRETYMANsaid he did not suggest that.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the moment the panic was over people would not see anything in it. During the panic the idea, was that the ships of this country would be taken over by other countries and that they would have no ships left. But the combine had turned out an absolute failure, and it was a serious warning to American shareholders not to attempt anything similar in the future. The combine had been a matter of the greatest possible securityto this country, as it showed how utterly impossible it was to run anything of the kind except in a free-trade country such as this. He thought the agreement was one of the things which it would have been better had they not entered into. They had shown the peoples of the world that they could meet them on equal terms; but instead of doing that the Government got frightened, and the idea got abroad that this country was afraid and that it was conscious of a certain weakness in its position, whereas if they went on at before they would have been suecessfel. They. however, got frightened by newspaper articles in the Daily Mail and other newspapers which helped to make the South African War; and the Government said that they would do something striking and dramatic. Governments which acted in that manner were generally the most feeble in the long run. It was Lord Salisbury's great strength that he never allowed himself to be affected by panic. If the Government had looked at all the conditions,
they would have known that this country could have fought the great American combine and could have beaten it. They might have started a serious shipping war with America. A formidable agitation arose for the American Government to enter into similar arrangements, and if a Presidential election had beet pending no one could tell what might have happened. Luckily there was a Government in power in America sufficiently strong to resist the pressure, otherwise we might have been involved in a serious shipping war with America. It was a question not of whether this was a good or bad bargain on its merits, but of whether it was desirable for the Government to enter into transactions of this character. He submitted that the agreement constituted a dangerous precedent which ought not to be followed.
MR. TOMKINSONrose to speak.
Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL,seated and covered, said this was the second time the hon. Member for Crewe had risen to address the Committee, and on both occasions he had been closured.
MR. TOMKINSONexplained that he only rose to ask a Question.
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 303.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Arrol, Sir William

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Fitzroy, Hn.EdwardAlgernon

Murray,Rt.Hn.AGraham(Bute

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Forster, Henry William

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

Percy, Earl

Balcarres, Lord

Galloway, William Johnson

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Balfour,Rt.Hn.GeraldW(Leeds

Gordon. J. (Londonderry, S.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Green,Walford D.(Wednesbury

Rankin, Sir James

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Grenfell, William Henry

Reid, James (Greenock)

Brassey, Albert

Grotton, John

Remnant, James Farquharson

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Groves. James Grimble

Renwick, George

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hall, Edward Marshall

Ridley,Hon.M. W. (Stalybridge

Butcher, John George

Hamilton,Marq.of(L'nd'nderry

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Heath, James (Stalfords. N.W.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Hobert T.

Sarkville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

Hone,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Chapman, Edward

Hunt, Rowland

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Charrington, Spencer

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Kerr, John

Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Coates, Edward Feetham

Keswick, William

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

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

Knowles, Sir Lees

Spear, John Ward

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.

Tuff, Charles

Davenport, William Bromley-

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

Valentia, Viscount

Davies,Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Walrond,Rt.Hn. Sir William H.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lyttelton, Ht. Hon. Alfred

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Dimsdale,Rt. Hn.Sir Joseph C.

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Webb, Colonel William George

Doughty, Sir George

Manners, Lord Cecil

Whiteley,H.(A.shton und. Lyne

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

Wylie, Alexander

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Dyke,Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

Milvain, Thomas

Fergusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

MorgamDavidJ.(Walthamstow

Alexander Acland-Hood

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Morrell, George Herbert

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Mount, William Arthur

NOES,

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Horniman, Frederick John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Soares, Ernest J.

Benn, John Williams

Joyce, Michael

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Boland, John

Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

Sullivan, Donal

Brigg, John

Kilbride, Denis

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Bright, Allan Heywood

Labouchere, Henry

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Caldwell, James

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, J. A (Glamorcan,Gower

Causton, Richard Knight

Lyell, Charles Henry

Toinkinson, James

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Moss, Samuel

Toulnin, George

Cullinan, J.

Murphy, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Doogan, P. C.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Edwards, Frank

Norman, Henry

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Elibank, Master of

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Grey, Rt.Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

Rickett, J. Compton

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Harcourt,Lewis V.(Rossendale

Runciman, Walter

Herbert Gladstone and

Higham, John Sharpe

Shackleton, David James

Mr. William M'Arthur.

Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided:—Ayes. 121; Noes, 42. (Division List No. 304.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Arrol, Sir William

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Balcarres, Lord

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

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

Galloway, William Johnson

Percy, Earl

Balfour,RtHn.GeraldW,(Leeds

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon, J (Londonderry, S.)

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Green,Walford D.(Wednesbury

Pretyman, Ernest George

Brassey, Albert

Grenfe11, William Henry

Rankin, Sir James

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gretton, John

Reid, James (Greenock)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Groves, James Grimble

Remnant, James Farquharson

Butcher, John George

Hall, Edward Marshall

Renwick, George

Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

Hamilton,Marq.of(L'nd'nderry

Ridley,Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Robertson Herbert (Hackney)

Cavendish,V.C. W. (Derbyshire

Heath,Arthur Howard (Hanley

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

Chapman, Edward

Hope,J. F.(Sheflield,Brightside

Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-

Charrington, Spencer

Hunt, Rowland

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Coates, Edward Feetham

Kerr, John

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

Keswick, William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Knowles, Sir Lees

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

Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Spear, John Ward

Craig,CharlesCurtis (Antrim, S.

Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Stanley,Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Davenport, William Bromley-

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Davies,Sir HoratioD.(Chatham

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

Tuff, Charles

Dickson, Charles Scott

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Valentia, Viscount

Dimsdale,Rt.Hon. Sir JosephC

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

Doughty, Sir George

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Manners, Lord Cecil

Webb, Colonel William George

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Massey-Mainwaring,Hn. W. F.

Whitcley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Maxwell,Rt.HnSir H.E.(Wigt'n

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Dyke,Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

Wylie, Alexander

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

Milvain, Thomas

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Morgan, David J(Walthamstow

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Morrell, George Herbert

Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Mount, William Arthur

Forster, Henry William

Murray,Rt.Hn A.Graham(Bute

NOES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Horniman, Frederick John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Soares, Ernest J.

Benn, John Williams

Joyce, Michael

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Boland, John

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

Sullivan, Donal

Birgg, John

Kilbride, Denis

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Bright, Allan Heywood

Labouchere, Henry

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Caldwell, James

Levy, Maurice

Tomkinson, James

Causton, Richard Knight

Lyell, Charles Henry

Toulmin, George

Cullinan, J.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Doogan, P. C.

Murphy, John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Edwards, Frank

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Elibank, Master of

Norman, Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Henry J. Wilson and Mr. Moss.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Rickett, J. Compton

Higham, John Sharpe

Shackleton, David James

Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums, not exceeding in the whole £2,600,000, as are required for making the Advances to the Cunard Steamship Company (Limited), under an Agreement with that Company, dated 30th July, 1903, and approved by the
House of Commons 12th August, 1903, to authorise the Treasury to borrow money, by means of Exchequer Bonds, for the issue of such sums or the repayment thereof, the principal of and interest on such bonds to be charged on the Consolidated Fund, and to make other provisions relating to the said Agreement.
Question put, "That the Chairman do report this Resolution to the House."

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

Morrell, George Herbert

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fieiden, Edward Brocklehurst

Mount, William Arthur

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Murray,Rt.Hn.A.Graham(Bute

Arnold-Forster,Rt. Hn.HughO.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Arrol, Sir William

Fitzroy,Hon.EdwardAlgernon

Percy, Earl

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Forster, Henry William

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Galloway, William Johnson

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gibbs. Hon. A. G. H.

Rankin, Sir James

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, J (Londonderry, S.)

Reid, James (Greenock)

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

Green,Walford D.(Wednesbury

Remnant, James Farquharson

Balfour,Rt Hn.GeraldW.(Leeds

Grenfell, William Henry

Renwick, George

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gretton, John

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Groves, James Grimble

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Brassey, Albert

Hall, Edward Marshall

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Brodrick, Bt. Hon. St. John

Hamilton,Marq.of (L'nd'nderry

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Butcher, John George

Heath, Arthur Howard Hanley

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Campbell,J.H.M. (Dublin Univ.

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Carson. Et. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cavendish,V. C. W.(Derbyshire

Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton

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

Chapman, Edward

Kerr, John

Spear, John Ward

Charrington, Spencer

Keswick, William

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Knowles, Sir Lees

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Coates, Edward Feetham

Law, Andrew Boner (Glasgow)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Tuff, Charles

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Legge,Col. Hon. Heneage

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S.

Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Webb, Colonel William George

Davenport, William Bromley-

Lyttellon, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne

Davies,Sir HoratioD.(Chatham

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Dickson, Charles Scott

Manners, Lord Cecil

Wylie, Alexander

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn.Sir Joseph C.

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Wyndham-Quin. Col. W. H.

Doughty, Sir George

Maxwell.Rt.Hn.SirH.E.(Wigt'n

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Maxwell,W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Milvain, Thomas

Alexander Acland-Hood

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Dyke, Rt.Hn. Sir WilliamHart

Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

NOES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Horniman, Frederick John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Soares, Ernest J.

Benn, John Williams

Joyce, Michael

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Boland, John

Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

Sullivan, Donal

Brigg, John

Kilbride, Denis

Tbomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

Bright, Allan Heywood

Levy,Maurice

Thomas,JA.(Glamorgan,Gower

Caldwell, James

Lyell, Charles Henry

Tomkinson, James

Causton, Richard Knight

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Toulmin, George

Cullinan, J.

Noss, Samuel

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Dcogan, P. C.

Murphy, john

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Edwards, Frank

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Elibank, Master of

Norman, Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Henry J. Wilson and Mr. Theodore Taylor

Gladstone,RtHn.Herbert John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Harcomtt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

Rickett, J. Compton

Higham, John Sharpe

Shackleton, David James

Resolution to be reported this day.
Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 2nd day of August
The Committee divided;—Ares, 121; Noes, 42. (Division List No. 305.)
Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at ten minutes after Six of the clock a.m.