Commons Sitting of 19 April 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER, owing to continued indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill; Halifax Corporation Bill; Stockport Corporation Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

PRIVATE BILLS, ETC.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 39, 128, and 230 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions and Memorials against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, also for depositing at the Private Bill Office all Documents relating to any Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Brentford, Ealing, Hanwell, Heston and Isleworth, Sale, Sheffield, and Sunderland," presented by Mr. Grant Lawson; supported by Mr. Gerald Balfour; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

PETITIONS.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Auchterarder; Bonnyrigg; Dalkeith; Darvel; Glasgow; Govan; Greenock; Perth; and Stevenston; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petition from Lee and other places, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATES AND TAXES.
  Petition from Norwood and Dulwich, for reduction; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (APPEALS).
  Return [presented 17th April] to be printed. [No. 134.]
  TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
  Copy presented, of Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1904. Volume I. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Papers relating to Constitutional Changes in the Transvaal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRANSVAAL.
  Copy presented, of Despatch transmitting Letters Patent and Order in Council providing for Constitutional Changes in the Transvaal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
  Account presented, of the Gross Public Income and Expenditure in the year ended 31st March, 1905, together with the Balances in the Exchequer at the commencement and at the termination of the year, and the amounts received into or issued from the Exchequer in respect of Funded and Un-funded Debt created or redeemed in the said year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 135.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 12th April, 1905, granting to Matthew Henry Danily, Postmaster at Malpas, a Retired Allowance under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOMALILAND PROTECTORATE.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated April 13th, 1905, as to audit of the Accounts of the Somaliland Protectorate [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Accounts of the University of Glasgow for the year ending 30th September, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 136.]
  TREATY SERIES (No. 9, 1905).
  Copy presented, of Convention between the United Kingdom and France respecting Commercial Relations between France and India. Signed at London, 19th February, 1903. Ratifications exchanged at London, 27th March, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 10, 1905).
  Copy presented, of Convention between the United Kingdom and France respecting Commercial Relations between France and the British Protectorates of East Africa, Central Africa, and Uganda. Signed at London, 23rd February, 1903. Ratifications exchanged at London, 27th March, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TREATY SERIES (No. 11, 1905).
  Copy presented, of Convention between the United Kingdom and Franco respecting Commercial Relations between

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  7.

  8.

  9.

  Court in which brought, and date of commencement.

  Nature of action or proceeding.

  Pursuers of complainers.

  Defenders or Respondents.

  Nature of conclusion or prayer, e.g., whether for interdict or declarator, or as the case may be.

  Nature of property sought to be affected—Church manse, hall, or glebe, and parish and county where situated.

  Nature of decisions given, and dates thereof, for example, interdict granted or declarator, or as the case may be.

  Whether judgment now final or appealed, and present position of litigation.

  Whether property befor Sir John Cheyne, and what was his decision, and the date thereof.

  —(Mr. Black)
  France and the Seychelles Islands, Signed at London, 16th April, 1902. Ratifications exchanged at London, 27th March, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TREATY SERIES (No. 12, 1905).
  Copy presented, of Convention between the United Kingdom and France respecting Commercial Relations between France and Ceylon. Signed at London, 19th February, 1903. Ratifications exchanged at London, 27th March, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3342 to 3345 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
  Copy ordered, "of Statistical Tables relating to Emigration and Immigration from and into the United Kingdom in the year 1904, and Report to the Board of Trade there on."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No 137.]

  UNITED FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND AND THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (LITIGATION) (ROYAL COMMISSION TO SIR JOHN CHEYNE).
  Return ordered, "showing the number, nature, and result of the litigations instituted in the Courts of Scotland since the 1st day of August, 1904, by persons representing, or purporting to represent, the Free Church of Scotland against the United Free Church of Scotland, or persons purporting to represent it, under the following heads—

  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (SCHOLARSHIPS, ETC.).
  Return ordered, "showing the provision made by local education authorities for enabling scholars of public Elementary Schools to proceed to

  Table A: Scholarships and Bursaries tenable by Scholars other than those who are pledged to become or who are Pupil Teachers.

  Number

  Age limits.

  Conduction of award.

  Where tenable.

  Number of years Tenable.

  Value during each year of tenure.

  Boys.

  Girls.

  1.Scholarships.

  2. Bursaries.

  "And, similar Return in respect of Table B: Scholarships and Bursaries tenable only by Scholars who are pledged to become Pupil Teachers."—(Dr. Mac-namara.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Sittings of Railway Commissioners.
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will grant the Return showing the number of days in which the Railway Commissioners have sat (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 183, of Session 1902).
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The number of days upon which the Railway and Canal Commissioners have held sittings are as follows—

  1896

  38 days.

  1897

  47 days.

  1898

  25 days.

  1899

  44 days.

  1900

  40 days.

  1901

  41 days.

  1902

  16 days.

  1903

  31 days.

  1904

  14 days.

  NOTE.—This Return does not include the days the Commissioners sat out of Court for purposes connected with the administrative duties of the Commission.
  Secondary Schools or to pupil teacher centres and preparatory classes connected therewith by means of Exhibitions, Scholarships, Bursaries, payment of tuition fees, payment of travelling expenses, maintenance grants, etc., in the following form:—

  Oil Paintings in Committee Rooms of the House—Inscriptions and Repairs
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if his attention has been drawn to the absence of inscriptions on some of the oil paintings in the Committee Rooms and other parts of both Houses descriptive of the subjects depicted, and also to the state of repair in which some of them are; and whether he will devise means to supply the inscriptions and effect necessary repairs.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The Answer to the first part of my hon. friend's Question is in the affirmative. The First Commissioner proposes to have inscriptions supplied; but the question of continuing the repair of the pictures, one of which has lately been restored, must await further consideration with regard to funds available.

  Ballina (County Mayo) Postal Staff
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that there was a revision of the Ballina, county Mayo, postal staff in February, 1904, and that as a result six male sorting clerks and telegraphists were to be appointed; and whether, as the male staff for the past year has been under-

  579
  manned, he will take steps to put the result of the revision into operation.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) A revision of the indoor staff at the Ballina office has been sanctioned and will be carried out as soon as the circumstances permit.

  Allowances to Provincial Postmen for Indoor Duties.
  MR. NOLAN: To ask the Postmaster-General when he intends to announce the nature of the special allowances to be paid to selected postmen for performing certain indoor duties in the provinces, as promised to the deputation which waited upon him on the 26th January last.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) This matter is still under consideration; but I may at once state that it will not in any case be possible to introduce the scheme otherwise than gradually.

  Postmen's Good Conduct Stripes.
  MR. NOLAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he intends to introduce any modifications into the regulations which govern the award, arrestment, or forfeiture of good-conduct stripes for postmen.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have no present intention of doing so.

  Revision of Glasgow Postal Staff.
  MR. NOLAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if, in the proposed revision of the indoor force at Glasgow, which has been pending for some years, provision will be made for the 25 per cent. additional overseerships promised in his recently-issued Memorandum in addition to the clerkships already promised; and also when the revision is likely to come into force.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) A revision of the rank and file at Glasgow was carried out in the early part of last year,
  580
  and a further general revision is not contemplated. I am considering the question of increasing the number of overseers, and I will announce my decision in due course, but I must point out that I have not made any promise of an addition of 25 per cent.

  Case of Telegraphist Booth.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a telegraphist named Booth, employed at the Central Telegraph Office, was discharged from the service on Friday, April 14th, inconsequence of having contracted telegraph cramp in the wrist; that he had previously asked unsuccessfully that he should be transferred to the sorting department, being willing to forego seniority; and that, after the appearance of a Question upon the Notice Paper in connection with the proceedings of this House asking for information upon the subject, the telegraphist was sent for and told to resume duty on Monday, 17th; and whether he will state whether it is his intention to retain Booth in the service, and utilise his services in the sorting office.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Instructions for Booth's retention in the service, pending the further consideration of his application for transfer, were given on the 10th instant, that is, some days before a Question on the subject appeared on the Notice Paper. The insinuation of the hon. Member is therefore quite unfounded. As I informed the hon. Member on the 17th instant†, the case is now under consideration, and I hope soon to be able to give a decision.

  Examination for Clerkship in the Dublin Quit Rent Office.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: TO ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the regulations of the Civil Service Commissioners, dated March
  † See page 291

  581
  21st, 1905, for an examination for a second-class clerk having three years experience in a solicitor's office, who will be required to serve in the first instance in the Quit Rent Office, Dublin; and if he would state why any examination for such a post should take place in London, seeing that Irish legal experience would appear to be essential.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I understand that the examination referred to in the hon. and learned Member's Question will be held both in London and in Dublin.

  Attendance in the "Parliamentary Debates" Office.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the office of the Parliamentary Debates in this House is very frequently left without an attendant to give information or to provide Members with copies of the Debates they may wish to purchase; and whether he will take steps to secure a constant attendance at this office during reasonable hours while the House is sitting.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I understand that steps have been taken to secure a constant attendance in the future as desired by the hon. Member.

  Purchase of Irish Farms under the Land Act—Stamp Duties.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that tenant purchasers, under The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1903, are prejudiced in the subsequent sale of their farms, in so much as the stamp duty payable on registering the transfer by the transferee is 200 per cent, more than if the same farm were sold as a tenancy from year to year; and, if so, will the Government introduce legislation to deal with the matter.
  582
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) It is assumed that the hon. Member is referring to the stamp duty payable on a conveyance on sale. This duty is chargeable, by reference to Section 57 of the Stamp Act, 1891, not only on the money consideration paid by the transferee, but also on the outstanding portion of any advance made to the purchasing tenant. This provision of the law is of general application and is not peculiar to Ireland, and I do not consider that any alteration in the law is desirable.

  Irish Drainage Schemes.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if, in view of the fact that county councils in Ireland are anxious to carry out the wishes of the ratepayers in initiating drainage schemes, an Order in Council giving the necessary powers will be issued, or, in the alternative, will the Government introduce legislation to deal with this matter at once.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) Legislation would be required to give county councils the necessary powers for such schemes as the hon. Member refers to. I am not in a position to introduce a measure for this purpose.

  Issue of British Pilotage Certificates to Foreigners.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade have recently granted pilotage certificates for the Bristol pilotage district to the masters of two Dutch vessels; whether the Dutch Government do not permit the issue of pilotage certificates to English masters or mates; and, if so, whether a representation will be made to the Dutch Government to grant the same treatment to British masters of vessels as the British Government grant to Dutch masters.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade recently examined the

  583
  masters of two Dutch vessels, but they only granted a pilotage certificate to one of them, the other not being found properly qualified. The Netherlands Government do not grant such certificates to the masters or mates of any vessels, whether Dutch or British; and it would accordingly be useless for His Majesty's Government to make the suggested representation.

  Boys in Royal Naval Reserve—Allowances
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he will state the number of boys enrolled in the Royal Naval Reserve and the allowances made in respect of them for each year during which the scheme of 1898 was in force.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) In the year 1899–1900 the number of boys enrolled was 302, and the payments made were £672 14s. 7d. In 1900–1 the number of boys enrolled was 454, and the payments made were £1,647 3s. 9d. In 1901–2 the number of boys enrolled was 691, and the payments made were £2,861 9s. 11d. In 1902–3 the number of boys enrolled was 783, and the payments made were £3,938 8s. 8d. In 1903–4 the number of boys enrolled was 1,065, and the payments made were £4,533 19s. 3d. In 1901–5 the number of boys enrolled was 1,121, but the figures showing the amounts paid are not yet available.

  Punishment of Crews for refusing to sail in British Steamers carrying Contraband of War.
  MR. ROBSON: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that thirty-six seamen of the crews of the British steamships "St. Helena" and "Battersea Bridge" have been sentenced to three weeks imprisonment at Hong-Kong for refusing to proceed to Japan with contraband of war; and whether, having regard
  584
  to the terms of His Majesty's proclamation of neutrality, he will take steps to procure the immediate release of these men.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) In answer to the Question addressed to the Secretary to the Board of Trade, His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of the matter, but will telegraph to the Governor of Hong-Kong for particulars.

  Scottish General Aid Grant.
  MR. CALDWELL: To ask the Lord-Advocate if he can give the total amount of the payments made for the year ending March 31st last under each of the different heads and subheads of the Minute of April 25th, 1904, which provides for the distribution of the General Aid Grant; also the amount at the same date standing at the credit of the Suspense Account.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The total amounts paid for the year ended March 31st, 1905, under the Minute of April 25th, 1904 were—

  £

  Under Head I. (a).

  11,755

  Under Head I. (b).

  3,600

  Under Head I. (c).

  1,430

  Total under Head I

  £16,785

  Under Head II. £98,344 13s. 6d.
  The amount at the credit of the Suspense Account on 31st March, 1905, was £111,530 Is. There are 107 schools yet to be paid under the Minute. I estimate that the grant for these will amount to—

  £

  Under Head I.

  500

  Under Head II.

  5,250

  Total

  £5,750

  German Tariff Concessions to British Goods.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say what concessions (if any) have been made by the German Government upon their general tariff in compliance with the representations submitted to them by the British Foreign Office; and what number of concessions have been made on articles or goods which are not imported from this country.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The Report of the Commercial Intelligence Committee, showing the articles in respect of which representations were made by His Majesty's Government, will be found in the Parliamentary Return [Cd. 2044]. Another Return [Cd. 2414] has recently been issued by the Board of Trade showing the modifications introduced into the new German tariff as the result of negotiations between Germany and various other Continental countries. It is impossible to say to what extent the German Government, in agreeing to the modifications stated in the Return, may have been also influenced by the representations made by His Majesty's Government.

  Commercial Relations with China.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that the terms of the Mackay Treaty made in pursuance of Article 11 of the Peking Protocol of September, 1901, to facilitate commercial relations between China and foreign countries, have in effect been ignored by China; that the rights referred to have been violated by provincial officials who have levied likin on goods covered by transit passes; have forcibly seized cargo at the barriers; and have illegally interfered with agents and employees of British merchants; that in contravention of the Mackay Treaty heavier duties are levied upon foreign-owned cotton mills than on
  586
  native mills in the country; that, in contravention of Article 2 of the treaty which provided for the introduction of a national uniform coinage, the provincial authorities continue to mint new copper currency; and that the reform in mining regulations arranged for in Article 9 of the treaty have remained unfulfilled; and, if so, whether the Government intend taking action in concert with other Powers to secure the fulfilment of the obligations into which China entered in 1901.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) No information of the acts alleged in the Question has reached us. Such acts would be violations not of the Treaty of 1902, but of treaties concluded with China at an earlier date. His Majesty's Minister at Peking has been informed in reply to his inquiries as to the steps which had been taken to carry out the provisions of Article II. of the Treaty of 1902 that the Office of Financial Administration has presented a memorial to the Throne proposing the establishment of a general mint at Tientsin for the coinage of silver and copper and the introduction of a uniform national coinage. As soon as definite arrangements have been made they will be communicated to Sir E. Satow. With regard to the mining regulations the Chinese Government state that regulations have been drawn up, but that it is necessary to consult the provincial authorities before the final arrangements could be settled.

  Accidents caused by Horse and Motor Traffic in the Metropolis.
  MR. SCOTT MONTAGU: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number and nature of accidents known to the Metropolitan Police to have been caused in the Metropolitan Police district in the year 1904 by horse3, horse-drawn vehicles (other than tram-cars), tramcars, motorcars, and motorcycles.

  587
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The following table gives the

  Cause of accident

  Total number of accidents to persons or property

  Number of accidents to property

  Number of accidents to persons.

  Total number of persons injured in the accidents shown in Column IV.

  Nature of accidents enumerated in column.

  Number slight

  Number serious

  Number fatal

  (I.)

  (II.)

  (III.)

  (IV.)

  (V.)

  (VI.)

  (VII.)

  (VIII.)

  Horses

  641

  444

  193

  209

  181

  28

  —

  Horse-drawn vehicles (excluding tramcars)

  21,771

  16,834

  5,798

  5,989

  5,193

  676

  120

  Tramcars (horse drawn)

  1,287

  1,060

  246

  260

  222

  35

  3

  Tramcars (mechanically propelled)

  2,292

  1,785

  528

  539

  470

  65

  4

  Omnibuses (mechanically propelled)

  30

  12

  19

  22

  18

  2

  2

  Motor-cars

  1,775

  1,395

  426

  458

  367

  78

  13

  Motorcycles

  274

  151

  153

  164

  146

  14

  4

  Total

  28,070

  21,681

  7,363

  7,641

  6,597

  898

  146

  Direct and Indirect Taxation
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state, divided into the two general categories of direct taxation and indirect taxation, the several heads of the tax revenue, excluding the export duty on coal, together with the amount estimated to be received under

  Indirect.

  Direct.

  £

  £

  Customs

  32,226,000

  Excise:—

  Excise:—

  Licences and Railway Duty

  4,667,000

  Beer Duty

  12,919,000

  Estate Duties

  17,289,000

  Spirit Duty

  17,812,000

  Stamps

  8,000,000

  Glucose, etc

  93,000

  Land Tax and House Duty

  2,700,000

  Income-Tax

  31,000,000

  Total Indirect

  £63,050,000

  Total Direct

  £63,656,000

  information which the hon. Member desires—
  each head in the year 1905–6; and the totals receivable as direct taxation and as indirect taxation in that year.
  Answered, by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.): The estimated receipts in 1905–6, under the heads of taxation classed as direct and indirect, are as follows, excluding the export duty on coal, and including the local taxation revenues—

  Grants to Reinstated Tenants on the Kingston Estate
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the Estates Commissioners will inquire into the circumstances of the tenants on the Kingston property who have been restored to their former holdings by the vendor, and have made applications to the Commissioners for money grants to assist them in the building and stocking of the farms, and thus help the reinstated tenants to a fair start.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It is not at present possible to state when this estate will be inspected, as the originating application has only recently been lodged. The Commissioners will have inquiry made as soon as possible as to the making of grants to the tenants who have been reinstated by the owner.

  Waveney School, Ballymena.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that of the ninety-one infants on the roll of Waveney Applicant School, Ballymena, in December last, thirty-three were never at school before, thirty-five were withdrawn from an overcrowded school, Guy's Infants (accommodation for 155—average attendance for year, with Waveney School in operation, 156), and a number came from other schools outside Ballymena; and will lie explain, in view of the fact that the Commissioners of National Education have given a grant to the new Cloncore School, where the average attendance for quarter ending 3lst March was fifty-seven, and fifty-six of the pupils in attendance were withdrawn from other schools in which more than sufficient accommodation already existed, on what grounds the grant is withheld from Waveney School.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The number of pupils enrolled as infants in the Waveney School on the occasion of the chief inspector's visit in December last was seventy-seven. Of these thirty-three had not previously been at school. Thirty-five pupils on rolls had been withdrawn from Guy's Infants School; but if
  590
  the parents and guardians of these pupils were dissatisfied with the accommodation afforded in that school ample accommodation could have been found in existing national schools. The reasons which influenced the Commissioners in declining to grant aid to the Waveney School were stated in reply to the hon. Member's Question of the 3rd instant†.

  Guy's Schools, Ballymena.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Guy's Free Schools, Ballymena, were founded and endowed by the late John Guy for the education of the youth of the poor of the town; that a scheme has been framed under the Educational Endowments (Ireland) Act, 1885, for the government and management of Guy's Educational Endowments; that a grant has been provisionally sanctioned towards the rebuilding and extension of these schools; and that a memorial signed by Ballymena residents protesting against the diveison of the endowments proposed in the scheme, and the removal of the schools from their present site, and asking an inquiry into the circumstances of the case, has been received by the Commissioners of Education; and, if so, will he state whether it is intended, before any further steps are taken, to grant the inquiry asked for in the memorial.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The facts are as stated. The Commissioners of Education in Ireland, however, are not concerned in the control of the endowment. The scheme referred to empowers the governing body to remove the school to another site with the sanction of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests.

  Salaries in the Veterinary Branch of the Irish Department of Agriculture.
  MR. O'KELLY.: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain the causes of the disparity in the salaries of officials engaged in the same class of work in the veterinary branch of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland.†
  † See (4) Debates, cxliv., 133.

  591
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I beg to refer to the Answer given to the Question put by the hon. Member for the Ossory Division of Queen's County on the 6th March last†.

  Treatment of Catholic Officials in the Veterinary Branch of the Irish Department of Agriculture.
  MR. O'KELLY: TO ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any action has so far been taken on the representations of Irish public bodies in connection with the treatment of Catholic officials in the veterinary banch of the Department of Agriculture; and, if not, whether it is proposed to take any action.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I beg to refer to the Answer given to the Question put by the hon. Member for the Ossory Division of Queen's County on the 9th March last.‡

  Militia Training.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War when and to what extent he proposes to increase the training period of Militia regiments.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) No decision has yet been arrived at by the Army Council on this subject.

  4th West York Artillery Volunteers.
  SIR HOWAED VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that for many years the 4th West York Artillery Volunteers have been encouraged to prepare themselves for field artillery, and that, in pursuance of this aim, they have gone to trouble and expense in riding drill, in the purchase of horses and equipment, and the erection of a riding school, and that an instalment of field guns has been furnished them; and will he explain why a decision has been arrived at that they must revert to garrison artillery; and if, having regard to the dissatisfaction produced in the
  † See (4) Debates, cxlii., 420.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxlii., 934.
  592
  West Biding by this decision, the matter can be reconsidered.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The Army Council do not consider that, in view of the great increase in the Royal Artillery, Volunteer field artillery are required for defence purposes, but that Volunteer heavy artillery may render valuable services. Some field guns were lent to the corps referred to by my hon. and gallant friend because at the time no heavy guns were available. It was not, however, contemplated that the corps should be permanently maintained as field artillery. To do so would involve expenditure in excess of funds available from public sources. I understand that private funds are not adequate to make up the deficiency, and, under the circumstances, the Army Council, though recognising the excellent work done by the corps, are of opinion that the original intention should now be carried out and that the corps should cease to train as field artillery.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Army Promotions.
    MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the officers recently promoted from the rank of major-general to that of lieutenant-general were nominated by the Selection Board, or whether they were selected by him, under a method of procedure contained in a War Office decision of October last; and, if so, whether he will publish, for the information of the House, the War Office decision in question.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FOKSTER,): Selections for the higher Army commands, including promotion to the rank of lieutenant-general, are made by the Secretary of State from a list of officers whose professional qualifications render them, in the opinion of the Selection Board, eligible for such appointments. Selections were recently made and promotions carried out in

    593
    accordance with the practice which I have indicated.

    Lord Curzon's University Legislation.
    DR. SHIPMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the agitation in India caused by Lord Curzon's University legislation and other recent enactments, he will take steps to remove the causes of this dissatisfaction.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,) (for Mr. BRODRICK): I see no reason to take any such action as is suggested by the hon. Member with regard to the recent legislation of the Indian Government.

    The Mullah.
    MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House what are the terms of the treaty which has been concluded with the Mullah.
    EARL PERCY: No, Sir; I understand that the Colonial Office has not yet received a reply from General Swayne.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: When does the noble Lord expect to get a reply? It is more than a month since the arrangement was made.
    EARL PERCY: I am afraid at the present moment the only explanation I can give of the delay is that General Swayne is engaged in an expedition into the interior. In any case some time must elapse before a telegram can reach us.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Has the noble Lord seen what purports to be the agreement between the Mullah and Italy, which has been published in Italy?
    EARL PERCY: I have seen the terms of the Italian treaty with the Mullah, but we are not aware whether the terms of the English treaty are the same.

    Dartmoor Prison.
    MR. SPEAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the insufficiency of house accommodation for warders at His Majesty's Prison at Princetown; and if he proposes to take steps to supply such deficiency by erecting more dwellings.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKESS-DOUGLAS,): £1,500 has been taken in this year's Estimates for providing additional warders' quarters at Dartmoor Prison. The work will be commenced as soon as possible, and it is expected that the money will provide quarters for either seven or eight of the officers who now have to lodge in Prince-town. When this addition has been made 192 or 193 out of a total staff of 228 at Dartmoor will be in occupation of Government quarters.

    Foreign Prisoners and Prison Rules
    MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in prisons of detention, or in local prisons, or in convict establishments, the rules, regulations, and notices affecting prisoners are explained, published, or exhibited to foreign prisoners in foreign languages or in any and in what languages besides the English language; and what arrangements are made so that prisoners who do not understand English shall understand them and the orders given to such prisoners; and whether prisoners are punished for disobedience to rules published only in a language they cannot translate or comprehend.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLA.S: The prison rules and regulations are printed in French, German, and Italian in all prisons. In the case of a prisoner unacquainted with English, and speaking a language other than those named, it would be the duty of the Governor to take steps to make him acquainted with the regulations. I have no reason to believe that this rule is not strictly observed by all Governors. It is not the practice to punish prisoners for the breach of rules they do not understand. The hon. Member may have in mind the

    595
    case of a prisoner of Greek nationality which has been recently mentioned in some newspapers. I have ascertained that this prisoner can speak and understand English, and has claimed to be English on the ground that he has lived for five years in England.

    Promotion Regulations in the Post Office.
    MR. NOLAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if there exists any Treasury Minute or Regulation which prevents the ante-dating of promotions to the dates of the vacancies where long delay occurs in the filling up of such vacancies.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): There is no such Minute or Regulation that I am aware of. The general rule of the Post Office is that promotions shall take effect on and from the date on which they receive the Postmaster-General's approval. Every effort is made to fill vacancies as soon as possible.

    London Rates.
    MR. BENN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how the increase in the average rate in the pound levied by the Metro politan boroughs up to 1905 compares with the increase in the average rate, exclusive of education, levied by the London County Council during the same period.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I gave the hon. Member figures based on the returns made to the Local Government Board for the three years ended March, 1904, in my reply to his Question on Monday.† I am sorry to say that I cannot yet give him similar figures up to March, 1905. The hon. Member was good enough to furnish me with some figures up to the latter date, but I have not at present the material which would enable me to check these.

    The Unemployed Bill.
    MR. BENN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the new rate under the Unem-
    † See page 308.
    596
    ployed Bill will be levied by the borough councils or by the London County Council.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There will be no separate rate levied for London for the purposes of the Unemployed Bill. The contribution to the central body by each Metropolitan borough will be paid out of the general rate, and in the case of the City it will be paid by the Common Council out of the consolidated rate.
    MR. BENN: The rate will be collected, by the borough councils?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.

    Port Tyne Sanitary Authority.
    MR. FENWIOK: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the opposition of the ratepayers of Whitley Bay and Monkseaton to the proposal to include these districts within the area of the Port Tyne Sanitary Authority; and whether, in view of the fact that the Urban District Council of Whitley and Monkseaton have already spent large sums of money on sanitation, to provide and equip ample hospital accommodation in order to protect the health of the people, he will take care to protect the inhabitants of these districts from being included in the Port Sanitary area and thereby exposed to the risk of heavier financial burdens.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am aware of the proposal that the Whitley and Monkseaton Urban District should, be included within the limits of jurisdiction of the River Tyne Port Sanitary Authority, and of the opposition to that proposal. A local inquiry on the subject has recently been held by an inspector of the Local Government Board. Upon receipt of his report I will give full consideration to the case before arriving at a decision with regard to it.

    Condemned Non Provided London Schools.
    MR. BENN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, as the non-provided schools in London are not rated, and the Council's provided

    597
    Schools are rated, he can state approximately the extra cost which will fall upon the ratepayers if the ninety-two recently condemned non-provided schools are replaced by provided schools.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not in a position to give an estimate of the kind desired by the hon. Member.
    MR. BENN: But is it not the fact that if provided schools are to be substituted for non-provided schools it will mean a considerable addition to the rates?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is a Question which surely the hon. Gentleman can answer for himself.

    Brussels Permanent Sugar Commission.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the sittings of the Permanent Commission at Brussels have now terminated; whether the sugar legislation of any other countries has been condemned; and whether His Majesty's Government have resolved to take any action in pursuance of the decisions of the Convention.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): The sittings of the Permanent Sugar Commission have terminated: no countervailing duties have been fixed with respect to any additional countries; no action on the part of His Majesty's Government is therefore requisite.

    Imports of Russian and Argentine Sugars.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, at the recent sittings of the Brussels Sugar Convention, the case of Russia has been farther considered; whether any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the amount of countervailing duties that should be charged by countries adopting that procedure on Russian sugar; and whether His Majesty's Government can see their way to withdraw the prohibition now existing against the importation of
    598
    sugar from. Russia and Argentina into this country.
    MR. BONAR LAW: I am informed that the question of Russian sugar was not considered at the recent meeting of the Permanent Sugar Commission. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.
    MR. LOUGHasked whether, if the case of Russia had not been considered and countervailing duties fixed, the hon. Gentleman did not think that the Government was at liberty to remove prohibition in the case of Russia.
    MR. BONAR LAW: We do not think so.

    Lightships and Wireless Telegraphy.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can now state when the installation of wireless telegraphic apparatus on the six lightships for life-saving purposes is to be completed.
    MR. BONAR LAW: I can only say that progress is being made with the work.

    Cost of Elementary Education in England and Wales.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can state for the year 1903–4 the amount of money per head of the children in average attendance in the public elementary schools of England and Wales contributed from the Imperial Exchequer and from local rates respectively on account of educational maintenance, the amount per child in average attendance spent on teachers' salaries, and the amount per child in average attendance spent on books and apparatus.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON.): The amount of grant provided in the Estimates for 1903–4 for public elementary schools, i.e., the annual grant, fee grant, and aid grant, amounted to £1 18s. 3¾. per child in average attendance. Owing to the year 1903–4 having

    599
    been a period of transition, the Board have not found it possible to collect any figures from which any accurate or reliable estimate can be deduced of the sum per child in average attendance contributed from local rates. The Board have no information as to the total amount expended on teachers' salaries during the period; the amount expended on the salaries of certificated teachers was about £1 10s. per child in average attendance. The Board have no information as to the amount expended on "books and apparatus."

    Cost of Education in London.
    MR. BENN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state the amount of the additional expense incurred to date in the administration of the London Education Act, 1903, both as regards total amount and cost per child; and whether he can at present give any estimate of the total additional cost which that measure involves to the Metropolis.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The Board have at present no figures as to the expenditure of the London County Council under the London Education Act, 1903. Under the circumstances it is not possible for me to give any information on the subject.
    DR. MACNAMAEA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the replacement of the voluntary schools to be condemned will mean a 4d. rate on the London ratepayers?
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I do not see how that arises out of the Question.

    Shaw British School.
    MR. EMMOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the case of the Shaw British School, a school containing over 500 scholars in average attendance, which has always been carried on without sectarian teaching or test, and is the only unsectarian school in a district containing six schools; whether he is aware that the Lancashire Education Committee were on the point of purchasing the school for a
    600
    council school when, without notice to the education committee, the building was privately purchased by an anonymous person, who intends to make it a Church of England school; and whether, in such a case, any of the inhabitants of the district besides the purchaser have any voice in the character of the religious education to be given in the school in future.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I understand that the school, though it has been called British, is privately owned, and has never been associated by trust with the British Society. I further gather that up to the present time no deed has been executed making the school a Church of England school, and that the religious instruction continues to be under the control of exactly the same body of managers as before, except that the Vicar has been co-opted in place of one of the former managers, who retired. The character of the religious instruction remains in the hands of the managers.
    MR. EMMOTT: Cannot the hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my Question?
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: If the hon. Member refers to Sections 8 and 9 of the Education Act and the notices there mentioned, I understand such notice is not required where a change of this character is made in the case of a voluntary school.

    Cost of Education in Scotland.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he can state, for the year 1903–4, the amount of money per head of the children in the public elementary schools of Scotland contributed from the Imperial Exchequer and. from local rates respectively on account of educational maintenance; the amount per child in average attendance spent on teachers' salaries; and the amount per child in average attendance spent on books and apparatus.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): It is difficult to answer the Question as put by the hon. Member as the term "public elementary school" is, so far as Scotland is

    601
    concerned, only defined in the Elementary School Teachers Superannuation Act, 1898, as being "a public or other school in receipt of annual Parliamentary grant." The term, therefore, includes all schools which receive grants under the Code, whether school board schools or voluntary schools, and irrespective of whether they give elementary or higher grade education. On this footing I am informed the figures are as follows:—For the year 1903–4, the income per scholar in average attendance in all schools receiving grants under the Code from the Imperial Exchequer was £1 15s. 7d. In such schools under school boards the income per scholar from rates was 19s. 11¾d., but a sum amounting to Is. 7d. per scholar was also received from local sources, other than rates; while in voluntary schools receiving grants a sum amounting to 13s. 10d. per scholar was received from local sources. The expenditure per scholar on teachers' salaries was £2 5s, 8¾d., and on books and apparatus, 2s. 5¼.

    Cost of Education in Ireland.
    DR. MAONAMARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state for the year 1903–4 the amount of money per head of the children in national schools in Ireland contributed from the Imperial Exchequer and local rates respectively on account of educational maintenance; the amount per child in average attendance spent on teachers' salaries; and the amount per child in average attendance spent on books and apparatus.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The rate contributed per head of the children in average attendance from State grants for the year 1903–4 was £2 11d. 9d. The similar rate from local sources was 4s. 5½. The average payment per pupil in average daily attendance in respect of teachers' salaries was £2 8s. 11d. A precise Answer to the last inquiry cannot be given. Books are largely purchased from local vendors and paid for by the pupils. The Board, however, made free grants of books and requisites to the amount of £531 in some exceptional cases; and they made grants of equip-
    602
    ment for manual and technical instruction to the value of £10,300.

    Arnott Estate, County Cork.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a report of a meeting of tenants on the Arnott Estate, county Cork, at which the Rev. T. Shinkwin, P.P., announced, on the authority of a Roman Catholic Bishop, that the Estates Commissioners had decided not to divide the estate of Sir John Arnott for purposes of sale under the Land Act, but to insist upon the estate being sold as a whole; whether he is aware that the tenants of about sixty holdings on this estate, all adjacent to one another and of a total area of 5,000 acres, have entered into purchase agreements, and that an application is pending to have this portion of the property declared a separate estate; and will he say whether the Estates Commissioners have already come to a decision in the matter.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No proceedings for the sale of this estate have come before the Commissioners. They can give no decision in the matter until the facts are fully before them.
    MR. LONSDALE: Is it competent for two Commissioners to give a decision in the absence of the third on matters of this kind.
    MR. WALTER LONGreplied that he assumed that in ordinary cases the decision of the majority of the Commissioners, two out of three, would be operative, but he could not undertake to decide questions of law.

    Drummond Estate, County Kerry.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that negotiations for the sale of the Drummond Estate, near Beaufort, county Kerry, have been completed, and that the sale is to be carried out through the Congested Districts Board; can ha state in what way the tenants can benefit from Section 44 of the Land Act of 1903; and whether the Board will give

    603
    a reduction of 10 per cent, when effecting the sale, or will improve the holdings to that extent, or will give it in the form of a reduction to the tenants on the purchase instalments.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Neither the Board nor the Estates Commissioners have any information as to this estate. The section quoted applies to purchases of congested estates by the Estates Commissioners.

    Horse Breeding at Cahirciveen
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that representations have been made to the Department of Agriculture by Mr. J. B. Fitzgerald, of Cahirciveen, as to the un-suitability of sending a thoroughbred sire to that district instead of a hunter sire, which would be more suitable; whether he is aware that fifteen or twenty years ago there was a strain of horses in that locality which always commanded good prices; and can he state on whose advice the thoroughbred sire has now "been sent to Cahirciveen.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir, such representations have been made. The Department have no information as to the second inquiry. The thoroughbred sire mentioned was sent on the advice of the Department's officers.

    Portaferry (County Down) School
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Secretary to the Portaferry (county Down) School Attendance Committee is an assistant in the Roman Catholic school, and that, when the Commissioners of National Education had their attention drawn to the matter, they wrote to the managers of the school that this gentleman could not hold the position of secretary while a teacher; and whether, seeing that this gentleman continues to hold the position in defiance of the Commissioners, he will state what steps the Department intends to take in the matter.
    MR. WALTER LONG: In June, 1904, the Commissioners informed the com-
    604
    mittee that it was not permissible, under the Board's rules, for the assistant teacher to act as secretary to the committee. The Commissioners were not aware that he continues to act in this capacity, and are now making further inquiries into the matter.

    Royal Irish Constabulary—Galway Free Force.
    MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the strength at which it was decided to maintain the Royal Irish Constabulary free force in the county of Galway at the triennial redistributions in 1900 and 1903, the date of the triennial revision in each of those years, the number of police actually engaged in the county twelve months after the last revision, the number of extra police now employed, how many of this number have been drafted in from the depot and how many from other counties, by what number would the Galway free force establishment be exceeded by taking into account only the police drafted from the depot omitting the number drafted in from the free force quota of other counties; and whether the vacancies caused in the free force in other counties have been made good by drafts from the depot.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The free force fixed in May, 1900, was:—For Galway, E.R., 311 men; for Galway, W.R., 349 men. No change was made at the redistribution in May, 1903. The actual numbers serving in May, 1904, were: In Galway, E.R., 288 men; in Galway, W.R., 321 men. The numbers of extra police now employed are: 70 in the East Riding, and 50 in the West Riding. The whole of this extra force has been drafted in from other counties, and the vacancies so caused have not been made good by drafts from the depot.

    Mayo Marine Works.
    MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if any reply has been received from the Midland Great Western Railway Company in connection with

    605
    the Mayo schemes under the Marine Works Act of 1902.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No reply has yet been received.

    County Kerry Railway Guarantees.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to take any steps to relieve the ratepayers in the county of Kerry from the payment of certain railway and other guarantees in accordance with the promise of the right hon. Member for Dover.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Development Grant Estimate for the current year contains provision for payment of a first instalment of a grant, estimated at £23,500, towards the reconstruction and improvement of the line of railway from Tralee to Dingle. No further steps are in contemplation by the Government.

    London Voluntary Schools.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a special report on the 438 London voluntary schools submitted to the London County Council yesterday, in the course of which 92 of these schools have been condemned outright and 314 reported upon as unsatisfactory in the matter of drainage; whether he is aware that the estimated result of this report is that 50,000 new school places will have to be provided at a cost of at least £1,500,000, that in the event of denominational trustees being unable to supply these places the same will have to be furnished by the London ratepayers, and that the maintenance charge upon the London County Council in any event will henceforward be on account of these schools over £500,000 annually; and whether, in view of these facts, he will undertake to propose during the present session of Parliament such amendment of the Education Acts of 1902 and 1903 as shall give the London County Council, together with the borough councils, the right to nominate as their representatives a larger number than two managers out of each six of the managers who constitute the committee of management of each of these schools.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that I have not seen the report, and I understand it is not available for general use at present. I am told, however, that the estimates are for the most part very conjectural, and err, if they do err, very much on the side of excess. As regards the conclusion which the hon. Gentleman attempts to draw from the facts he states on the Paper, I cannot agree with it. It seems to me that recent events have conclusively shown two things—in the first place, that the local authority has complete control over all the schools in its district as far as these matters are concerned; and, in the second place, that the voluntary schools are an enormous saving to the ratepayers.
    DR. MACNAMARA: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the great expenditure on the schools, he will give the County Council and the borough councils the right to nominate as their representatives in control of a school a larger number than two managers out of six.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not follow the argument of the hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that what has happened. shows that the control is adequate as it is, and I see no reason to alter it.

    India and the Colonial Conference
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the assurance given by Lord Curzon to the Viceroy's Legislative Council at Calcutta, that if the Government of India were invited to enter a conference instructions would be given to her delegates that they must reserve full liberty for India to trade with the whole world on such terms as would suit her best, unfettered by engagements with other countries; and whether, having regard to his pledge that nothing would be done by this Parliament to alter existing free trade institutions, he will undertake that if any invitations are issued to a Colonial Conference the British representatives shall reserve the same liberty for the United Kingdom.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The statement is erroneous, and the speech which is quoted in the Question was not made by Lord Curzon, but by an unofficial member of the Council.
    MR. LOUGH: But in any event will the First Lord do nothing to protect the interests of this country in a free-trade direction?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have said over and over again that in my opinion the conference should be free as regards all the interests concerned,

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what business will be taken after the holidays? I presume there is no serious intention of taking the Second Reading of the Aliens Bill on the first day on which we meet. I may point out that although there is a considerable interval between the two dates it is not a Parliamentary interval, and Members will have no opportunity of consulting one another? Also what Supply will be taken on Thursday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought I had already announced in unmistakable language that I propose to take the Second Reading of the Aliens Bill on the Tuesday on which the House re-assembles, and I explained the grounds on which I hold that that was a legitimate proceeding. I really do not see how any one can object to it.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I object.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must say I think the objection most unreasonable. The principle of the Bill was carried on Second Reading last year by an enormous majority. I was bitterly reproached last year on the ground that I had wasted the time of the House over Supply in the earlier stages of the session instead of getting on with the Aliens Bill; I have now done my best to get on with the Bill. I have no
608
desire to inconvenience any section of the House.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This is the principal Bill of the session, and, if the proposed course is adopted, only one Parliamentary day will elapse between its introduction and Second Reading.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The fact that it is the principal Bill of the session is a reason for getting on with it. Hon. Members will have all the leisure of the holidays to meditate on the speeches they propose to deliver. I shall put down as the second order on Tuesday, May 2nd, the Report of the Budget Resolutions, which on the following day will be the first order. On Thursday, Civil Service Estimates, Class I., will betaken, leaving out the Irish Votes; Vote 4, the Houses of Parliament, will stand first, and then Votes 1, 2, and 3, Palaces and Parks.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: Could not the right hon. Gentleman take the Second Reading of the Unemployed Bill on the Tuesday? It is of immeasurably greater importance.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have been told I ought not to take the Aliens Bill because it is so important. How can I reconcile the two things?
MR. KEIR HARDIE: It is much less controversial.
MR. LOUGH: Could not the right hon. Gentleman take Supply on Tuesday, and put the Aliens Bill down for Thursday? We had no opportunity of discussing that Bill on the First Reading.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That would require a special Resolution. I really see no objection to the course I have suggested.
MR.RUNCIMANpointed out that hon. Members had had no opportunity of putting down Questions to the Home Secretary with regard to-various points in the Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOURreplied that, though, it was perfectly legitimate to put down Questions in regard to a Bill, the better time to raise them was on the Bill itself.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: When will the Second Reading of the Unemployed Bill be taken?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot make any statement as to that.
MR. BLACK: When will the Scottish Education Bill be taken?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope on an early day after Easter.

NEW BILL.
  FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL.
  " To enable Local Authorities to acquire existing Ferries by agreement," presented by Mr. Grant Lawson; supported by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Solicitor-General; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 2nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE (EASTER).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn until Tuesday, 2nd May."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I shall be pursuing a well-established time-honoured, and useful course, in old days more than in modern times in this House, perhaps, when I take this opportunity of addressing a few questions to the Administration, and reviewing, in some sort, the progress of their general policy since the House met. The first subject about which I wish to ask is the South African Constitution. We should all like to know what prospect there is of an early announcement of the policy of the Government in regard to that matter, and whether we shall be furnished with Papers on the subject. The House will remember that when the question of Chinese labour was
610
under discussion we were plied with Papers showing what purported to be the movement of opinion in the Transvaal upon the subject; and casting our minds a little further back we may remember how largely we were informed, whether the information was always accurate or not, as to the state of feeling on the general grounds of policy when there was a controversy between the representatives of this country and Mr. Kruger with regard to the extinction of the franchise in this very community with which we are now dealing. Remembering these things, I feel justified in saying that it would be useful to the House if Papers were presented showing what the Government gather to be the general desire and opinion of our fellow-subjects in the Transvaal as to the new Constitution. The Colonial Secretary used some words the other day which were taken to imply that the new body which the Government seek to create would be entirely composed of elected members. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was correctly apprehended in that sense.
I turn now to Somaliland. Questions on the subject have been asked of the Government to-day, but I think the Answers are very far from being satisfactory. Here is a quarter of the world where we have spent something like three million sterling, and wasted a great many lives—or, at any rate, brought to an end a great many lives—and a treaty has been entered into between the Mullah and ourselves and between the Mullah and the Italian Government; and while the Italian Chamber has been placed in possession of the circumstances and nature of their engagements, His Majesty's Government, and certainly the House of Commons, a month after the occurrence, are in entire ignorance of the arrangement. I go further afield, to the affairs of Tibet. It has been stated in the newspapers that the Chinese Government have made, or desire, modifications in the treaty which has been concluded, or in the basis upon which it is to be concluded; and I should be glad to know whether that statement is well-founded, what are the nature of these modifications, and what the treaty will ultimately be. I also wish to know

611
the state of things in Afghanistan. We have had a Mission for three months in Kabul. It has now, I believe, returned to India; and yet the House of Commons is not aware why it went, what the course of the negotiations has been, and what is the result achieved. I think it is time that we received some definite and full information upon the subject, which is particularly necessary when we consider what a very important place our relations in that quarter of the world take in His Majesty's Government's conception of what the British Army is to be in the future.
This brings me naturally to the question of the Army itself. In what a curious position the House of Commons stands in regard to that matter We have had dangled before our eyes for four years some great scheme of Army reform, in the clouds; and this year, again, so indeterminate is the policy of the Government with regard to the Army I that our Estimates are provisional and supposititious altogether, for they do not profess to represent the policy of the Government. We have had a diversified debate on the subject, I admit; but no light whatever. All that we have succeeded in ascertaining, and that in a confused form, is the personal opinion—if he had his own way—of the Secretary for War. The latest recorded policy of the Government in regard to the Army is embodied in a Resolution passed by the House of Commons in, I think, 1901, professing agreement in the policy then put forward by the Government as being necessary for the safety of the Empire. I remember that at the time I entered my protest against such a proceeding, because I thought it was not usual to make the House of Commons, as it were, an accomplice in, or a party to, the policy of the Government by a direct expression of approval of that policy. The usual course is for the House of Commons to acquiesce in the policy of the Government by voting their Estimates, but not to pass a direct vote of confidence in it. Anyway, that policy in regard to the Army has been abandoned. No words have been too strong to condemn it: indeed, I might say that no discredit is too great to attach to it; although I do not know that I take that view of it myself.
612
That policy has been abandoned, and yet it stands on our Journal as the recorded opinion of this House that it was the best policy of Army reform which we could possibly enjoy. Is the Government going to bring forward a Resolution to rescind that recorded opinion? It seems to me that it would be only decent for them to do so.
And now that I have come to Resolutions that stand on our Journals, let me refer to certain fiscal Resolutions which have been passed by this House within the last two or three weeks. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues appeared to be prepared to discard those Resolutions altogether. Why and upon what plea? I especially refer to the Motion of my hon. friend the Member for Barnsley, which arraigned and challenged the very fiscal policy of His Majesty's Government, if, indeed, there be such a thing at all. But what was it that the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to an earlier Motion—the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham—in connection with which the right hon. Gentleman took refuge in the previous Question? That was the Motion opposed to the imposition of preferential duties based upon the protective taxation of food. The right hon. Gentleman said—
"The Resolution is not only ambiguous; it is inexpedient. It is inexpedient because it is brought forward under circumstances which, if it were carried by the House, would not merely have the relatively insignificant result of turning out the present Government "—
It is admitted that this Motion by a private Member on a private Member's night would have the effect of turning out the Government if it were carried—
"but it would have the result of producing a widespread misconception in this country, which is bad, and throughout our Colonial Empire, which is far, far worse."
Sir, I do not understand what right the right hon. Gentleman has to pick and choose among these Resolutions. This one will turn out the Government, and, therefore, we move the previous Question; but this one is a fanciful declaration of opinion of a private Member, and is of no consequence—the latter being a Resolution directed straight against the Government's own views and the policy which they have made the capital question of the day. The right

613
hon. Gentleman may think that this is a very nice way of playing with the House of Commons. I do not think the country takes that view. I hold it is not treating the House of Commons with respect, and it is not treating himself and his position and his own policy with respect. We hear of the degeneracy of the House of Commons, but we have only heard of it in the last few years, and it is treatment such as this to which any degeneracy of the House of Commons in the public mind is attributable. He says of one of these Motions which I am comparing with each other, the one which he met by the previous Question, that it is proposed "under circumstances which would turn out the Government." What are the circumstances? Where are the peculiar circumstances of that particular Resolution which do not attach to all others? We have never had that explained. I venture to think that the Motion of my hon. friend the Member for Barnsley is, in the words of the Prime Minister, far, far worse than that on which he devised the tactics of the previous Question. The truth is the Government cannot claim to represent the country. Month by month and week by week there is evidence of that. That being so, they dare not face the House of Commons. On what ground does their moral authority rest? They seem to be rather a rara avis in the constitutional history of this country. Their motto seems to be py suis, py reste—not a very noble or dignified one, and certainly not constitutional; and I think our recent experience, recent within the last generation, shows that it is a basis of rather evil omen upon which to found tenure of office, because in the case in which these celebrated words were used the result was by no means satisfactory to the man who used them.
" The times have been,
" That when the brains were out the man would die."
Hon. Members will recollect the very natural exclamation of my countryman when he saw the ghost of Banquo whom he thought he had disposed of. The times have been when a Government, having no policy to declare and no hold upon the country, and daring not to face the House of Commons, did give its
614
charge back into the hands from which it received it.
What, then, is the policy of the Government and its position in this fiscal matter? That is the question we wish to raise shortly to-day. In the last fortnight, we are told, great changes have taken place. The policy of the Government has suffered what is called "a sea change"—that was, I suppose, at Brighton; but whatever the origin may be, there are certain changes. We, of course, are mere spectators of the play, but there is great activity behind the curtain on the stage. We hear a great deal of scraping, and trampling, and shuffling, and rumbling. When the curtain rises is it to be the same performance with the stage furniture a little shifted, and perhaps a little fresh paint, or is it to be a new piece altogether? That is what we want to know. But, as usual, we are only able to put together indications gathered here and there. We have heard of a certain committee meeting from which a search party was sent out to find the Prime Minister, who had of late been missing from the House of Commons. It is reported that they found him and made certain proposals to him, but the reply was postponed, and these proposals were understood to refer to what, in spite of recent events, must still by courtesy be described as the fiscal policy of the Government. The Prime Minister will, perhaps, correct me if I am wrong in suggesting that there may be no such policy in existence; for a Government which declines to support by voice and vote in the House of Commons its own declared views on what, as I said, it has made the capital and cardinal question of the day, lays itself open to some degree of misunderstanding and suspicion. Are we then to be allowed to know what all this has been about? Judging by proceedings at the Liberal Unionist Club, presided over by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, the idea is to make room on the Prime Minister's half sheet of note-paper for a good show of protectionism. That may not be the right hon. Gentleman's view, but he may be perfectly sure it is other people's. The pious aspirations of the Prime

615
Minister are to be made to unite gracefully with the darling dreams of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. I should have thought that the Prime Minister's aspirations were cloudy enough, and copious enough of themselves to mask the movements of the most audacious and adventurous adherents of schools of tariff reform, and to conceal the unfortunate little confusion that evidently attaches to them. Under the Prime Minister's half-sheet of note-paper you can do anything or nothing. You can set up one set of tariffs to punish competitors whose tariffs are too high, or you can set up another set of tariffs to confound the foreigner who sends you cheap goods. You can have food taxes, taxes on raw materials, taxes on manufactured goods, taxes on anything you like, so long as you lay your hand on your heart and swear that your intentions are strictly honourable, and that you have no intention of being a protectionist. It is a beautifully elastic formula which does great credit to the ingenuity of its devisor; and I can quite understand that any idea of adding to it or improving upon it must cause the right hon. Gentleman no little pain. But that is by the way. What we should like to know, and are entitled to know, is, is there any change as to the result in the representations that have reached him of all these shiftings, and adjustments, and concealments, and conspiracies, and clevernesses? Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what occurs to us all is this—how much better it would have been, how much more effective, if the Government from the first had pursued a plain and outspoken course.
Now take the clauses of this memorable instrument. Article 1 has to do with negotiations for dealing with hostile tariffs and dumping. Does that stand under the new arrangement as it did, or is any change contemplated? Then there are Articles 2 and 3, dealing with the conference, and there we come on very delicate ground. The half-sheet received a postscript the day after it was published—a postscript which only repeated what the right hon. Gentleman said at Edinburgh, and which had been denounced and rejected at Luton. It proposed, in the strongest
616
terms, two elections—the first election authorising a conference, the second election confirming the decision of the conference. Nothing could be clearer than the right hon. Gentleman's words. But now let me look for a moment at how these two elections will work out in point of time. I read in the sanguine newspapers supporting the right hon. Gentleman that the general election will not take place till next year. Assuming it does not take place till next year, which is a long assumption, then the election will not take place till 1906. Cabinet Ministers have themselves told us that there is sure to be a majority for this side of the House. Then the Liberals will be returned to office. I assume, next, that the doctrine of the Septennial Act is to be applied to all Governments, and not to one more than another, and admitting that there are sometimes accidents affecting the duration of Governments, or any Government which chooses to regard accidents and the feeling of the country, then the Liberals will stay in office until 1912. I am perfectly impartial; I am giving us no more than I am giving you. In 1912 there is another general election, and the Liberals are defeated and a Conference Government comes into office. That is a large assumption, but I will give you the benefit of it. They remain in office until 1918. They take advantage of the full time and do everything they can to keep their people together in the House of Commons and to snap their fingers gallantly at the constituencies and the wretched negligible electors of the country. Here we have come to 1918. During these six years the conference meets, and in 1918 the great point of the election will be that the country should approve or not approve the recommendations of the conference. Then I assume in my generosity that again the Party opposite come in a second time, and that is the second Conference Administration; but it is not until 1918 that Parliament and the country can be invited to consider this question of preferential duties in connection with colonies, whose elections are not necessarily synchronous with ours. There we are then! That is what is meant by not rushing the question. It is a pretty long vista, and in the main it appears to me that everything else

617
must go. But what is going to become of our dying and dwindling trade and our disrupted Empire during this long interval? It is said by way of argument that "Time is on my side"; but I do not think time is on the side of the proposals of the Government in this respect.
But that is not all. Here is another delicate point—the points of reference and the instructions to delegates. This fiscal conference is to be free and unfettered. If we are to make it free and unfettered, will every one else make it free and unfettered? We have no security and no prospect of that, I am afraid. Lord Lansdowne in the other House said, "No instructions will be needed." Apparently there will be an intuition on the part of our delegates as to the limits of variation, as to the Scylla and Charybdis through which they must steer. How near they may go either Scylla or Charybdis we do not know; that is in the discretion or the prejudice of the individual delegate; but there we are. They are to be told not to go beyond a certain point, but how in the world are they to be guided when we know the strong opinions prevailing in this House? The two plain Questions, therefore, in which I concentrate what I have to say are these—Does the Prime Minister abide by the two elections? and secondly, are the British delegates to enter the conference with no instructions of one sort or another?
Now I come to the fourth chapter in the memorable instrument called the "half-sheet of note-paper." The Prime Minister, in the fourth and last article there, says—
"I do not desire to raise the home prices for the purpose of aiding home production."
The House will observe the "I do not desire"—still this faint language of "desire." Does this phrase cover colonial productions, and are our delegates and the colonial delegates, if not by express reductions, then by some process of elimination, to limit their deliberations merely to how we are to get at what constitutes a protective tariff when every protectionist worth his salt is persuaded, or tries to persuade us, that high tariffs do not make a thing dear because it is the foreigner who pays? How distressing it was the other
618
night to witness the departure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from this noble dogma when, in taking off the I two pence on tea, he said that he was conferring a benefit which would reach every home in the country. I hope that the son is not going to follow his father's policy. To plain people such as we are and such as our countrymen are, who do not care for subtleties, but who wish plain facts and plain opinions, these are the difficulties which occur to us. The confusion that attended the position of the Government in this vital and important matter at the opening of the session has become worse confounded now; and I hold that it is due to the country and to the House of Commons that the Prime Minister should take this appropriate constitutional opportunity of clearing away that confusion.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The right hon. Gentleman has shown a perhaps natural," but certainly an extensive, curiosity in the course of his speech. Not only has he gone over the twice-told, nay, the thousand-times told, tale of the fiscal discussion in this House, but he began his speech by asking me a large number of Questions about India, Afghanistan, Somaliland, and other great national interests.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This is the occasion to do it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not complaining of the Questions the right hon. Gentleman asked. It is his right and privilege to ask them, and he has used the right to the utmost. I do not go beyond that. The right hon. Gentleman asked first of all about the Transvaal Papers, My right hon. friend informs me that before the House meets again hon. Members will have an opportunity of studying them. I am told that the new Constitution will be promulgated in the course of the next few days, and that the Papers will be laid on the Table of the House immediately afterwards. As to Papers indicating the temper and mind of the inhabitants of the Transvaal on the questions raised by this constitution, my right hon. friend informs me that he

619
hopes to he able to lay Papers on the Table dealing with that subject before the House again meets, but I should be sorry to pledge him to a day or two.
On Somaliland the right hon. Gentleman accused the Government of indifference to the fate of that country and to the transactions taking place there. But we have not obtained the information with regard to the treaty with the Mullah. When? remember the anxiety that the Somaliland question has caused to us for years past the accusation of the right hon. Gentleman seems to me a strange one. I do not see how it can alter the fact that we have not got the information from General Swayne. It is not in any sense due to the fact that we have not asked for it, but General Swayne is away from the sea coast in the interior and communication is difficult. Though we do not deny that we are surprised at not receiving the information, it is not our fault, and it is no fault of General Swayne's. We do not doubt, however, that the information will be soon in the hands of hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman then asked whether we had any news of the negotiations with regard to the Tibet Treaty. I understand that we have no information on this subject. The treaty with the Ameer of Afghanistan renews the arrangements made with his father. Papers will be laid on the Table in due time but there is nothing mysterious in the transaction, and I am glad that the negotiations have come to a successful issue.
The right hon. Gentleman on the Army question asked me to survey and summarise the results of the four or five nights of debate. He can hardly expect me in the course of a reply on the afternoon of the holidays to give even in a most concise fashion my views on the Army question. I have made a speech on one branch of it, and the Secretary for War made many speeches; and I do not think I can, with any advantage either to the House or to the cause of Army reform, now attempt to add to what was then said. I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman went over this part of the subject more as a painful duty than to give himself pleasure. He expanded
620
only when he came to the familiar and congenial subject of fiscal reform, and then, partly under the guise of Questions and partly in a more direct state, he passed some criticisms on the Government. The first related to the course which the Government had pursued upon certain abstract Resolutions, or private Members' Resolutions, which had been moved on Tuesday or Wednesday nights during the last two months. The right hon. Gentleman asked me how we could reconcile the course pursued on the Resolution of the hon. Member for Oldham, which we made a Government question, with the course we pursued on some later Resolutions, which, no doubt, we treated with indifference. I think the distinction is perfectly plain. In the first place, we thought, and we still, think, that there is a limit which, it is desirable to observe in the interests of the House for which the right hon. Gentleman professes so very peculiar a regard at the present moment and which he thinks I have neglected. We think that it is contrary to the best interests of this House that Resolutions dealing with the same question should be submitted week after week to the judgment of the He use. But that is not nearly all. The right hon. Gentleman, when he favours us with this species of Parliamentary discussion, forgets a fact of which I took the trouble to remind him on an earlier occasion, that the one official Amendment to the Address moved by the Opposition—by the right hon. Member for East Fife, in fact—was a Resolution in which it was stated that this question had been already sufficiently discussed. [Cheers, and OPPOSITION cries; of "Not in this House; in the country."] Now what is the distinction? [Cries of "Oh."] Relative to this issue, what is the distinction between the House and the country? No such distinction was drawn or was meant in the Resolution. What was meant clearly was that in the opinion of hon. Members opposite they had had enough of debates on the fiscal question, and they wished to turn us out of office. I cannot understand why they should want to run away from their words. I must next remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten, though he read my speech on the Motion of the hon. Member for

621
Oldham. I then pointed out that why I attached special importance to that Motion was that, if it were carried, it would indicate to the Colonies that we did not propose to treat the conference: as a free conference; and I said it would have the worst possible effect, and have I a serious bearing on any future trans- I action in connection with that conference; if this House should commit itself to the proposition that this conference was not to be free. The House determined by a majority that that was to be a free conference; and I do not know why that point should be reopened. The evil effects have been got rid of. I fear them no longer; and I see nothing to be gained, from any point of view—from the economic point of view or from that of informing this House or the Colon es—why those debates should be continued.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Allow me to hark back a little. The right hon. Gentleman said we ran away from our words. Here are our words—
"The various aspects of the fiscal question having now been fully discussed in the country for nearly two years, the time has come for submitting the issue to the people."
That is not running away.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. If that Resolution meant anything, it meant that the question had been sufficiently discussed. It may have meant nothing. It may have been only a preamble or some form of words to enable the Opposition to vote against the Government. But, if it meant anything, it meant that the subject had been thrashed out. Yet these Resolutions came afterwards, and I repeat that when the right hon. Gentleman attacks me for taking the view that there has been an adequate discussion of the question in the House, he is running away from the view which he and his whole Party were supposed to express on the debate on the Address. Hon. Gentlemen have accused me, I am told, in language of almost un-Parliamentary violence [Cries of "No"]—I dare say that they were wrongly reported—of having run away from the House of Commons or from our opinions or from something or other. I am not quite sure what it was we were supposed to have run away from;
622
but if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that we ran away from him, he is quite mistaken. [Cries of "Oh."] After all, it is not I who began bringing these charges of running away; and is every licence of language to be used by hon. Members opposite and am I not to be allowed to suggest that I do not run away from the right hon. Gentleman? Surely that is not an extravagant contention, or one indicating overweening boastfulness on my part. I ventured to point out to the House that the course pursued on those evenings on. which we were subject to the criticism of hon. Gentlemen opposite was distinctly laid down by me beforehand, in the speech I made on the Resolution of the hon. Member for Oldham. Was it on that Resolution or on the next? We have had so many that I forget. But our course was laid down beforehand by me in the most explicit terms; and if afterwards I had yielded to the taunts of hon. Gentlemen opposite, then I should have been running away from my words, by having laid down a policy that I did not mean to adhere to. But I did lay down a policy, and I did adhere to it. [Cries of "What policy? "] The policy of not doing anything by speech or countenance to encourage the House to think that I approved of these perpetually recurring debates on one subject, debates which, in my opinion, were inconsistent with the dignity of the House, and could serve no useful purpose. That is the policy I laid down and adhere to, and that is the policy which, if the same circumstances arise in the future, I shall pursue. The right hon. Gentleman told us that we could not face the House of Commons. We face the House of Commons in the only way in which a Government can face the House. We act by its support, depend upon its votes, and meet the censure of right hon. Gentlemen opposite if they wish to censure us. What other course does the right hon. Gentleman wish us to take? He suggests quite distinctly that we ought to regard every private Member's Motion as one by which the Government should stand or fall. I do not agree with that.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANYou said the first Motion was such a one:
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly, I said that that was of such importance, for

623
reasons already given, that we were determined, if the House did not support us, to resign. The House did support us. I do not know what right the right hon. Gentleman has to object to that course. But the right hon. Gentleman himself has given notice of a vote of censure, which is to come on early after Easter; and we shall be ready to face him then; and if he will moderate the number, but not the severity, of his attacks, we shall be glad to give him other opportunities to see whether we do or do not face the House of Commons. I venture to tell the right hon. Gentleman, if he thinks we have pursued an exceptional course in dealing with these private Members' Motions, that he will pursue precisely the same course in our place; and I think he will be right. [Cries of No."] It never has been regarded as a necessary part of the duties of a Government to obey the Resolutions passed by private Members.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANIt depends on the subject.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then the right hon. Gentleman himself draws a distinction between one Resolution and another—the very thing that he attacked me for doing.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If it is a private Member's Resolution affecting something which does not deeply concern the Government, they may take what course they like. But at any rate they must be prepared to stand the racket. But in this case the right hon. Gentleman ran away from a Resolution brought forward by an hon. Member arraigning the very policy which is the policy of His Majesty's Government.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has run away from his own argument. It was that I had no right to draw distinctions between one private Member's Resolution and another. He now says that you may draw a distinction, and what is it? It is that when a thing is being discussed a second time you must take part in the debate, and treat the Motion as a vote of censure. But if it is being discussed for the first time, then you may exercise your right
624
of private judgment as to the importance of the occasion. I do not see much difference between "standing the racket," which means listening to speeches more or less interesting, and seeing that a Motion is counted out or talked out.
I remember that there was another private Member's Resolution subsequent to those to which the right hon. Gentleman has made such a lengthy reference, a Resolution which asked very civilly, but very specifically, certain questions in connection with Home Rule, which the right hon. Gentleman answered very civilly, but not at all specifically. We should have liked to see what would have happened on a division. I had legitimate curiosity on that subject. It appeared to me, if the right hon. Gentle man's own views of the next election are accurate, to be even more relevant to the issue to be put before the country at the next election than anything connected with fiscal reform. One of the right hon. Gentleman's own followers talked it out, and we were deprived of that very legitimate expectation. I do not know whether that is running away or not. If "running away" is used in a moral sense, I should say it was running away in a most obvious manner; and I see no distinction between the course the hon. Gentleman pursued and the course we pursued, except this rather material one, that we have not had five separate debates and divisions on the subject of Home Rule, whereas in the course of the present session we have had that number of debates and divisions on the fiscal question. Therefore I should have thought that the first time there was a debate between the two sides of the House as to the unity of the Party opposite on the subject of Home Rule, as to the policy they were going to declare when they went to the country, as to the views they take of Irish self- government, I should have thought that when that question was raised for the first time this session—
MR. LOUGH: We have had co-ordination.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have had nothing on the Address on the subject of the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite,

625
nor was it raised in any shape. I should have thought that the Parliamentary heroes who are all for sitting out a debate, standing what they call "the racket," would have grasped at the opportunity of telling us in those plain, unmistakable terms that they love so well, without mistake, circumlocution, or ambiguity, precisely what the Front Bench opposite, to say nothing of hon. Gentlemen behind it, really thought about the question of Home Rub for Ireland. Well, Sir, it melancholy to think that these Parliamentary heroes have left us in ignorance on that subject at the present moment, that we are still wandering in darkness as to what their true and united views may be upon this all-important Imperial issue and that we were prevented from obtaining that knowledge by the action, and so far as I know the uncondemned action, of one of their own friends. I should have thought they would have moved the closure themselves rather than talk it out. It is very disappointing, Sir. I am all for receiving in a meek spirit these lectures on Parliamentary courage and heroism, and in difference to criticism, and all the rest of it, and I hope I profit by them. I am sure I try to. But hon. Gentlemen opposite should remember how fatal it is to the true cause of morality when the preacher himself so grossly and so obviously violates his own precepts and, if there has been any lack of Parliamentary courage shown by any Party or any hon. Gentleman in this House, I fear that the great cause has received almost its deadliest blow from the action of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in connection with the Home Rule debate. I am sorry for it because, although I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that Parliament is decadent—
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think so.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought the right hon. Gentleman's view was that the high character of Parliament was perishing and that I was the murderer. I am glad he does not take such a gloomy "view, and that if I have made efforts to -destroy the dignity of Parliament, at all
626
events I have not been successful. Now, he and I are quite agreed about that.
Well, then, the right hon. Gentleman went on to ask me a great many Questions about matters which, if I may venture respectfully to say so, do not seem to me to concern him at all. I do not ask him questions as to why he goes to see Lord Spencer or Lord Rosebery. I do not ask him what is the secret history of Lord Spencer's so-called manifesto. I do not ask him exactly where he stands in relation to Lord Rosebery's views of this or that question of foreign or domestic policy. These are things that hon. Gentlemen must settle among themselves. Surely they will find it quite easy to settle them. I do not for a moment believe that when the right hon. Gentleman or any other eminent persons are asked to form a Radical Administration they will have the smallest difficulty in doing it. But I do not ask questions about it. I hear every day of a new allocation of offices among right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite. But I do not believe all these rumours I know how erroneous such rumours are. I would recommend the same cautious scepticism to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not for a moment believe—I could not believe—in all these stories, because they are not all consistent; but I do not believe, as a matter of fact, in any of them. And I think the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the power of rumour to falsify facts is not greater when it is dealing with the internal affairs of our Party than it is when dealing with the internal affairs of his Party. I would venture to suggest to him that if once we begin asking each other Questions across the floor of the House as to what passes in the lobby, or what passes at private meetings or in private correspondence, if any Answers are given to these Questions public life will not be rendered more agreeable to any of the persons concerned; and I cannot help thinking, though here I may be wrong, the Party which would lose most by so novel and so inconvenient a practice would be the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. When the right hon. Gentleman asks me what is going on behind the curtain, I would remind him

627
that there are two curtains, that probably there is quite as much going on behind one curtain as behind the other, and that I do not consider one Party has the slightest right to subject the other to a cross-examination upon those subjects simply because they sit upon one side of the House or upon the other.
That leads me to the last observation I have to make. The right, hon. Gentleman has throughout his speech assumed that I have endeavoured to make the fiscal question the main point to be discussed by this Parliament. Not only is that inaccurate, but it is precisely the reverse of the fact. I have from the beginning, rightly or wrongly, consistently stated that in my judgment one Parliament is not well advised in discussing matters which cannot come before it, but which may come before its successor. It wastes its own time, it raises an enormous number of false issues, and it invariably leads to much confusion. That doctrine, as everybody knows, it has been impossible to carry out consistently. I did my best; I admit I had to give up the task. But I nevertheless think that this perpetual preoccupation with matters with which this House, as this House, will never be called upon to deal does not add either to our utility or to our efficiency as a legislative and deliberative Assembly. The right hon. Gentleman has actually extended this view of what the House of Commons ought to do till the year 1918. I confess that such declarations as I have made, on a half-sheet of note-paper or otherwise, upon questions of high Imperial policy are statements relating to the immediate future. I am not going to pledge myself or my friends, and I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will be much less wise than I conceive them to be if they pledge themselves or their friends to the policy that ought to be pursued in 1918. Who can possibly touch this fiscal question in days like these and state with assurance what policy this country ought to pursue on that or any other question in 1918? The thing is ludicrous and absurd. It is sufficient for each of us to state what we propose to do at the next election if we a called upon to manage the affairs of the country. I have endeavoured to
628
state what I should recommend to my country. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand my statement. He always is glad to do himself an intellectual injustice. He has not told us what he means to say to the country, either on that or any other question, if he is called upon. [An HON. MEMBER: Why should he? He is not in office.] Because he says he is going to be called upon. He-says, "You are not going to be called to office after the next election. Therefore you must tell us precisely what you would do if that happened which is not going to happen." We reply that, if we are not going to be called upon, you are; and, if it is so necessary that this House of Commons should preoccupy itself with what the next Government is going to do, the right hon. Gentleman should cross-examine his own friends as to what they mean to do on the colonial question, the fiscal question, and the Irish question. These gentlemen, who are so anxious to face the House of Commons, so anxious to face the music, and have such insatiable appetites for short, clear, and lucid statements of policy, have told us nothing, obscurely or unobscurely, neither on a half-sheet of note-paper nor on a full sheet of foolscap. I sometimes almost think that this silence of hon. Gentlemen opposite is involuntary silence; that they do not tell us what their policy is because they have not got a policy. That may be so. In that case their silence is excusable, though it is still regrettable. I think they should tell us candidly how the case stands; they should face the music; they should stand, the racket. And I would seriously suggest, both to the right hon. Gentleman and to any hon. Gentleman who may propose to follow me in this debate, that it is on their own showing, and according to the own view, a far more interesting and important matter that the country should know what they mean to do, who, in their view, will have the power of doing it, than that we should state what we propose to do, who, as they say, have not the confidence of the country, and will not have the confidence of the country, and are going to be relegated, for six years at least, into hopeless opposition. I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. I do

629
not know whether I have succeeded. I have endeavoured to follow him over the vast and varied field which he has opened for consideration; but really, if he is not satisfied with this last endeavour, it seems to me he is a man whose ideal is so high that we on this side can never hope to reach the Parliamentary standard which he has set up for us and which, it may be, he thinks he has succeeded in attaining for himself.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Prime Minister had expressed doubt as to whether he had succeeded in satisfying the curiosity of the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in the object he had in view, and that was not to supply any information on any of the Questions put by the Leader of the Opposition. He did not think the House-knew anything on the Questions put which they did not know before the right hon. Gentleman spoke. In fact, the Prime Minister was an adept at answering inconvenient Questions in a way which supplied the House with a maximum of entertainment and a minimum of information. That was what he had really done on the present occasion. Two Questions were put by the Leader of the Opposition to which he should like to refer. With regard to the question of Somaliland, what was the position? We had been at war with the Mullah for two or three years, and we had spent something like £3,000,000 on that war. A treaty had been entered into by Italy, and that treaty covered the case of England. It was published in the Italian Parliament a fortnight ago, and Questions were pat in regard to it. Although the treaty almost exclusively referred to our dominions the House had no information about it except what the newspapers gave. This was a good example of the way in which the Government managed the foreign policy of the country.
He came now to the second Question put by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister seemed to imagine that there was some sort of analogy between the way Home Rule had been treated by the Opposition and the way he treated the fiscal question, but he
630
forgot the facts of the case. For two days they debated an Amendment to the Address on the question of Home Rule which was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. His recollection was that every Member on his side of the House voted for the Amendment. That did not look like running away. The Prime Minister had suggested that the Opposition did not want a division on the Resolution moved by the hon. Member for Rochester. Whose fault was that? Forty minutes were consumed by the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh and his friends, and there were only two hours left for the discussion of the question of Home Rule.
MR. LONSDALEsaid he had nothing to do with the fixing of the date for the Great Northern (Ireland) and Midland Railways Bill. The date for it was fixed before the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochester was put on the paper.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Member had, as the hon. Member for Louth put it, to elect between a level-crossing and the Empire, and he thought the level-crossing was more important. Would any hon. Member compare the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on the Home Rule Resolution with the speeches of the Prime Minister on the fiscal question. The speech of the Leader of the Opposition on the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochester was one of the bravest speeches ever delivered in this House--a singularly frank, clear, and courageous utterance, in which no one could say that there was any shrinking from beginning to end; and any one who watched the face of the Prime Minister during its delivery must have seen that that was his opinion. Complaint was made that they had not divided on the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochester. What was there to divide on? The Resolution of the hon. Member for Rochester did not condemn Home Rule. It simply called on the Leader of the Opposition to express his views as to the future. That leader, although he did not recognise any right to put to him the question, responded; and the response having been given, what was there to divide upon? The hon. Member

631
for Rochester asked for the views of the Leader of the Opposition and others upon this matter, but the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh left the House no time, preferring to discuss a question of a level-crossing.
MR. LONSDALEsaid he did not put down the Private Bill, it was put down by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
MR. LLOYD-GEOEGEsaid the hon. Member had to choose between discussing the Empire or a level-crossing, and chose the latter. The Prime Minister knew he was trifling with this question of fiscal reform; and he knew the distinction between his own position and that of the Leader of the Opposition, whose views had not the official sanction of a Prime Minister's. Something more was due to the House from the Prime Minister than anything he had conceded to the House yet. One of the Resolutions from which he ran away expressly condemned his policy of fiscal retaliation announced at Sheffield in his capacity of Leader of the Government, when he said he meant to lead. There was a direct challenge of the policy of fiscal retaliation, the policy of the head of the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman ran away from it. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was not understood by the Opposition, but the curiosity as to his views was not confined to the Opposition. What did the deputation to the right hon. Gentleman mean? There were 190 gentlemen who believed the existence of the Empire depended on these questions being discussed; Gentlemen who used to believe in the right hon. Member for Birmingham. The right hon. Member for Birmingham thought the existence of the Empire depended upon it, and thought his new policy was going to bring a new era to the Empire. He was not the only false prophet who had inaugurated a new era by a flight. What had happened so recently would be regarded as a fiscal Hegira. He thought they had a right to know, and the country had a right to know, what the Prime Minister was going to do for the Empire. What was he going to do with these things upon which the Empire hung?
632
The Prime Minister had said that this matter had been discussed amply, but the reply had been that it had only been discussed in the country, and the right hon. Gentleman had asked what was the difference between discussions in the country and that House. There was a great distinction between debate in the House and discussions at packed meetings in the country, where any one interrupting could be placed in a better atmosphere, where he could not interfere with the arguments or statistics of the speakers. The perplexity of the right hon. Gentleman's own followers was illustrated by the experience of the hon. Member for Truro, who, being asked whether he could pledge himself at the next election against the taxation of food, said, "Certainly not; you can ask me that when I come down; I shall know where I am next time." Here was this poor wandering sheep, and the shepherd would not guide him. Why did not the Prime Minister take pity on the perplexities of his poor heckled supporter? These supporters were loyal, loyal to perfection, but perhaps the Prime Minister knew how to rate that loyalty, and indeed it was comparable only to the loyalty of the animals to the Ark. It was the only security from the Deluge; and they probably admired the ingenuity of the constructor, though glad to get rid of it when the waters subsided. But if the Prime Minister sank, few would be able to swim to Ararat. That might explain the loyalty; still loyalty it was and it remained, though doubts increased and confidence diminished. Even the right hon. Member for Birmingham remained loyal under a most severe test. The right hon. Gentleman was actually called upon to run away after the Prime Minister from the battle he himself challenged, and loyalty carried to the extent of making oneself ridiculous was exceptional; there had been nothing like it since Antony lied from the battle of Actium, simply because Cleopatra had preceded him. It was devotion truly pathetic and yet the Prime Minister did not respond and tell his supporters what he meant. Why did he not come from behind the veil and tell his supporters and the country what he really was. They were entitled to know, the country was entitled to know but could any hon.

633
Gentleman give an assurance, whether the Prime Minister was a free-trader or a protectionist? He was certain there was not one of them who would like to give an assurance or make a book up in it. He himself had his own theory about it, and it was that the Prime Minister did not care whether his Party sailed into a free trade or a protectionist port, so long as they reached a harbour of refuge, and he was on the bridge when they got there. That was a dangerous thing to allow to go on, for the Prime Minister would be able to utilise a free-trade crew for the purpose of getting nearer a protectionist country. It was only fair, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman should say what his views really were.
Of course the Liberal Party had everything to gain by the Prime Minister's shilly-shallying and delay. Protection was a very taking cry, and it went well for a short time in the country. Taxation of foreign products and protection for our own industries made an insidious election cry, and the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Birmingham worked together like twin screws in the ship of fiscal reform. Luckily one of the screws stopped working and the ship made no progress; but if there had then been an appeal to the country the Liberal majority would not have been large, and probably in the difficulties they would have had to meet a Liberal Government might have been beaten. The Prime Minister had saved them from that by giving the country time to reflect on fiscal fallacies. He sometimes wondered if the Prime Minister did this deliberately. If he did this as a free-trader it was cleverly done, but the right hon. Gentleman's sense of honour raised doubts; it would have not been consistent with his messages of sympathy to fiscal reformers, his blessing on the crusade and the crusader, his pamphlets, and his suggestion for a change of system. It was not done then to help free trade, and what was the cause of delay? It was perfectly clear to everybody that the House and the country were not going to have any measure of protection. The Leader of the Opposition in his speech had suggested that there was going to be another attempt
634
to refurbish up the weapon of protection. That might be so, but for his part he was not afraid, for where was that great Party of 190 who used to follow and believe in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham?
Weakened in power and numbers, the followers of the Prime Minister could hide behind half a sheet of note-paper; but what were they waiting for? In 1903 the education cry was going strong; it was still going strong, and the spirit of the slaughtered school boards appeared later at Brighton, like Banquo's ghost at Macbeth's banquet. In 1904 it was Chinese labour which led them to hesitate; in the autumn of 1904 it was sugar. What was it now in 1905? The misdeeds of the Government in 1902 over the Education Act were still alive in the public memory to-day. The public memory had not forgotten any one of their misdeeds during the last three years. Anyone who watched the course of events realised that the effect of all those things was cumulative. The electors did not pass them by, did not forget them, but set down each item on the debit side of the ledger, and in due time would exact settlement to the uttermost farthing. What was the Prime Minister waiting for? He was no going to the country upon fiscal reform? In Glasgow he said he would appeal to the record of his Ministry. What a record There was only one solitary asset in his Cabinet, and that was his Foreign Minister, Lord Lansdowne. Why? Because he had pursued a Liberal foreign policy. He sometimes wondered, if a Liberal Foreign Minister had done what Lord Lansdowne had done; if he had made an arrangement with France which might in time of war make the passage of the Straits of Gibraltar more easy—he did not say that that was too high a price to pay for peace—but supposing a Liberal Foreign Minister had done this, would not every Tory platform have rung with denunciations and suggestions of treason? Supposing a Liberal Government had referred the unpleasant incident on the Dogger Bank to arbitration, and had allowed the offending fleet to proceed and add to the difficulty of our allies in the Far East—if a Liberal Ministry had

635
done that, one knew perfectly well what would have been said by the Party opposite. Still, with all that, Lord Lansdowne was the only solid asset of the Prime Minister's Government. Every other Minister was a bad debt; Lord Lansdowne was the only asset which the Government had with which to liquidate their indebtedness. But the electorate would hold a strict audit of the items—sugar, Army reform, education, licensing, agricultural rates, doles to the landlords, and the rest. He would not except the Prime Minister himself. That right hon. Gentleman was also a bad debt; and there stood to his charge three things especially—education, reform of the Army, which would cost millions of money, and the Committee of Defence, composed of the greatest tacticians since Wellington.
MR. A. J. BALFOURinterrupted with a remark which was inaudible in the gallery.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not the greatest tactician since Wellington. If the right hon. Gentleman said so, it was not for him to press that honour upon him; and certainly he could withdraw his remark.
Well now, there were two other great questions which the country would not forget. The first was the right Lon. Gentleman's management of the business of the House, and the second, the difficulties he had got into at the cost of liberty in debate in the House of Commons. It was all very well for the Prime Minister to deride what the Leader of the Oppositon said, but the country would not forget what the Prime Minister had done to curtail liberty of debate in that House. The country centred a good deal of hope in the House of Commons. There was not a poor artisan in the East End who did not look to the House of Commons if he thought his livelihood was being taken away by a Russian or Polish alien. And the agricultural labourer, the sugar-refiner, the man badly housed, the man whose children were underfed, the man too old to earn his living and looking for a pension—these all looked to that Assembly to protect them against the oppressor in
636
every shape; and if the Prime Minister j treated this Assembly as a jest, he I would have to face by-and-by the people, who looked upon it as their refuge.
MR. LOUGHsaid he would take the opportunity of this Motion to address a Question or two to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Board of Trade in regard to the Sugar Convention. His hon. friend seemed to think that the sugar question was a past issue; that the country was not interested in it; and that it was believed that nothing could be done to modify any of the arrangements that had been made. He had recently made a little diary of the proceedings of the Government in regard to this matter on which hon. Members had never had an opportunity of cross-examining the hon. Gentleman. There was a reason. It might have been said that They could hardly expect the Secretary to the Board of Trade to give any explanation on a subject which might be described to be subjudice. But the hon. Gentleman said the other day that a decision had been arrived at by the Brussels Convention on a question of vast importance to this country, and he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman to tell the House clearly and plainly to-day what the Government were thinking of doing. On 3rd June last San Domingo was suddenly prohibited by the Board of Trade from exporting sugar into this country. On 26th November, a despatch was circulated in this country practically ordering the Government to prohibit the import of sugar from twenty great countries which produced half the sugar of the world. On 3rd December, notice was given that the Government had lodged an appeal in regard to the prohibition of imports of sugar from these twenty countries; but the mystery of that appeal had never been explained. On 4th February the prohibition of imports from San Domingo was withdrawn; and on 10th April they were informed that the Brussels Convention had met to consider the appeal. The hon. Member told the House the other day that the appeal had been successful.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW.said that what he had stated was that the appeal had been successful to a certain extent.
MR. LOUGHsaid that then the House was entitled to ask for fuller information. They were told suddenly last week that the prohibition would not take place but what they wanted to understand was what had happened in connection with the Convention itself. Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House what had happened in regard to all those twenty countries; and were they not to take any steps in respect to the condemnation of all those twenty countries? This was no light matter. The Convention had driven the sugar trade of the country into confusion. If the Government would go steadily in support of the decisions of the Convention if they would prohibit the importation of sugar into this country in every case where the Convention condemned it, then they would know where they were. But the Government appeared to take what course they pleased, and were not guided at all by what the Convention did. The situation was, therefore, very extraordinary. This House was watching what was being done in the Brussels Convention; and he wanted to ask the lion. Gentleman:—Was it true that the appeal was to come on in a month? It seemed that the Government had suggested that the appeal should be postponed for five months but on what grounds was that postponement made? Why, the object of insisting originally on an appeal being made was that a hearing should be given to it quickly in order to prevent any uncertainty in regard to what the law was. This Government, which was the first to set up the Convention, said: "Let us break the law, and let appeals be postponed for five months." What was the reason for that long postponement? The position appeared to him to be that the Convention, sitting at Brussels, had condemned half the sugar-producing countries in the world; but that this Government refused to obey the orders of that Convention in regard to a great many of those countries.
638
Why should this Government obey the orders of the Convention in regard to any?
He wished to call attention to the case of Russia. The greatest inconvenience had been caused by the prohibition in regard to Russia and Germany. But the Germans had come to an arrangement with Russia by which they were able to continue their sugar trade with Russia. Why should the Germans have arranged with Russia, while we made no attempt whatever to get over the difficulty? Russia immediately protested against the condemnation of her system by the Convention, and after the Russian delegates were received and heard, no decision was arrived at. The British Government interfered in a hostile way with Russia; and the Convention had arrived at no decision in regard to what countervailing duties should be imposed on sugar. The result was that the produce of that country was shut out from this country—one of the best countries in the world for trade from abroad. Could not the right hon. Gentleman opposite give some hope of withdrawing the prohibition against Russia? There was another country to which prohibition had been applied—he meant" Argentina. Now, Argentina was almost in the position of a British colony; and why should not our trade with that colony be free as before? This Government had only to speak a word, as in the case of San Domingo, and our ports would be open to Argentine sugar again. He did not want to detain hon. Members; but the House ought to remember that this policy of prohibition was not the first policy which the Board of Trade had adopted. The late President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Leeds, said that there must be a policy of countervailing duties. That was a sudden change; and what was the reason for it. The Board of Trade lately issued a White Paper which stated the amount of exports to many of those countries previously referred to, and it was found that 60 per cent, of our sugar trade came from those countries. It was impossible to shut our ports to countries that took such a large amount of our exports, and therefore this country should either be guided by the

639
policy of the Convention, or repudiate the Convention altogether.
The question of price was of great importance when they had regard to the great evils which arose from the rise in the price of sugar. He noticed that in the first three months of this year we got 10 per cent, less sugar than in the first three mouths of last year, which showed a great diminution in the natural import of sugar, but when he looked at the price paid for it he found that the country paid 50 per cent, more for the sugar it consumed during that period than was paid in the corresponding period of the previous year, which meant that this country was paying £9,000,000 a year more for sugar than before the Convention. They were told that prices had risen in other commodities. True, but there was no Convention with regard to those. He asked the hon. Member for a little light on this subject, and hoped he would tell the House why the Government could not apply the same policy to Russia and Argentina as they had applied to the other countries he had mentioned. "Why could we not lodge an application and then postpone the hearing for a year or two in these cases. The Government ought to adopt a consistent policy, and, having regard to the sufferings of the people engaged in the great trades connected with sugar he hoped the hon. Gentleman would tell them they would not be abandoned altogether.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid the hon. Gentleman had stated that the Government seemed to be able to do exactly what it pleased. He remembered listening to a great many debates in which, on the contrary, the Government were told that they would constantly be at the mercy of other Powers. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the meeting of the Convention. It was impossible for him to deal with the points raised. They had not yet received even a draft of the report, and it would obviously be improper to discuss the matter before the report had been received. As regarded the prohibition orders, it seemed to him that the subject was one on which the country desired the earliest information, and he had accordingly considered himself justified in
640
informing the House that no new prohibition orders would take place. Another point which had been raised was why we did not get the Convention to allow us to cease the prohibition of Russian and Argentine sugar. The hon. Gentleman had entirely misunderstood the action which the Government had taken. They had based their appeal, in the case of the countries which had been referred to, on the ground that no bounty had been proved. In the case of Argentina and Russia it was admitted that there was a bounty, and therefore the Government had not the slightest doubt about the necessity for prohibition.
MR. SCHWANNsaid, having drawn attention to the-state of education among the Tamil coolies in Ceylon, he had thought that as a great many of their fathers had come from India it was desirable to inquire into the state of education in India itself. He found that the fourth Quinquennial Review of Indian Education for the years 1897–8 to 1901–2, published in 1904, contained a large amount of information on the subject. It went over an enormous amount of ground, embracing all the forms of education in India, from the simplest primary schools to the Universities. One thing that must strike any one whose attention was drawn to this subject was the limited amount of education compared with the huge population of India. There were 250,000,000 of inhabitants and five Universities—Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, Punjab, and Allahabad. There were 191 colleges, which contained 23,009 pupils who were taught the usual subjects at those colleges. Below the colleges there were 5,493 secondary schools with an attendance of 558,378, and 98,538 primary schools with an attendance of 3,260,000 pupils. If to those were added some special schools, technical and industrial, and schools of art for teachers, the total number of educational establishments was 105,306, with an attendance of 4,500,000 pupils. That was a very small number of educational establishments for a country with a population of 250,000,000. It "did not reflect any credit either on this nation or the Indian Government that they had allowed such poor results to be shown in our chief

641
dependency. It was only lately that the Government had taken over the schools, but he did not believe they had done anything to improve them. Ten years ago, when be visited India, he saw some of those schools and found that they were many of them most miserable places, and he did not believe any great change had taken place since.
The extension of education in India of course depended upon the increase of expenditure. That was the chief motive power. Schools could not be multiplied without money. At the present moment, the education of India was exceedingly cheap. It did not cost more than £1,300,000, which was not an enormous C03t for the education of such an enormous number of people. This sum was obtained from various sources, 127 lakhs of rupees came from fees, eighty-three from endowments and subscriptions,191 from public funds, 101 from provincial revenues, seventy-four from local revenues, and thirteen from the revenues of native states. He did not presume to suggest to the Government from what sources they should obtain an increase of funds for this purpose, but simply to show that there was a considerable amount of education to be provided and that a large amount of funds should also be provided in order that better education should be given. On page 462 of this review it said 15 per cent, of the population were of school-going age. That was to say that of the 18,000,000 boys that ought to have been at school only one-sixth were receiving education. In the census of 1901 it was found that only one in ten of the male population and only one in 1,000 of the female population were literate. In four villages out of five only one boy in four and only one girl in forty attended school. Progress in supplying education declined proportionately as the population increased. A Government Education Commission in 1883 said that;—
"The elementary education of the masses, its promotion, extension, and improvement, should be the part of the educational system to which the strenuous efforts of the Government should be directed in a still greater measure than before."
That was the language of a Royal Commission, which was rather mild,
642
as the language of Royal Commissions always was, but the House would feel that they might well have used stronger terms with regard to the want of primary education in India. Lord Lawrence in 1886 said—
"Among all the sources of difficulty in our administration and of possible danger to the stability of the Government there is none so serious as the ignorance of the people."
It was the want of education which kept alive the prejudices and differences and maintained the caste system, and it was to our advantage in India, as well as to the advantage of the people themselves, to give them a larger and wider education. The education of girls was most backward of all. He admitted with regard to the education of girls in India that there were special difficulties which were not easy to overcome owing to the customs of the people, whether Hindus or Mohammedans. He would not trouble the House with the details of inquiries that had taken place with respect to the girls, he would only say that though it might be difficult to introduce education amongst the, female population of India, he did not think that that was any reason why the effort to do so should be abandoned. He had no doubt that if the Indian Council in London used their great ability they would be able to evolve methods by which education might be promoted among the female population, in spite of those customs, in the interest of the country.
The main point to keep in mind was that to increase education increased expenditure was necessary. Reference had been made to some obstacles to education, and with regard to that the Quinquennial Review said—
"These, however, are minor obstacles which would soon be swept away if the main difficulty of finding the requisite funds for extending primary education could be overcome."
Why could not the money used in border wars be turned into these peaceful and improving channels. He noticed that a large sum was to be spent on a Durbar in the immediate future and he suggested that that money might be better employed on education. The expenditure for the war in Tibet would fall upon India. and that money could certainly

643
have been used to much better advantage in promoting education than in the promotion of a war which was of very doubtful value to the nation. One most curious thing was that there were many defects in the education in India which were similar to those we found here. For instance, higher education was chiefly pursued either for the purpose of following the law or obtaining Government appointments, excessive prominence was given to examination, and the courses of study were too literary. The intelligence was trained too little and the memory too much. That was a familiar fault in this country. English education was pushed too much and the vernacular languages were too neglected instead of being used as the vehicle for diffusing knowledge. The Government of India now seemed alive to these defects and proposed to apply remedies, and he wished them all success. At the same time it was not undesirable that attention should be drawn to this in England so that some assistance might be given to the rulers of our Indian Empire. It was to be hoped that those who now studied for the law and Government positions would turn their attention to the study of teaching, and it would be desirable if young men from Oxford and Cambridge would turn their attention to India as a sphere of employment for educationists or for those who would take to it as a profession. According to the census of 1901 the Mohammedans were much behind. Only sixty per 1,000 were literate, and only three per 1,000 of females were taught. The Review, at page 367, said—
"Throughout the greater part of India the Mohammedans have made much slower pi ogress than the Hindus."
The Parsees, Europeans, and Eurasians, were not much referred to in the Review, but by far the larger proportion of those three races received education. He much regretted that the Viceroy in a speech made at the opening of the University should have made use of the phrase, "Truth is born in the West but does not often visit the East." It was not a wise thing to taunt the whole people in that way, and he regretted it the more because the Viceroy had shown much ability and had given much assistance to the Indian people. In
644
conclusion, he appealed to the Government to do more for Indian education from Imperial funds.
THE SECEETAEY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODEICK,)said the hon. Member had brought forward a very important subject at a moment when they could not enter fully into consideration of this great question. He assured the hon. Member and the House that the immediate importance of the question of Indian education had not been lost sight of. Those who were responsible for the finances of India realhed the importance of giving a fresh stimulus to primary education. Up to a certain period the increase in attendance and the elevation of the general standard was in as great a proportion as, perhaps in a greater proportion than, the progress of India in other directions. In 1870 there were 16,400 primary schools, with 607,000 scholars in attend are. In 1881 the numbers had increased to 83,000 and 2,061,000 scholars. But after that date the rate of progress was not so great, for, between 1881 and 1901, the number of schools had only been raised to 98,500 and the scholars to 3,268,000, whereas it was computed that there were something like 18,000,000 children in India of school age. The expenditure on primary education in 1891–2 was 49½ lakhs, but in 1901–2 it it was 63 lakhs. For the last three years the Government of India had given the local governments 40 lakhs annually as grants to general education, but, in the recent Budget, following the observations that were made in that House last year, an additional sum of 35 lakhs was included for primary education alone. He found himself in sympathy with much that the hon. Member had said with regard to female education. A rate of seven per thousand females receiving education was in itself a most lamentable state of things. In the moral welfare of children the education of the mother was perhaps a more important consideration than the education of the father, and by the establishment of primary girls' schools in important centres and by increasing the number of training schools, the Government of India were doing what they could to promote

645
female education and to popularise that which, was in itself most desirable. The hon. Member might rest assured that there was no apathy in this matter either on the part of the Government of India or of whose who controlled the finances of India. With regard to the speech of the Viceroy which had been referred to he thought his observations had been somewhat misunderstood, and he had evidently been the victim of a misinterpretation which had been placed upon his words, a difficulty which constantly beset Members of this House, and from which the Members sitting on the Treasury Bench were not altogether exempt.
SIR MANCHEEJEE BHOWNAG-GEEEsaid he wished to draw the attention of the House to the great want of proper facilities for discussing Indian questions, and he also desired to ask the Prime Minister if he could appoint another day a little earlier than usual for the discussion of the Indian Budget. He thought this request would meet with the sympathy of Members on both sides of that the House. He believed that the Secretary of State for India himself was anxious to have an earlier date for the introduction of the Indian Budget.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As the hon. Member has given notice of a Motion in regard to this question, it would be out of order for him to discuss it now.
SIR MANCHEEJEE BHOWNAG-GREEsaid that under the circumstances he would invite the attention of the Secretary of State for India to a subject of which he had not given notice of Motion. In a few days time there would be published a document conferring a measure of self-government upon the Transvaal. The question of the treatment of British subjects in the Transvaal had attracted general attention, both in the House of Commons and in the country, and he should like to hear from his right hon. friend whether he had taken any steps to secure that when self-government was granted to the Transvaal the rights and privileges which British Indians had enjoyed in the past would be safeguarded, or whether they would be
646
left entirely at the mercy of the Transvaal Government. He hoped that the Secretary for India, as the custodian of the rights and privileges of the people of India, and whose special care it was to take care of the interests of the vast populations of the Indian Empire, would do all that lay in his power to see that any new rights which were conferred upon the Transvaal would not be used to further oppress and humiliate the subjects of His Majesty who went from India to South Africa to settle in that colony. He trusted that the light hon. Gentleman would give the House some satisfactory Answer on this point.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down had called attention to a face which was familiar to every Member of the House, namely, the extraordinary manner in which the fate and fortune of hundreds of millions of people in India were dealt with by this House. He thought it was a scandal that it was only on a hot August afternoon, in an almost empty House, that the business of the great dependency of India was discussed in this House. He thought the House could very well afford to give more attention to India. The reason why India got so little attention was that the House of Commons was too busily engaged trying to settle the local affairs of these islands, and so long as the House retained eighteenth century methods so long would India and other parts of the Empire be neglected.
He wished to say a few words upon the general policy of the Government. They had just listened to an admirable speech—perhaps he had better call it a performance—by the Prime Minister. He had often listened with admiration to the extraordinary skill with which the right hon. Gentleman evaded difficult Questions, but his performance to-day excelled all his previous efforts. He was asked several Questions, but he had not given an Answer to one of them. He could recommend the right hon. Gentleman to the gentleman on the Continent who had just lost the services of the lady who had been looping the loop, because for acrobatic skill

647
in looping the Parliamentary loop the right hon. Gentleman had no equal. The right hon. Gentleman and his Government had been condemned in every constitutional form which the nation possessed of expressing its opinion. Whether in rural or urban constituencies, even in places where the Conservative candidate was supposed to be quite safe, the right hon. Gentleman and his policy had been rejected, and the people condemned him. The Prime Minister was now taking advantage of the technicalities of politics to hold power which the country desired to deprive him of. He had been very much struck with a passage written by Mr. J. R. Green, the eminent historian, who wrote—
"It is impossible to provide for some of the greatest dangers which can happen to national freedom by any formal statute; even now a Minister might avail himself of a Parliament elected in some moment of popular panic and though the nation return to its senses, might simply, by refusing to appeal to the country, govern in defiance of its will. Such a course would be technically legal; but such a Minister would be none the less a criminal."
He thought those words admirably summed up the present case. This Parliament was elected in the midst of the popular excitement caused by the war. It was elected, as some members of the Government stated, on one issue, namely, to bring the war to an end. The war being ended, people were returning to their senses, and they were now as opposed to the Government as some years ago they were in its favour. And yet the Ministry refused to appeal to the country, and, though technically legal, such a course was, as Mr. Green said, none the less criminal. An erudite authority on the Constitution, at page 372 of his work on the "Law and Customs of the Constitution," wrote—
"We must not forget that the possible violation of the law is not the only reason why a Ministry should retire when it is shown to have lost the confidence of the House or of the country. Ministers are not only Ministers of the Queen, they represent the public opinion of the United Kingdom; when they cease to impersonate public opinion they become a mere group of personages who must stand or fall by the prudence of their action. They may have to deal with disorders at home or hostile manifestations abroad; they would have to meet these with the knowledge that they had not the confidence or support of the country; and their opponents at home and abroad would know this too."
648
The writer plainly foresaw the situation with which they were now confronted, namely, that the Ministry might retain the confidence of the majority in the House of Commons, although they had ceased to impersonate public opinion. He understood that the esoteric defence given by the Prime Minister was that in spite of the condemnation of the country he and his eminent colleagues were able to deal with the international complications which the country at this moment had to face. He was not going to speak of the superior genius of those now in office to those who might succeed them. It was true that they were practically unknown and obscure individuals who would never have been heard of had it not been that in the hurly-burly of politics the Prime Minister was obliged to take the few men left who were in accord with his policy. Even if their genius were equal to the claims they made the fact remained that they were the worst kind of Government to deal with foreign complications. What respect had any foreign Minister for a Government that had ceased to represent the public opinion of the country.
No Government could be so universally condemned as the present one had been. The maintenance of the present Ministry by the Prime Minister was mainly inspired by the desire to keep his Party together, and above all to overcome the Member for West Birmingham. A good many had expressed doubts as to the Prime Minister's wisdom, judgment, and firmness of character. He did not share these views. The Prime Minister was playing a game, and he had played it extremely well. He and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham were contesting for the, leadership of the Party, and the latter had been beaten. When Mr. Gladstone was leader of the Liberal Party the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was the man on whose loyalty he could depend. He knew that unholy doubts had been cast on that statement. He was present in the House on the historic night when Mr. Parnell charged the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham with having intrigued against his Liberal colleagues in regard to Irish

649
policy, and with having afterwards abjured the opinions which he then professed. But these were squalid doubts from which he entirely dissociated himself. That loyal supporter had great confidence in his own powers, and he always seemed to think that he could do the job a little better than the man in front of him. The Prime Minister had managed successfully to isolate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The Times, had compared the two right hon. Gentlemen to two accomplished whist players, one giving hints to the other. He also would draw a comparison from the card table. Both had been playing another game, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had been euchred. The fact was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was beaten in the country, in the House, and in the Unionist Party. The Irish were sometimes supposed to be a vindictive race, but he entirely disclaimed that reputation. If they were vindictive, surely never could a race rejoice in a greater Nemesis than this which had overtaken the man who, eighteen years ago broke the Liberal Party and destroyed the great chance which the Irish people had of gaining liberty. The Unionist Party was now broken to smithereens by the very man who broke the Liberal Party. [An HON. MEMBER: Give him a chance.] If the hon. Gentleman meant a chance of going to the country, he could only say that that invitation should be addressed to the Prime Minister.
The hon. Member for Carnarvon in his eloquent speech that afternoon had referred to the feeling of the Prime Minister towards the House which he was supposed to lead as one of undisguised scorn and contempt. Irishmen had no great reason to be thankful to the House of Commons which had misgoverned their country for 105 years, but at the same time he would regard it as a disastrous thing for the people of this country if the House of Commons were to lose its prestige in their opinion, and especially at the hand of the Prime Minister, who ought to be its guardian and defender. But that was not his affair. When he was present at one of
650
the discussions on the fiscal question a few weeks ago he saw a sight which struck him as unprecedented, scandalous, and, he might almost say, tragic. The House was discussing what was called an abstract Resolution, moved by a private Member. He observed, by the way, that there was no objection to an abstract Resolution by the hon. Member for Rochester when addressed, not to the head of the Government, but to the Leader of the Opposition, not to the great official hierarch of the country, but to a Gentleman, whatever his distinction and power, who was simply a private and unofficial Member of the House at the moment. Whatever might be the future of the hon. Member for Rochester, either as an orator or Parliamentarian, he had accomplished an achievement which he would never even approach again during the rest of his career. He made inevitable the Premiership of one man of this House when a change of Government came. He elicited a speech from the Leader of the Opposition which marked his position for ever. He did not think the hon. Member for Rochester did much harm to the cause of Home Rule. When Macaulay published his great "History of England," Croker, his literary and political enemy, wrote a slashing criticism of it. Sydney Smith's comment on that criticism was that the writer attempted murder but only succeeded in committing suicide. That was a fair description of the Motion and speech of the hon. Member for Rochester, because he plainly proved that the Liberal Party, speaking through its only leader in the House of Commons, and its future leader in the Government, was loyal, faithful, and true to the great principle of self-government for Ireland.
The Prime Minister was always making tremendous challenges to the Leader of the Opposition to move a vote of censure, but a Motion calling in question the fiscal policy of the Unionist Party was a vote of censure because that was the question on which the election within a few weeks, or months, must be fought. He was not going to say a word in derogation of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, but why was he at the head of the finances the country while this

651
predecessors the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol sat behind him, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon sat below the gangway? He was an extremely intelligent young gentleman, and he congratulated him on the extraordinary success with which the great principle of nepotism had placed him in the position he now occupied. But who would compare him with his predecessors as Chancellor of the Exchequer—the right hon. Member for West Bristol, and the right hon. Member for Croydon? Why was he on the Treasury Bench, and why were these right hon. Gentlemen on the benches behind? It was because the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench filling the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer was a protectionist, and because the right hon. Gentlemen on the benches behind him were free traders. In other words the whole transformation in the Government of the country had been made because the head of the Government was determined to throw out the free-trade members of his Cabinet and to keep in the protectionist members. That was the reason why the Prime Minister ran away from the House when his policy was challenged.
He came now to the Irish policy of the Government. He saw the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was now in his place. But he was often absent. Sometimes it was the wild delights of Punchestown steeplechases which called him away; sometimes he was drawn to the dining-room; and sometimes it was to don the courtly garments of a Grand Master of the Knight of St. Patrick. But, whatever might be the cause, they had been more accustomed to his absence than to his presence. He did not wish to be rude; hut if the right hon. Gentleman were altogether absent there was not one Member of the Irish Party who would not be ready to join in a Te Deum on that account. What was the policy of the Government in regard to Irish affairs? They had not been left long to know what that policy was. The right hon. Gentleman the new Chief Secretary for Ireland had already developed two styles. The right hon. Gentleman was
652
quite a modern painter on the Irish canvas when he had had only a short experience. He then belonged to the school of Sir Antony MacDonnell, his predecessor the right hon. Member for Dover, and the Prime Minister. That was, however, only in the early dawn of his occupation of his new office. But, in a few days the whole landscape was changed, that style disappeared, and the right hon. Gentleman came to this House and gave an Answer to a Question in which he not only unsaid all that he had said before, but took the trouble of pronouncing what, he must say, was a most ungenerous condemnation of the policy of his immediate predecessor in office. Now, there were many things in the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover with which they, on those benches, could not agree, but not one of them would deny the generous principles and feelings with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover had discharged his duty. That right hon. Gentleman had been the victim, not of his bad intentions towards Ireland, but of his good intentions; and whatever might be the faults of his administration—and they were many—certainly he did some things that would stand out in history to his credit, not merely when he was a member of the Irish Administration, but when as Under-Secretary for War he defended the indefensible. He considered that it was almost disloyal on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary to have made the pronouncement he had done against his predecessor when that right hon. Gentleman was away seeking recovery of the health which he had lost in the faithful discharge of his duties.
There was a very active agency in Ireland, although he did not think it was financed by the Government. But there was a fund to provide a subsidy to what he might call the reptile Press in that country. That agency was very active during the occupancy of the office of Chief Secretary by the right hon. Member for Dover. Whenever it was thought that the late Chief Secretary was inclined to be a little too sympathetic to Ireland, the anti-Irish reptile Press

653
was in full blast, filling column after column in the English papers with blood curdling but fabricated stories of Ireland being the seething pot of disloyalty and crime. That agency was con ducted, financed, and controlled by Irishmen. Of all the tragic things connected with the history of Ireland, the most tragic was that there was a section of Irishmen whose chief aim and purpose in life was to blacken the character and murder the reputation of their own country. Of all beings in the world there was none so contemptible as the Irish anti-Irishman. Such a creature was able to see unmoved the terrible tragedy of the destruction of an ancient and intelligent race by misgovernment and by emigration; to witness the population of his country reduced from nine to four and-a-half millions in a half century, and the country becoming one of the loneliest in the world, because only the old people were left, and the young and vigorous had gone away to other lands. He was not only unmoved by all this, but he was inspired by a contemptuous race hatred of the nation to which he nominally belonged. If any one took up The Times, that hereditary enemy of Ireland, or the Globe, he would find column after column written evidently by some anti-Irish Irishman, and furnished by the agency of which he had spoken, giving full details and blood curdling descriptions of outrages in districts the reputation of which had been aforetime calumniated and was therefore suspect, but which the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland had to acknowledge were untrue. If that hon. Gentleman would blacken Ireland then he would disclose the facts, but if they would clear her character he would keep them to himself.
He called attention to these things for two reasons, first because they were part of a campaign of calumny, and the second object was to get rid of Sir Antony MacDonnell. He made these observations for the purpose of warning the Chief Secretary that the idea was that if these campaigns were continued long enough, people would think Ireland was in a state of crime and disorder, and the right hon. Gentleman in consequence, like others before him. might be driven
654
into coercing a country which was without crime. It might be that one of the byproducts of the success of that campaign would be that Sir Antony MacDonnell would relieve the Government of his inconvenient presence. He desired to warn him of this campaign, in which there was a well-organised and vast scheme, and in which there might be an attempt to create outrages in Ireland. That was a shocking thing to say, and he would never have said it if it had not been for the history of Sergeant Sheridan. If he wanted anything to prove the difference between the government of Ireland and England he would choose, as his best object-lesson, the case of Sergeant Sheridan on the one side and Adolf Beck on the other. Nothing was more creditable to this country than the outburst of almost tempestuous rage which swept the country at the conviction of an innocent man like Adolf Beck. Public opinion was so strong that it overbore the walls of officialism and forced an exposure of Home Office methods which was most extraordinary. No Government, he did not care from which Party it might have come, could have survived more than twenty-four hours if it had refused to do justice to Adolf Beck. He admired the spirit of the nation which was embodied in that feeling. But he turned from England to Ireland. Now, nobody could prove that Adolf Beck had been put in gaol by means of a conspirary or wilful perjury; nobody could prove or attempt to prove that his wrongful conviction was the result of perjured evidence on the part of the police; and they could not prove that the crime of which he was convicted was committed by the policeman who gave the false evidence against him. All these things were elements in the case with which Sheridan was concerned, for the difference between the two cases was that Adolf Beck got £5,000 and poor McGowan got very little. Sheridan was allowed to leave for America, and the three or four scoundrels who assisted him in his crime were not only not punished, but some of them were still actually in the force which they had degraded and made unworthy of the confidence of the country. Yet there was not a ripple of anger in the public opinion of this country. How much better was it to be a Norwegian than an

655
Irishman. Adolf Beck was a Norwegian, and for his false imprisonment obtained from the Government of this country £5,000: poor McGowan was an Irishman, and his persecutors and perjurers were rewarded and acquitted. Once more they were brought face to face with the fact that the person who got least consideration from Englishmen, from the rulers of Ireland, was an Irishman.
He had indicated, from the pronouncements of the Chief Secretary. what they might expect his policy to be, but that was not the only indication which they had had. Years ago, in America, they had an expression in public life so coarse in its nature that he would apologise in anticipation for making use of it; but in the time of the Civil War, whenever the Republican Party were in want of a cry, they used to stir up all the old and bitter passions raised by the war by what was called "Waving the bloody shirt." When the present Government was at a loss for a policy, having run away from the policy of retaliation and protection, and wanted a cry, it had one refuge. It "waved the bloody shirt" of outrage in Ireland. It was a wicked policy, and it was almost criminal for a man in the position of the Prime Minister to resort to it. What did the right hon. Gentleman say? He said "We arc united against Home Rule." The last word of the Prime Minister with regard to Ireland was that he was an opponent of Home Rule, and his very last word was redistribution. No one in England wanted redistribution, and the Government used the word redistribution as they used the word devolution, as a mask to conceal their faces. Their real desire was to reduce the Parliamentary representation of Ireland in that House, but until he saw it he would refuse to believe that one country could be so wicked and cruel as to reduce the representation of another country in that House on the ground of depopulation, when it was the hunger produced by 'their laws which had caused that depopulation.
MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he desired to refer to a subject of urgent public importance, and had
656
the information come to him at an earlier period of the session he should have felt compelled to move the adjournment of the House in order to raise an immediate discussion upon it. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Education, to whom he had given private notice that afternoon of his intention, whether he had received any information with regard to the action of the East Ham Borough Council on the previous evening. It was reported to him by the town clerk of West Ham, the adjoining borough, that on the previous night the Borough Council of East Ham resolved unanimously to no longer administer the Education Act of 1902. It appeared that the education committee of that council went to the East Ham Borough Council for a further grant out of public funds to enable them to carry out their duty in respect to the education of that district. The East Ham Borough Council resolved that they would not grant the money and instructed the education committee to dismiss the school teachers and close all the schools in the district as from the 31st of May next and to discontinue their duties as the education authority. Their object in so doing was to call attention to the large local rate in the borough for the discharge of what they considered was a national duty. Their action involved the future welfare of thousands of children, and a large staff of teachers and the whole education machinery for that borough. They took this action, not because they were averse to education, but because they found themselves utterly incapable with the local rate standing as it did of discharging their duty properly, and therefore they, by this very drastic act, had divested themselves of all responsibility, and he himself would not be surprised if other boroughs adopted the same policy at no distant date owing to the difficulty of meeting out of local funds national obligations. The adjoining borough of West Ham had now a rate of 2s. 8½. in the £ for educational purposes, with every prospect of its being raised in the next half-year to 3s. Id. This was due to the fact, not that they had been extravagant, but that they had had in less than thirty years to discharge all the

657
responsibilities which were put upon them—responsibilities which other towns and cities had been given centuries to accomplish. In thirty years the population of the district he represented had grown from 30,000 to 300,000, and every single loan that they had borrowed for public purposes was still running. They had not had time to relieve themselves of those liabilities, and yet Parliament pat further responsibilities on to them year by year until, unable to meet the responsibilities cast upon them, they were ready to tear up their Charter rather than increase the burden upon the people. It was not extravagance; and those who caused them to take this action, and those who said it was, knew nothing of the circumstances, and had not taken the trouble to inquire into them.
The East Ham Borough Council, which that day had taken this startling action, was the first of the authorities under the Act of 1892 to positively refuse to carry out their obligations with regard to education. Now, what were the Government going to do in this matter? The remedy provided by the Act was that of applying for a mandamus. Were the Government going to imprison the mayor and corporation of East Ham? He warned them if they did that there were forty or fifty other districts which they would have to serve in the same way, districts which had met a national obligation out of local rates. For thirty-five years Parliament had maintained a scheme of grants-in-aid to districts of this kind. By the Act of 1892 that was all swept away. The protest which he had made in that House passed almost unheeded, and the whole scheme of relief was swept away and a new one instituted, under which money was given to districts which did not require it, while others which greatly needed it were left to do the best they could to meet their difficulties. What were the Government going to do with regard to this matter?
658
He felt it his duty to ask what information the Government had received with regard to it, and, above all, what steps they proposed to take to see that the education of the children was continued. When they met again they would be within four weeks of the date of the shutting up of these schools. He knew how the difficulty had gone on increasing in this borough; he had worked in the neighbourhood for thirteen years, and he knew how it had increased year by year until it became intolerable, and he appealed to the Government not to drive these people to desperation, and not to encourage others to follow the example thus set, but to recognise at once that they were face to face with a difficulty more serious than any he could recollect in connection with municipal government. If the action of the East Ham Borough Council was followed, as he was advised it would be, it would place the Government in a position of the greatest difficulty, and, if not met sympathetically and promptly, it would defy the best efforts of any Government to deal with it. It was under these circumstances that he asked his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education what action he proposed to take.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOE IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,)said that he wished to answer one charge brought against him by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division—the charge of disloyalty to his predecessor in office. That charge he repudiated emphatically. It was founded on the allegation that in the second Answer to a Question he had unsaid all that he stated in the first Answer. That was grossly incorrect.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that that was not his foundation for the charge of disloyalty against the right hon. Gentleman. The foundation was that the right

659
hon. Gentleman had entirely repudiated the policy indicated in a statement made by the right hon. Member for Dover.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that he was charged with disloyalty, then, because he stated as plainly as he could to the House that, as long as he remained Chief Secretary, he should consider himself responsible for all that was done in his Department, and that he intended to know all that was done by his subordinates. If he was to be condemned for that, he accepted condemnation. The second charge was that he had behaved disloyally to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Dover. Was he disloyal to the right hon. Member for Dover because he declared that he was unable to accept what he understood to be his right hon. friend's description of the Under-Secretary's position—namely, that it was the position of a colleague and not of an ordinary member of the Civil Service? Neither his predecessor nor the Under-Secretary could hold that what he had said on that point was either disloyal or inaccurate in its description of the constitutional relations between the Chief Secretary and the Under-Secretary. He felt that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover did his best for the Government and the country, and therefore he was not likely to be disloyal to him in his absence.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he desired to ask the counsel and the advice of the Secretary to the Board of Education in a case of difficulty with regard to the administration of the Education Act. It was the case of the village of Marston St. Lawrence, in Northamptonshire. In this and in
660
many other villages in England there was great anxiety with respect to what might befall them under the Education Act. In this case the village school, which was built by a private owner, had been carried on for more than a generation as a Church school, and had now come under the control of the Northampton County Council for the purposes of secular education. It had been the custom in this school to take the children to church on certain days, and this custom had been continued by the present managers, who had control of the religious instruction. In order to comply with the law, the managers had kept the school open during the time the children were at church, and an assistant master was present to give secular instruction to any child who had been withdrawn from religious instruction. On Monday, March 27th, one of the county council's inspectors made his appearance at the school, turned out the children, closed the school altogether, and told the head teacher and the children to go to a school a mile away, and the assistant teacher to go to a school five miles away. The parents of the children were indignant at the school's being disturbed in this way. He wished to know what justification the county council had for a proceeding of this kind, a proceeding that had been threatened in other cases. He understood that their excuse for this high-handed proceeding was that the managers had disregarded a by-law which they had passed to the effect that the children should not be taken to church. He ventured to say that conduct of that kind was distinctly illegal. The Act provided that the managers should carry out any direction of the local authority as to secular education, but a direction that the children should not be taken to church

661
could not be construed as a direction as to secular instruction. Moreover, he did not know that any power was given to a local authority to close a school. The only power that was given to them was, if the managers failed to carry out such a direction, to carry out the direction themselves as if they were the managers. The Act also provided that religious instruction given in a public elementary school not provided by a local education authority should be under the control of the managers. According to the Act the managers, and not the local education authority, had the control of the religious instruction. Therefore, the conduct of the local education authority was wrong in three particulars. In the first place, they had no right to make such a by law; in the second place, if the by-law was valid, they had no right to close the school; and thirdly, they were acting in direct defiance of the Act of Parliament which said that the control of religious instruction should be in the hands of the managers. This was a case that might occur in any village in the country. This was not a matter of religious sentiment. It was a matter of the observance of the law, and he wanted to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education what protection the managers of village schools J had. These schools had been of Very great use in the education of the country, and they were of very great use still. What protection had the managers if the local authority first of all made illegal by-laws, and then enforced them by methods that violated the Act of Parliament which gave to the managers he control of religious instruction in the schools?
THE PAKLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,)said he would first deal with the case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. It was not the case that the local education authority of Northamptonshire made a by-law forbidding the children to go to church. The ordinary form of by-law required the children to be at school during the time that the school was open, and the local education authority announced that they were not prepared to regard attendance at church as attendance at school. They further said that if the children were to comply with that bye-law they would have to be at school during the whole time the school was open. They, however, adopted a new form of by-law which enabled the parents, after notice, to withdraw a child from the school during the period of religious instruction, and, therefore, there would be no difficulty whatever, if the parents desired it, in the children's attending church during the period of religious instruction without any violation of the by laws. The local authority further announced that they were prepared to give ten days holiday in the year, on days of religious observance, in order that the children might be taken to-church. But they did give a direction, which they were perfectly well entitled to give, that the school was to be opened at 9 o'clock, and that secular instruction was to begin at 9.45 and continue thenceforward until the end of the school session. What was done by the managers was in contravention of the direction of the local education authority as to secular instruction. On certain days they altered the time-table without reference to the local authority, and began secular

663
instruction at 9 and continued it until 11, when they took the children to church. The managers were deaf to remonstrance, and at the beginning of March they were informed that at the end of the month the school would no longer be maintained by the local authority. So far everything was regular. But the inspector of the local authority was sent to the school to make arrangements for the teachers in the event of their desiring to leave, and he believed that what passed when the inspector visited the school exceeded the intention and the right of the local authority, and certainly the duty of the inspector, for he made an announcement to the children which was practically to the effect that the school was closed. The local authority had no right to close a school. They might refuse to maintain a school, and whether they were justified in doing so was a matter for the Board of Education to consider. In this case, the managers having violated the direction of the local authority in regard to -secular education, the local authority would have been justified in refusing to maintain the school. But they were not justified in closing the school. Correspondence had been carried on which there was every reason to hope would result in an arrangement by which the managers would carry out the instructions of the local authority.
With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for West Ham, the extreme gravity of which he quite admitted, he could only say that, as the facts had only just been brought to his notice, he could not be expected to suggest a remedy offhand; he could only say that he would be glad if the hon. Member would communicate with him on the subject, and
664
it should receive the best attention of the Board of Education.
MR. BOLANDcalled attention to the notice which had been given to terminate the steamer service on the south-west coast of Ireland to which the Congested Districts Board had for several years generously given a subsidy, and pointed out that the carrying out of this proposal would put his constituency, and neighbouring constituencies, in an unfortunate position. The immediate result of terminating the steamer service would be to give the Great Southern and Western Railway Company a monopoly in the district. The charge he made was that the Congested Districts Board in the terms made with the railway company had not sufficiently safeguarded the interests of the people of the Sneem district. The Congested Districts Board had succeeded in getting some through rates, but these rates were 20 to 50 per cent, higher than used to be the case when the steamer service was in existence. This was an extremely serious matter, for in the district of Sneem the people had agreed to purchase their holdings at high figures. If, in addition to paying these high prices, they had to pay increased rates for transit, a very serious state of affairs would occur. The Congested Districts Board considered it a good stroke of business to have arranged with the railway company to put on a service of carts twice a week between Kenmare and the village of Sneem. That service would be inadequate to convey the goods formerly brought to the village by steamer. He found that cement which was previously carried at 7s. 6d. per ton would now cost 11s. 4d., and the rate for

665
sugar would be increased from 11s. 6d. to I 14s. 9d. If time permitted he could give more instances of the same kind. Owing to the defective state of Kenmare harbour, which was at present, served by a steamer, the proprietors of that steamer had given notice that unless the harbour was improved the steamer would be withdrawn, and so the railway would have the monopoly of the service for the whole of that district.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he could only deal with this matter with the permission of the House. The facts in relation to the question raised by the hon. Gentleman were in dispute. The hon. Gentleman believed that the railway company had been able to establish a monopoly in the district, and had increased their rates. His information was that the railway company had not increased their rates, and that a monopoly had been prevented by the action of the Congested Districts Board. But if the hon. Gentleman would provide him with fuller details afterwards in support of the statement he had just made, he would look into the matter himself and see if anything could be done in the matter to rectify the grievance complained of. As to the dredging of Kenmare harbour, he was informed that that was a difficult and expensive operation and had only a temporary effect. The question raised by the hon. Member was a large one, and could not be dealt with by Answer across the floor of the House. He was anxious to do what he could to help the different traders in the district to get their produce to market, and any information the hon. Gentleman could furnish him with would be carefully considered.
MR. MACVEAGHsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had made a statement in regard to the new rules issued by the National Education Board of Ireland which was in many respects satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman interpreted the understanding with the Treasury as meaning that no teachers would suffer loss under these new rules; but he thought that anyone who had studied the terms of the agree, ment would see that they did not bear out the rather wide interpretation which the Chief Secretary had made.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that what he had stated was that the National Board of Education, realising that the application of these rules in their strictest sense might lead to loss of income to certain teachers, desired to prevent any loss, and he thought that the hon. Gentleman would find that that would be the resut of the decision arrived at.
MR. MACVEAGHsaid that what he asked for was the protection of the teachers of those schools who had not accepted the principle of amalgamation. The right hon. Gentleman must know that the rules had produced a great deal of discontent and unpopularity, and that many managers had announced that they did not intend to consent to amalgamation. He thought it would allay the discontent and uneasiness felt if they could get from the right hon Gentleman a statement that this arrangement would apply to schools which did not accept amalgamation as well as to schools which did accept amalgamation. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had no control over the National Board of Education,

667
which was an absolutely irresponsible body and could bid defiance to the right hon. Gentleman and refuse to carry out his suggestions. He also understood that the right hon. Gentleman's recommendation to the Treasury had been treated with contempt. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman recognised that the discontent and uneasiness on the part of the teachers was perfectly natural and that the rights of all teachers should be safeguarded and that all should be treated alike. He hoped that the new rules would not be enforced until this matter had been[made absolutely clear.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he would give the matter his best consideration.
MR. NOLANsaid he would like to draw attention to the very unfortunate state of affairs which had arisen in his constituency by the arbitrary action of the Local Government Board in Ireland, of which the right hon. Gentleman was the head. He had tried to draw attention to the matter before in the form of a Question, but, with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he must complain that he had not received anything like a satisfactory Answer, although he did not complain of the right hon. Gentleman himself. What had occurred was that in one of three electoral divisions of the Poor Law District of Ardee the Local Government Board had stepped in owing to some dispute with regard to salaries and had suppressed one of the dispensaries, with the result that many poor people who required medical relief now had to travel eleven or twelve miles across country to obtain it, and the medical officer, when
668
called upon, had to travel eleven or twelve miles to the patient. That was the state of affairs brought about deliberately by the pig-headed action of some of the officials of the Local Government Board, in spite of the strong protests of the board of guardians and every ratepayer in the district. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would look into this matter.
MR. JOHN O'DONNELLasked if the Chief Secretary for Ireland would use his holiday to inquire personally into the matter referred to by the hon. Member for South Down and to see whether all the managers of the schools were satisfied. There could be no doubt that the rules as they stood were detrimental; that was agreed by all and concurred in by the Bishops, whose opinion was not to be despised in this matter.
MR. WALTER LONG: I have already said I will consider the matter.
MR. NOLANsaid he hoped when Parliament met again that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to take a wider view of the various subjects with which he had to deal.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved. "That this House do now adjourn until Tuesday, May 2nd."—(Mr A. J. Balfour.)
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes after Seven o'clock, till Tuesday, May 2nd