Commons Sitting of 8 August 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Bristol Corporation Bill; Heckmondwike Improvement Bill; Wigan Corporation Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
South Barracas (Buenos Ayres) Gas and Coke Company Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That, in the case of the South Barracas (Buenos Ayres) Gas and Coke Company Bill [Lords], Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Fraserburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill [Lords]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Administrative County of London and District Electric Power Company Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Newry, Keady, and Tynan Light Railway Bill; North-East London Railway Bill; London Building Acts (Amendment) Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—Oldham and Saddleworth District Tramways Bill [Lords]; Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Various Powers) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITION.
  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN BILL.
  Petition from West Bromwich, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS (SOLDIERS AND SAILORS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Ordered 22nd May; Sir Howard Vincent]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 314.]
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CONTRACTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Ordered 20th July; Sir Howard Vincent]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 315.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Return for the year ended 31st March, 1905, of the Army and Navy Officers permitted, under Rule 2 of the Regulations drawn up under Section 6 of the Act, to hold Civil Employment of profit under Public Departments [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 316.]
  PERMANENT CHARGES COMMUTATION.
  Copy presented, of Return of Permanent Charges on the Consolidated Fund or Votes of Parliament which have been redeemed in the period between the 1st July, 1898, and the 5th August, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade on their Proceedings and Business under the Weights and Measures Acts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 317.]
  Copy presented, of Report of the Pacific Cable Conference, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Astronomer - Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POSTAL CONVENTION (SWEDEN).
  Copy presented, of Agreement between the Post Office of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post Office of Sweden, dated 10th-26th May, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3473 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GRADUATED INCOME-TAXES (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 2, 1905).
  Copies presented, of Reports from His Majesty's Representatives Abroad respecting Graduated Income-Taxes in Foreign States [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy ordered, "of Statement of the amount expended by Boards of Guardians for In-maintenance and Out-door Relief in England and Wales during the half-year ended Ladyday, 1905; and similar Statement for the half-year ending Michaelmas, l905."—(Mr. Jeffreys.)
  Address "for Copy of the Treaty of Arbitration concluded between Argentina and Chile."—(Mr. Cremer.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Turbary Rights on the Granard Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the sale of the Granard (county Longford) Estate the various tenants were allotted turbary, which was conveyed in most cases by endorsement on the back of their agreements or vesting orders; and that in the case
  594
  of Thomas Whitney a portion of bog was so reserved and marked on Derawley Bog No. 2; and will he cause inquiry to be made as to why Whitney was deprived, and is yet deprived, of this turbary.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The facts are substantially as stated in the first and second inquiries. The Land Commission have no information as to the third inquiry, but if it be the fact that Whitney has been deprived of turbary to which he is entitled, his remedy is against those who have so deprived him. The matter is not one in which the Land Commission can intervene.

  The Rev. Marshall Vincent's Estate at Rapla, near Nenagh.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have recently declared the holdings of nine tenants on the Rev. Marshall Vincent's estate at Rapla, near Nenagh, to be a separate estate, although they had previously refused to do so; that, whilst these nine holdings have been created since 1902, the four old tenants, whose predecessors had been on the estate for generations, are not enabled to purchase their holdings; that a condition sought to be imposed by the landlord when negotiating for sale to one of the four old tenants was that he should purchase an evicted farm in addition to his own; and can he state the nature of the correspondence and inquiries which caused the Estates Commissioners to change their mind on the question of the sale.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The holdings in question wore declared an "estate" and vested in the purchasing tenants on August 4th, 1904. The tenancies date from 1902, and were created for the enlargement of the holdings in the occupation of the purchasing tenants. Before finally declaring the lands an "estate," the Commissioners made inquiries as to the lands which the vendor asked to have excluded from the sale; and, on perusing the correspondence which had passed between the vendor's solicitor and the

  595
  solicitor for the tenants, were satisfied that the application of the vendor was reasonable.

  Cost of Upkeep of Deal and Walmer Castles.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state how much has been expended upon the up-keep of Walmer and Deal Castles, respectively, during the last ten years; and whether the cost of maintenance and repair of these castles will be given each year in the Estimates in future.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The average annual expenditure for the years 1894–5 to 1903–4 was as follows, namely: Deal, £145; Walmer, £202. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.

  The Porte and the Scheme for the Financial Control of Macedonia.
  MR. NOELBUXTON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to insist upon the Sublime Porte's acceptance of the scheme of financial control of Macedonia.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) His Majesty's Government, in common with the other Powers, are insisting upon the acceptance by the Porte of the scheme which the Powers are unanimous in considering as indispensable for the tranquillity and good government of the Macedonian provinces.

  Macedonia—Dismissal of Corrupt Officials.
  MR. NOEL BUXTON: To ask the Under - Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Finance Commission for Macedonia will have power to secure the dismissal of corrupt officials.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) As I informed the hon. Member for Chester on the 25th July†, the Finance Commission will be empowered to deal with all matters affecting the financial administration of the vilayets. Corruption among officials is manifestly incompatible with efficiency of administration.
  † See (4) Debates, cl., 186.

  Franking of Letters by Members of Parlia- ment.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will take into consideration the advisability of allowing Members of Parliament, when attending the House, to post free of charge all correspondence from the House of Commons.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The Act 3 and 4 Vic, c. 96, expressly abolished certain privileges of free postage which Members of Parliament had previously enjoyed. I do not think it would be right to introduce legislation for the purpose of restoring any privileges of this character.

  Appointment of Post Office Learners— Case of Miss M. A. Heary, of Drogheda.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that a Miss M. A. Heary competed at an examination for the position of paid learner and took first place in the Drogheda Post Office and has not yet been appointed, although other learners who failed to pass the Civil Service examination have been appointed, and whether he will inquire into the circumstances why Miss Heary has been passed over; and will he give a Return of the names, ages, and salaries of those now serving in the Drogheda Post Office as sorters or telegraphists who have not passed a Civil Service examination.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Miss Heary competed for the position of unpaid (not paid) learner at Drogheda and took first place. She will shortly be given paid employment, and she would have been employed earlier if she had not refused to accept unpaid employment, although by so doing she might have qualified earlier for paid employment. None of the other competitors have yet been given permanent employment, but one of them who was already fully qualified has succeeded in obtaining temporary employment as relief substitute. Miss Heary was not, and is not yet, qualified for this duty. There is no sorter or telegraphist in the Drogheda Post Office who has not passed a Civil Service examination.

  Fraudulent Withdrawals from the Post Office Savings Bank.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of cases of attempted fraudulent withdrawal of money from the Post Office Savings Bank under the systems of withdrawal by telegraph and by telegraph notice of withdrawal; will he state in how many cases these efforts have succeeded; and of what sum the Department and depositors have been respectively defrauded.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The statistics asked for by the hon. Member could not be compiled without the expenditure of considerable time and labour in searching the records of the Savings Bank since 1893. I may say, however, that the total loss falling on Savings Bank funds during 1004, as the result of fraudulent withdrawals by telegraph and return of post, was £103 12s. 8d. When it is remembered that the total withdrawals during that year amounted to nearly £42,000,000, while the amount withdrawn by the two methods in question was £901,984, I think it must be admitted that the precautions taken against fraud work very satisfactorily. No loss falls upon depositors in the case of fraudulent withdrawals, except when they voluntarily elect to give a discharge for the amount.

  Post Office Officials and Orange Demon- strations.
  MR, MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that William Hughes, a clerk in the Lurgan Post Office, marched through Lurgan in an Orange procession on 12th July wearing a sash and regalia; and whether Hughes will be censured for breach of regulations.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state how many postal officials marched in the Orange procession in Maghera, county Derry, on 12th July; and whether they have been censured for their action.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have no information regarding the Orange procession referred to, and I am not aware
  598
  that there has been any breach of regulations.

  Postal Services at Ballyroney, County Down.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters posted in Ballyroney, county Dowrn, frequently take three days in transit to Edinburgh, Manchester, and London, and vice versa; and whether he will direct inquiries to be made with a view to expediting the despatch and the delivery of letters in that district.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will make inquiry with regard to the services at Ballyroney and communicate further with the hon. Member.

  Factory Inspectors in Ireland—Appoint ment of Irishmen.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department it he will state how many male and female inspectors of factories are working in Ireland; whether he is aware that most, if not all, of these officials are English; and whether he will explain why he has not found it possible to appoint an Irishman to the office.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) Six men inspectors, one lady inspector, and two inspectors' assistants are stationed in Ireland; and, in addition to these, other inspectors visit for special purposes. I am unable to say what is the nationality of these officers. Factory inspectors are liable to serve in any part of the United Kingdom, and in the interests of the public service are from time to time transferred from one district to another; and the question of nationality is not considered in connection with their appointment.

  Arsenical Poisoning—Appointment of Special Inspectors.
  SIR CUTHBERT QUILTER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, with a view to giving effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning, the arrangements foreshadowed in his predecessor's statement have now been effected; whether

  599
  the special inspector and assistant inspector, for whose expenses provision was made in the Estimates this year, have been appointed; and, if so, what is the precise nature of the duties allotted to them.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) An inspector has been appointed, and arrangements are being proceeded with as to an assistant inspector. It is the duty of the inspector to advise the Local Government Board as to the administration of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts and other similar Acts, to deal with matters relating to the purity and adulteration of food which are brought to the Board's notice by public analysts, medical officers of health, and others, to obtain information upon special questions relating to the purity and adulteration of food and the use of deleterious substances therein, and to make suitable inquiries and investigations for this purpose. The inspector will make a report, which will be included in the annual report of the Board's medical officer, under whose direction he will act.

  Dust Destructors and the Public Health.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will instruct the Board's medical inspector to report to what extent dust destructors, similar to that erected by the City of Westminster in the vicinity of Commercial Road, Lambeth, are prejudicial to public health.
  (Answered, by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Local Government Board have not received any complaint with regard to the destructor referred to, nor am I aware that there is any evidence to show that modern destructors cause nuisance or injury to the health of the populations in their neighbourhood. I do not at present see any sufficient reason to direct a general inquiry on this subject, but I will instruct one of the medical inspectors of the Board to report to me as to the particular destructor above mentioned.

  Administration of Poor Laws—Publica- tion of Reports.
  SIR BENJAMIN STONE: To ask the President of the
  600
  Local Government Board if the volume of extracts from the information received by His Majesty's Commissioners on the administration of the Poor Laws (1833), and the Report of His Majesty's Commissioners on the administration and practical operation of Poor Laws (1834), can be reprinted and circulated to Members of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I will make inquiry with regard to this and see what can best be done in the matter.

  Franchise of North British Railway Surfacemen.
  MR. BELL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that it is the custom on the North British Railway system in Peebles-shire to enter the cottages of the surfacemen in the names of the wives, and thereby to deprive the men of the franchise; and, if so, whether he will use his good offices with the board of the North British Railway Company to remedy this state of affairs.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I have no knowledge of the arrangements to which reference is made, and the matter is not one in which the Board of Trade could intervene.

  Coolie Labour in British North Borneo.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the fact that under the charter of the North British Borneo Company that company is required to have its head office in England, will he state why the regulations under which Chinese coolies are imported, registered, and hired out by the company to tobacco and other planters are not obtainable from that office by the Foreign Office; is he now in possession of information regarding the number of coolies imported into British North Borneo, the percentage of mortality from natural causes, and the percentage of deaths from floggings; and will the British representative arrange for this and other information relative to the government of the company's territory to be given in future in his annual reports.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) I have already informed the hon. Member that

  601
  no coolie contractor is employed by the company. His Majesty's Government have ascertained that the head office of the British North Borneo Company in England is not able to supply the other information required by the lion. Member, but the directors have been requested to obtain the necessary particulars from North Borneo. The company will be further requested to include the matters referred to by the hon. Member in their annual report.

  Annual Leave and Overtime Pay of Assistant Clerks in the Public Service.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in offices where overtime is worked assistant clerks (new class) doing similar work to second-division clerks receive the same overtime rates as messengers, viz., 9d. per hour; and whether he proposes to take any steps to remove this inequality.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that messengers are allowed twenty-one days annual leave, while assistant clerks (new class) receive only fourteen days during the first ten years of service, and a maximum of eighteen days throughout the remainder of their service; and whether he proposes to remedy this inequality.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his Question of yesterday† on the subject of assistant clerks.

  Civil Service Writers' Pensions.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that some registered Civil Service writers, who have been promoted to permanent posts in the service, are allowed to count the whole of their previous temporary service towards pension, while others who belonged to the same class and who entered the service under similar regulations as to pensions are allowed on similar promotion to count only one-half of their temporary service, amounting in some cases to thirteen-sixtieths of their salary; and, if
  † See page 349.
  602
  so, whether he will see that the latter are granted a similar concession.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I am not prepared to make any alteration in the existing regulations.

  The Scottish Census of 1901.
  SIR ARTHUR BIGNOLD: To ask the Lord-Advocate if the Census which was taken upon the night of March 31st, 1901, includes the names of Scottish seamen and Scottish women and children who were on that night in British vessels on the high seas or abroad.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) Persons on board vessels on the high seas or abroad were not included in the Scottish Census. The shipping population given in the Scottish Census Report includes only persons on board ship in the various harbours, docks, and roadsteads in Scotland or sailing in Scottish waters on the night of the Census, March 31st. 1901.

  Date of Payment of Grant Under the Estate Duty (Agricultural Rates, etc) (Scotland) Act.
  MR. MAXWELL: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether, seeing that payments under the Estate Duty (Agricultural Rates, etc.) (Scotland) Act are not made to the county and parish authorities until the months of November and December each year, and that an unspent balance, amounting to £91,405, was in hand on March 31st, 1905, arrangements can be made to pay one-half, if not the whole, of the grant to the various county and parish authorities at a much earlier date than November.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) It is hoped to issue the grant in full this year at an earlier date than hitherto, and in future years to issue an instalment of about half the grant about the end of May.

  Scholars Carrying Peats to School in Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that scholars attending the public schools at Gravir, Lemreway, and Kershader, Island of Lewis, are in the habit of carrying peats to school, regardless of the Order issued some years

  603
  ago prohibiting this practice; and will he take such steps as he may deem expedient with a view to prevent this Order being allowed to lapse in outlying districts in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Department to show that the views conveyed in their circular of January, 1894, as to the practice of carrying peats to school, are being disregarded. In view of that circular and the subsequent letter to the school board of Lochs in October, 1902, the matter can be further dealt with only on receipt of specific complaints from parents or other sufficient evidence that the views of the Department on the subject are being disregarded.

  Revenue Derived from Duty on Cocoa Butter.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give the total amount of public revenue yielded by the duty on cocoa butter since its imposition; and what was the yield of the duty in the twelve months ending July 31st, 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The total amount of public revenue yielded by the duty on cocoa butter since its imposition, viz., from August 7th, 1896, to July 31st, 1905, was £23,065. The yield of the duty in the twelve months ended July 31st, 1905, was £1,783.

  Indian Army—Establishment of Generals and Lieutenant-Generals.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, as the establishment of generals and lieutenant-generals for the Indian Army was laid down by the recent Royal Warrant at three generals and five lieutenant-generals, and that there are now two vacancies on the generals' list, two on the lieutenant-generals' list, and four on the major-generals' list, steps will be taken at once to make the necessary promotions; and whether the rule requiring three years service in the rank of lieutenant-general before promotion to the rank of general will now be dispensed with, seeing that under the terms of the Royal Warrant such pro-
  604
  motion is to be made by seniority, and that no similar rule exists in the British service for retarding the promotion of lieutenant-generals.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The establishment of three generals and five lieutenant-generals is as stated, but the rule requiring three years service in the rank of lieutenant-general has been made deliberately to prevent either congestion or unduly rapid promotion and consequent injury to officers, and therefore I do not propose to dispense with it. The vacancies among the lieutenant-generals will be filled up in due course. There is no establishment of major-generals, but the number (twenty-two) is a maximum which permits of promotion being made when required. It is obviously not advisable to maintain it continually at its limit.

  Director of Public Instruction in Bengal.
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the office of Director of Public Instruction in Bengal is likely to be shortly vacant; and whether he will direct that the office shall be filled by some person of experience in educational work in India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on the 3rd instant† to a Question by the hon. Member for West Donegal on this subject. I see no reason to interfere with the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor in filling up the appointment referred to.

  Cavalry Officers in India—Chargers and Saddlery.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for India why cavalry officers in India are ordered to pay for a second charger and saddlery, when horses and equipment are supplied free at home.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Officers of British mounted units in India are at present permitted to hire one charger each at a rate of £10 a year.
  †See page 80.

  605
  Arrangements are contemplated for allowing in future each officer two chargers under the same conditions. For each authorised charger an allowance of thirty rupees a month is given for upkeep and saddlery. In view of the circumstances of Indian life, in which every British officer maintains one or more horses at his own expense, the issue of chargers free of cost is considered unnecessary.

  Grants to Evicted Tenants on Lord Annaly's Estate at Rathcline.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the case of Charles McDermott and others, evicted tenants on the estate of Lord Annaly, in the parish of Rathcline, the Estates Commissioners will make some grants to them for the purpose of assisting them to rebuild their houses and out-offices on restoration after being evicted.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The advances on the sale of this estate were made under the 40th Section of the Act of 1896, and the Commissioners, therefore, have no power, under the Act of 1903, to make grants for the purpose mentioned.

  The Brownville Estate.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the action of the Congested Districts Board in the matter of the Brownville Estate, recently purchased by that body; and whether he will explain why the Board has distributed the untenanted land on that estate amongst persons living more than ten miles distant, though there are occupiers living in the vicinity on uneconomic holdings; and why the Board intend putting up for sale one of the houses which they have built on the estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Board purchased this estate for the benefit of persons from congested districts, who will be migrated to it. There is no power to allot any of the land to neighbouring tenants who do not reside in a congested district. None of the land has yet been distributed. Brownville
  606
  House, which the Board propose to sell as a residential property, is not suitable for a small landowner. The Board did not build this house; it was bought with the estate.

  Condition of the Royal Canal, Dublin.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state who is responsible for the condition of the Royal Canal at Dublin; whether, seeing that this canal was constructed at the public expense to develop the resources of the country, he will say to what extent and by whom it is now used as a means of transit for goods; whether he will have steps taken to compel those responsible, to keep it free from weeds and other rubbish, and to keep its banks in such a condition as will make it safe for pedestrians was king along the canal; and whether he will consider the advisability of utilising the system of canals in Ireland to secure a free competition with the railway companies.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) It is presumed the hon. Member's Question refers to the Broadstone branch of the Royal Canal, which is the property of, and is worked and managed by, the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland. I understand that the company are taking steps to have this branch closed; and this measure, if carried out, should lead to a great improvement in the direction desired by the hon. Member. In this connection I am unable to express an opinion on the question of general policy raised in the last part of the hon. Member's Question.

  Application of Tullamore Urban District Council for Loan to erect Labourers' Houses.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Tullamore Urban Council, in King's County, having applied for a loan for the erection of labourers' houses, has been called upon by the Local Government Board to adopt a new sewerage scheme which would involve a heavy charge upon the ratepayers; will he say whether such a sewerage scheme and consequent rate

  607
  is to be made a condition upon satisfying the local want of better housing for labourers; whether he is aware that the amount of irrecoverable arrears of rates, due by tenants on slum properties in Tullamore, is increasing; and whether the Irish Local Government Board will consider the merits of the proposed loan for labourers' houses apart from any general sewerage question, the average health of Tullamore being good.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In 1900 the Local Government Board had before them a petition from the Tullamore Urban District Council for a Provisional Order to enable them to carry out a scheme under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, involving an expenditure of £6,500; but, inasmuch as the unexhausted borrowing powers of the council would not enable them to defray the cost of such a scheme, the Board were unable to make the requisite Provisional Order. In December, 1901, the Board approved of a loan of £2,250 for the erection of twelve, houses. This loan was sanctioned on the understanding that a margin of borrowing power was to be rendered available for the purpose of improving the sewerage of the district, which was in an unsatisfactory and defective condition. Before considering the application which has been made for a further loan, the Board have asked the council to ascertain definitely what expenditure is necessary for sewerage purposes.

  Contract for Erection of Tobacco Barn near Tullamore.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether tenders for the erection of the tobacco barn near Tullamore, as proposed by the Agriculture and Industries Department, have been invited by advertisement in the local Press; whether any tender has been accepted, and, if so, who is the contractor and what is the amount of the tender; upon whose estate will the building be erected, and will it be fitted with steam-heating plant for curing the tobacco leaf; and whether he can state the estimated cost of the King's County experiments and the number of acres of land to be acquired for tobacco growing.
  608
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Tenders were not invited by advertisements in the local Press, but a few contractors were asked to submit estimates. The tender of Messrs. T. P. and R. Goodbody was accepted, the amount being £625. The barn will be erected on the farm of Messrs. P. and G. Richardson, Mullacrew, Tullamore. The system of heating has not yet been decided on. It is estimated that the cost to the Department of the experiment will not exceed £1,000. Ten acres will be utilised for the purpose.

  Treatment of British Indians in African Colonies.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the negotiations he was carrying on regarding the proposal to appoint an independent Commission to inquire into and report on the whole subject of the status and treatment of British Indian residents in the African Colonies have terminated; and, if so, will he state what decision he has arrived at.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyitelton.) The question of the appointment of a Commission is still under consideration, and I am not in a position to announce any decision at present.

  New Guns for the 4th West Yorks Volun- teer Artillery.
  MR. J. P. HOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can say if the 4th West Yorks Volunteer Artillery will be provided at an early date with modern efficient guns, in whatever capacity they are to continue to exist.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) It is not possible at the present time to give any definite reply to this Question, for reasons which have already been explained to the House.

  The Future of the Militia.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the remark in the last Report of the Inspector-General for Recruiting that statements as to impending changes in

  609
  the Militia have detrimentally affected recruiting, if it is possible to make any announcement with regard to the future of the Militia, such as might have been made upon the Government Bills recently withdrawn; whether recruiting for those Garrison Artillery Militia units in Ireland, which had been suspended pending decision as to the retention of the units, has been resumed; or whether Militia recruiting in Ireland remains partially suspended.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I informed the House some time ago that, owing to the steps which had been taken by the Army Council to enforce a higher standard of qualifications in the recruit, it was probable that some falling off in the numbers recruited would be at first apparent. I am glad to be able to state that this falling off, which was noticeable in the earlier part of the year, is now rapidly disappearing, and that in the week ended July 29th more men were recruited for the Militia than in the corresponding week of last year. No change is at present contemplated in the constitution of the Militia, the Bill authorising the enlistment of Militiamen for service abroad in time of war having been withdrawn. Recruiting for the four units of Garrison Artillery Militia in Ireland, referred to in the Question, is still suspended.

  Purchase of Foreign Motor-Cars by the War Office.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Department have purchased or are in negotiation to purchase, or are proposing to purchase, 350 or any number of motor-cars of foreign make; and, if so, what are the particulars.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The reply is in the negative.

  The British China Squadron.
  MR. WILLIAM KESWICK: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is in contemplation to reduce the number of British ships of War upon the China station; and, it so,
  610
  in regard to what class of ships and to what extent in each class.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) No further reduction is contemplated.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Flogging in the Navy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will consider the advisability of placing in the Naval Exhibition specimens of the cat-o'-nine-tails which are kept and the birches and canes which are used on board ships of the Royal Navy, in addition to the other articles associated with life on board the King's ships.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): No, Sir, I do not think the general public take as much interest in these articles as the hon. Member does.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The hon. Gentleman is aware that these articles are paid for under Vote 8 of the Navy Estimates. On that account, ought they not to be seen by those who pay for them? I will make a fair compromise. Will the hon. Gentleman show them to the officers and men of the French fleet?
  MR. WEIR: Could they not be placed in the tea-room, so that we may inspect them?
  MR. WHITLEY: Can they not be placed at the service of the Patronage Secretary of the Treasury?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Contracts for Supplies to Irish Troops.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, though the Government has a large farm at Lusk, county of Dublin, on which a large amount of hay is annually grown, the hay so grown was sold previous to the recent military manœuvres in the neighbourhood

  611
  whether foreign-grown hay had, in consequence, to be bought in Liverpool for the use of the calvary; if so, why was the home-grown hay sold, and at what price was it sold, and at what price (freight included) was the foreign hay bought; was the beef supplied to the troops during the manœuvres obtained in Ireland or abroad, and at what price; does the contract allow the contractor to supply home or foreign beef; were any complaints made of the beef supplied, or was any condemned as unfit for use; do the medical officers inspect and report on the foodstuffs supplied to the troops; and who is responsible for the forage and food arrangements respectively.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): Only nineteen tons of hay, which was two years old and reported to be unsuitable for feeding the horses, were sold to make room for the new crop. The farm produces 150 tons a year. As regards the supply of beef, home-bred beef is always insisted on in this command, and no complaints have been made and no meat has been condemned. It is not usual for medical officers to inspect rations for troops at any station; the responsible officers are those appointed specially for that purpose in each command and district.

  Lancashire Fusiliers Stationed in Pretoria —Death-Rate.
  *SIR LEES KNOWLES: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the death-rate among the 3rd Battalion of the Lancashire Fusiliers, stationed in Pretoria, and to the fact that as many as fifteen men have died in three weeks; and whether he can give any information upon the subject.
  MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: No information to the effect mentioned in the Question has reached the War Office. A special report has been called for.
  *SIR LEES KNOWLES: If the report is to the effect that the statement in the Question is true, will my right hon. friend institute an inquiry as to the cause and remedy?
  MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: I should like to know the facts before giving an Answer to that Question.

  Crœsus Gold Mine—Alleged Cruelty to a Native.
  MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received the promised report upon the case of cruelty to a native by a contractor at the Crœsus Gold Mine, Langlaagte, on May 8th last; and whether he can now inform the House what steps will be taken to prevent a repetition of such cruelty.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): I have not yet received the report. I would refer the hon. Member to what I said in the discussion on the Colonial Office Vote as to the determination to put down any such illegal practices.

  Railway Construction in Northern Nigeria.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to announce when a railway is to be sanctioned in Northern Nigeria from a point on the river to Zaria; and whether the proposed railway will be a light or a heavy one.
  MR. LYTTELTON: No decision has been arrived at as to the construction of a railway in Northern Nigeria.

  Kaffir Outrages in Natal.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make representations to the Government of Natal as to the dissatisfaction in many districts of that colony amongst the white population, on account of the number of stock thefts which are committed by Kaffirs, and for which Kaffirs, when caught, receive no adequate punishment; and as to the insufficient protection afforded to white women from, criminal assaults and outrages at the hands of Kaffirs.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I am not prepared to make such representations. I have

  613
  already pointed out that these matters rest with the responsible Government of Natal. If there is ground for the dissatisfaction to which the hon. Member refers, the matter would naturally be brought up in the local Legislature or by way of petition from the inhabitants addressed to the Government.
  MR. COGHILLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the farmers, being unable to get adequate protection from their own Government, were contemplating a system of lynch law.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Tibetan Treaty Arrangements — Opium Traffic.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state whether, in the new treaty arrangements recently concluded with Tibet, opium is made an article of commerce; if so, under what tariff or other regulations; and where the details can be found.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The Tibetan Convention of September 7th, 1904, provided for an amendment of the Regulations of 1893 as to trade, but the question of such amendment has not yet been discussed with the Tibetan government. The Regulations of 1893 provided that the import and export trades in certain articles, including narcotic drugs, "may, at the option of either Government, be entirely prohibited, or permitted only on such conditions as either Government on their own side may think fit to impose." The trade returns of the Government of India and those of the Chinese Imperial Customs Department show that there is no traffic in opium between India and Tibet.

  The Opium Trade in Burmah.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state the new conditions adopted for the Government sale of opium in Burmah; in what respect they differ from the system previously in existence; and where full particulars can be found.
  MR. BRODRICK: Opium is now bold by selected vendors at a fixed price and under stringent regulations supervised by resident Excise officers. Formerly the licences were auctioned to the highest bidders, who were under no effective restrictions and were not supervised. The object of the new system is to prevent the sale of contraband opium, and to have more hold over the licensed vendors. The number of licences has been increased, while the preventive staff in the districts has been greatly strengthened. The new system is described in the Burma Administration Reports for 1902–3 and 1903–4 and in the Burma Opium Manual. I will have copies sent to the hon. Member.

  Bengal Distillery System.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of Bengal has decided to abolish the out-still system throughout the province, and to introduce the contract distillery system; if so, whether he will state the grounds upon which this decision has been arrived at; and whether the new system is to be experimental or permanent.
  MR. BRODRICK: The contract distillery system has this year been experimentally introduced into the Orissa Division. If it should prove satisfactory, its gradual extension to areas at present under the out-still system is contemplated. The Bengal Government considers that if the out-still system can be successfully replaced by a stricter system the Excise administration will gain.

  Proposed Partition of Bengal.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in regard to the decision arrived at as to the partition of Bengal, he will state the line of demarcation and the territories actually to be transferred to Assam; whether he will state what is the form of administration and the name of the new province and when the new system of government will come into operation; what is the estimate of the cost connected with the creation of the new system of government and the increased annual charge to be incurred

  615
  in the maintenance of the administration; whether an inquiry will be held with a view of ascertaining the feeling of the large populations affected by the change of administration; and whether, in view of the opposition of the inhabitants affected, he will suspend the operation of the Orders passed until further consideration has been given to their representations.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The territories to be transferred from Bengal to the new province consist of the districts of the Chittagong and Dacca Divisions, those of the Rajshahi Division except Darjeeling, and the district of Malda. The line of demarcation will follow the present boundaries of those districts. The new province, which will be a Lieutenant-Governorship, will be called "Eastern Bengal and Assam." The new system will come into operation as soon as the necessary arrangements can be completed, but I am not able at present to mention the date. The increased annual charge is estimated by the Government of India at rather more than ten lakhs of rupees, and the initial cost of buildings at Dacca at ten lakhs; there will probably be other expenses, of which no estimate can at present be given. The question has been under the consideration of the Government of India for more than two years, and has been the subject of a number of memorials and meetings. The Viceroy has personally visited some of the districts affected, and has replied in a series of speeches to the points raised, and is fully aware of the opposition to be encountered. I have laid on the Table the Resolution of the Government of India describing these changes, and a perusal of it will, I think, make it clear that no good could result from further inquiry.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: Has the right hon. Gentleman received information as to a large number of influential meetings which have been held in Bengal in order to protest against this Order?
  *MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir, I have had a number of resolutions forwarded to me which have been passed at a large number of meetings. I am aware that
  616
  there is great anxiety about this question. I hope the publication of the Resolution may have some effect in allaying that anxiety, and I have no doubt the Viceroy will do what he can to make the change palatable to the population concerned.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in accordance with the precedent followed in the case of the formation of the North-West Frontier Province, he will include in the Papers to be laid in reference to the partition of Bengal, in addition to the Resolution of the Government of India, the whole of the correspondence between the Viceroy and the Secretary of State upon the subject; and whether these Papers will be in the hands of Members before the rising of the House on Friday next.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Every case in which it is proposed to present Papers to Parliament is necessarily considered on its own merits. I hope that the Papers which on this occasion it is possible to publish may be in the hands of Members this evening. No time has been lost, so far as I am concerned, in laying them, as the Resolution only arrived yesterday.

  Proposed Jute Tax in India.
  MR. CALDWELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Perthshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when are the proposals for a tax on jute for carrying out municipal improvements in Calcutta to come before the Government of India; and will he give an assurance that they shall not be assented to until after the House has had full information on the subject.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Government of India have accepted the tax in principle, but the scheme for the improvement of Calcutta, of which it forms a part, has still to be considered by the municipal corporation and other bodies interested before it can take the form of a Bill. I cannot give the undertaking asked for in the last part of the Question, but full opportunity for making representations will be given to the classes affected.

  Motor-Cars and Road Maintenance.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will endeavour to obtain an approximately accurate estimate of the increased charges on local rates for the maintenance of roads arising from the greatly increased wear and tear of the roads, due to their use by motor vehicles of great weight and high power and speed, and from the cost of additional police services to check infractions of the law by motor vehicles, respectively; and whether, in preparing fresh financial proposals for next year, he will place such increased duties on motor vehicles, and so graduate the increased duties in proportion to the weight, power, and speed of such vehicles, as will probably meet the estimate of the increase caused to the rates by their use of the roads, and make to the several local authorities such grants towards the cost of road maintenance as will approximately meet the increased charges on the rates estimated to arise from motor traffic.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I cannot in any way anticipate the Budget proposals of next year. The hon. Member is aware that a Royal Commission is now being appointed to consider the whole question of the regulation of motor traffic.
  MR. CHANNING: Will it be the duty of the Royal Commission to consider the cost imposed on the ratepayers by motor traffic?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is a Question as to the terms of the reference to the Commission, and it had better be addressed to the President of the Local Government Board, who is necessarily more familiar with the subject.

  Customs Watchers.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will now state what concessions he is prepared to make in answer to the petition of the Customs watchers.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,: The Treasury has notified to the Commissioners of Customs certain concessions which it is prepared to sanction in the case of the Customs watchers. These will be published in the usual manner by the Commissioners of Customs.
  MR. CAUSTON: When?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I hope almost immediately.
  MR. CAUSTON; Cannot the hon. Gentleman state the nature of the concessions to the House? These men have been kept waiting a long time.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: If the hon. Gentleman will put down an un-starred Question, I will give the details.

  The Post Office and Service Society Badges.
  MR. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if there is any rule of the Post Office prohibiting its servants from wearing small badges or tokens of associations to which they may belong; is he aware that at Manchester a certain supervisor has ordered men to remove tokens from their private clothes; and does he sanction such an order.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to a Question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil yesterday.†
  MR. CAWLEY: Will the noble Lord tell me what the Answer was? I was not here.
  LORD STANLEY: It was circulated with the Votes.

  Upkeep of Walmer and Deal Castles.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state how much has been expended upon the up-keep of Walmer and Deal Castles, respectively, during the last ten
  † See page 341.

  619
  years; and whether the cost of maintenance and repair of these castles will be given each year in the Estimates in future.
  LORD BALCARRES: The average annual expenditure for the years 1894–5 to 1903–4 was as follows, namely:—Deal, £145; Walmer, £202. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.
  MR. SWIFTMACNEILL: As the noble Lord the Member for Ealing has Deal Castle for life in addition to a political pension of £2,000 a year, he ought to pay the cost of the repairs.
  MR. WEIR: Who pays the rates?
  LORD BALCARRESasked for notice.

  West of Scotland Fishing Industry.
  MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether, in view of the injury now annually done to the fishing industry of the West of Scotland by the capture of herrings out of season, the Secretary for Scotland will enforce the Act 28 and 29 Vic. c. 22, Section 2, providing a close time from the 1st day of February to the 31st day of May in each year, between the Point of Ardnamurchan and the Mull of Galloway.
  MR. DOBBIE: Is it not the fact that many of the fishermen think the enforcement of a close time would be ruinous? Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Commission to inquire into the matter?
  THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): An investigation on the migrations of herrings in the Clyde area is now in process, and in view of this fact, and that there is a considerable diversity of opinion among the fishermen themselves, it is not proposed at present to take the steps suggested by the hon. Member. In reply to the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs, I have to say I cannot hold out any I hope of a Commission of inquiry.

  Highlands and Islands Commission Report.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that
  620
  the Highlands and Islands Commission, reporting in 1895, recommended that no less than 1,782,785 acres within the crofting counties of Scotland should be scheduled for new holdings, for the extension of existing holdings, and for moderately sized farms, and that a very large proportion of this acreage was then included within deer forests; whether he is aware that between 1898 and 1904, fifty-two wholly new deer forests have been formed, extending to 424,957 acres, while only 15,485 acres appear to have been taken from deer forests for other purposes; whether he can state what is the total number of acres provided for new holdings, or extension of holdings, or moderately sized farms by the Crofters Commission since 1895, and what number of acres so provided were taken out of deer forests; and whether he will consider the advisability of legislation next year to check the extension of deer forests, and to give effect to the recommendations of the Highlands and Islands Commission.
  MR. SCOTTDICKSON: I am, of course, acquainted with the terms of the Report and of the Return referred to by the hon. Member. I am in communication with the Crofters Commission as to the information desired in the 3rd paragraph of the Question, and on receipt of this I will send it to the hon. Member. Any Question as to legislation for next year should be addressed to the First Lord.
  MR. CHANNING: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman reply to the latter part of the Question? Will he do so if I put it down for Thursday?
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I hope so. I expected to be able to do it to-day.
  MR. CHANNING: Then I will put it down for Thursday.
  MR. WEIR: The right hon. Gentleman has offered to supply the information to the hon. Member privately. That will not do. I also want it.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: If a starred Question is put down for Thursday, as I have suggested, I hope I may be able to give a full Answer.

  County Down Assize Trials—Alleged Jury Packing.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the County Down Assizes, on July 12th, two Orangemen, named Halliday and Bingham, indicted for unlawfully assaulting two Nationalists, and causing them serious bodily harm, were acquitted; whether he can state the number of jurors ordered to stand aside in this case; whether he is aware that the jury was composed exclusively of political sympathisers with the prisoners; and whether he can explain why the representatives of the Crown omitted to challenge William J. Dologhan, an Orange politician avid lecturer, who acted as foreman of the jury.
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): One juror was ordered to stand aside by the Crown, and four were challenged by the prisoner, who apparently saw no reason to object to the jurors sworn, or he could have challenged two more of them. The foreman of the jury was not William J. Dologhan, but one Joseph Anderson. The juror ordered to stand aside came from the locality, and was only ordered to stand by lest he might be prejudiced owing to the strong feelings which prevailed there in reference to the crime. There is no reason whatever to believe that the jury were composed of political sympathisers with the accused.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Was Dologhan a member of the jury?
  MR. ATKINSON: I believe so.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Why was an Orange politician and lecturer allowed to serve on a jury empanelled to try Orangemen?
  MR ATKINSON: No juryman is set aside on account of his religious convictions.
  MR. HAYDEN: Is it not a fact that in the South of Ireland
  622
  men are ordered to stand aside because they are members of the United Irish League?
  MR. ATKINSON: No.
  MR. HAYDEN: Why, you have said so in this House over and over again.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what explanation can be offered of the fact that, at the trial at the Down Assizes of two Orangemen named Halliday and Bingham for a stabbing outrage near Banbridge, the Crown omitted to examine two witnesses named Hillen, who assisted in taking the knife from one of the accused; and whether he is aware that the withholding of this evidence secured the acquittal of the accused.
  MR. ATKINSON: Edward McGovern, who took the knife from the accused, was examined, as well as three or four other witnesses, who proved that they actually saw the accused use the knife. The evidence that the knife was used by the accused was absolutely conclusive, and, indeed, was so treated by the counsel for the prisoners, who contended that his clients were, under the circumstances, justified in using the knife in self-defence, and the jury acquitted the accused on that plea. The evidence of the Hillens, who had not made any depositions, could not have added to the strength of the Crown case on the point of the use of the knife, as that fact was already established beyond controversy. There is no foundation whatever for the statement in the last query. The accused were acquitted, not because the jury did not believe they had used the knife, but because they believed that, though it was used in fact, its use was justifiable in self-defence.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is it not the fact that the representatives of the Crown wanted to get these men acquitted, and therefore packed the jury and suppressed the evidence?
  MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir.

  Deny Assizes — Matricide Case.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the trial of a man named Hassan at the last County Derry Assizes on a charge of matricide, whether there was any political or religious element in the case; whether he is aware that the jury found that the accused was insane when he committed the deed; and whether he can state why all the Catholic jurors were ordered to stand aside.
  MR. ATKINSON: There was no political or religious element in this case. Five jurors in all were ordered to stand by. One of them, when he came to the box, stated he objected to capital punishment, and was ordered to stand by on that account. Another in the same manner stated that he was a publican living in the district where the murder was committed, and that the merits of the case had often been discussed in his presence. In consequence of that statement he was ordered to stand by. The three remaining jurors were ordered to stand by because it was believed by the Crown Solicitor that if sworn they would not give an impartial verdict. I have no information as to the religion of these jurors, and none of them were ordered to stand by on political or religious grounds, and I believe the prisoner did not exhaust his challenges.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is it not a fact that the only Catholic juror was challenged, and that it was an exclusively Orange jury?
  MR. ATKINSON: I do not know what was the religion of the challenged juror. I deny altogether that an exclusively Orange jury was empanelled.
  MR. MACVEAGH: It was the usual packed jury.

  Portadown Petty Sessions—Case of Edwards.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the circumstances of the prosecution of an Orangeman named
  624
  Edwards at the last Portadown Petty Sessions; whether he is aware that one of the witnesses for the defence swore that the people of the district would make it hot for any Catholic going to live there; whether it has been brought to his knowledge that the house of the complainant, a Catholic, was attacked and the windows broken, and that a claim for compensation for malicious injury was rejected by the Court; whether, in view of the fact that Edwards and the witnesses for the defence admitted that he had used Party expressions by cursing the Pope, he can state if the police intend to prosecute on this charge; and what special steps the authorities have taken to protect the lives and property of Catholics in this district.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOE IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings in regard to this petty squabble, from which it appears that summonses for abusive language were taken against each other by two rival blacksmiths who reside two miles from Portadown. The magistrates dismissed both cases, which they said ought never to have been brought into Court. It is not the case that the complainant's windows were broken. There are no grounds for any police prosecution, nor are any special police measures necessary. The Protestant and Catholic people of the locality are generally on the most amicable terms.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman say, in fact, that no windows were broken?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, I said so.
  MR. MACVEAGH: It is not true.

  Irish Agricultural Department Staff— Promotion Question.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the state of public opinion in Ireland on the subject, he will cause independent inquiry to he made into any further promotions that may be

  625
  attempted in the staff of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir; the Department is quite competent to deal with questions affecting its staff.

  Mr. Lefroy's Cahirconlish Town Tenantry.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how do matters, as to sale and purchase, stand as between Mr. Lefroy, the landlord, and the town tenants of Cahirconlish, county Limerick; has Mr. Lefroy made any offer of sale to the Estates Commissioners; have thirty-five plots been apportioned to as many labourers, of one statute acre each; if so, under what Act or procedure are those lots to be given to the labourers; and will he use his influence that the town tenants may as soon as possible obtain the purchase of their houses and a division between them of the adjoining demesne.
  MR. WALTER LONG: A preliminary inspection of the demesne has been made, but no decision as to purchase has been arrived at. The Commissioners understand that the district council are negotiating with the owner for the purchase of thirty-four acres of land for labourers' plots.

  Colonel Gascoigne's Kilfinane Town Tenantry.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say what progress has been made as to the sale and purchase between Colonel Gascoigne, owner of the town of Kilfinane, county Limerick, and the town tenants thereon; has the landlord, now that he is preparing to sell to the rural tenants, made any overtures of sale to the town tenants, seeing that the entire estate is one which comes within the scope of the Land Purchase Act of 1903; has he made any offer of sale of the estate to the Estates Commissioners; and can he say what are the prospects of the tenants becoming real owners of their own houses.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Proceedings for the sale of the Gascoigne Estate were
  626
  instituted before the Commissioners on March 28th last, but the town tenants are not included in those proceedings. The Commissioners have no information upon the remaining points raised in the Question.

  Synans Estate, County Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that negotiations for sale of the estate of the Synans in Carnane, Fedamore, county Limerick, have been in progress for some time through the Court of Chancery, with the view that this untenanted land may be apportioned in small farms to the labourers and farmers in the district, which is a congested one; is he aware of a public requisition having been made, through the Court, of letting the crop of those lands to the surrounding tenants, pending final disposition, rather than to hand it over to the eleven months graziers; and will he take steps to secure that the people of the locality may as soon as possible get possession of those untenanted lands.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I refer to the reply given to the hon. Member's previous Question of April 13th.† I am informed that as the conditional order for sale of this estate has not yet been made absolute, negotiations for sale through the Court would be premature.

  Nevin Estate, County Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the Estates Commissioners have bought from the Nevin family their estate in Mount Shannon, county Limerick, for the purpose of quartering evicted tenants thereon; can he say how many acres, I.P.M., is supposed to be in the estate, and how many acres have been already allocated to evicted tenants; and have they, as yet, got any claim or title to their portions; or if not, what has been done with the lands for this season; have any other evicted tenants besides those in county Limerick been designated as the occupants in prospective; and will he expedite proceedings for the relief of the evicted tenants.
  † See (4) Debates, exlv., 82.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The question of the purchase of this estate is under consideration, and of course no allotment of the lands has been made. The owner is in occupation of the lands, which comprise 867 statute acres, or about 535 acres Irish plantation measure.

  Constable Cryan, Royal Irish Con- stabulary.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland where Constable Cryan, Royal Irish Constabulary, is located; and whether, as Cryan was an accomplice of Constable Masterson, who has absconded, in the assault upon Carroll at Somergrove, Mountmellick, on March 17th last, he proposes to retain his services as a peace officer.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Constable Cryan is at present stationed in county Wexford. I am making inquiry as to the remaining part of the Question.

  Outrages at Emyvale.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 11th and 12th ult. the Orange Hall and certain houses occupied by Protestants in Emyvale, county Monaghan, were covered with crosses of tar; and what steps, if any, have been taken to discover the aggressors.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The fact is as stated. The police have used every effort to discover the offenders, but so far without success.

  Emyvale and Scotstown Police.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if all the police stationed at Emyvale and Scotstown, county Monaghan, are Roman Catholics; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of a proportionate number of Protestants being stationed in these districts.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The fact is as stated in the first inquiry. The county inspector has already taken steps to secure the allotment of a proportionate number of Protestant members of the force to these stations.
  MR. SLOAN: Have these steps been taken since the Question appeared on the Paper?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I should imagine that they were taken before that.
  MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that in all future appointments the proper proportions of Catholics and Orangemen are observed?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Erection of Labourers' Cottages in County Armagh.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that applications were made, and sites selected, for the building of labourers' cottages, about two years ago, in the districts of Clady and Markethill, county Armagh; and whether he will explain why the erection of these cottages has not been proceeded with.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Representations as to the labourers' cottages in question were considered by the Armagh Rural District council on September 27th last. The Local Government Board understand that the council have decided upon plans and have selected most of the necessary sites. The Board are in communication with the Council on the subject.

  Veterinary Branch, Irish Agricultural Department.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, since it has been stated that the Catholic clerks of the veterinary branch of the Irish Agricultural Department who have eleven years service and salaries of less than £100 a year receive the salaries of the grade to which they belong, will he give the names of any officers serving in the Department who since April 1st, 1900, have received scales of pay in excess of those in operation on that date, with the reasons for any such excess, the present scales of pay, and those in force immediately prior thereto.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir. It would be contrary to precedent to give any such. Return, and I must therefore decline to give it.

  Lord Listowel's Estate in North Kerry.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state whether the sale of Lord Listowel's estate in North Kerry has yet been sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners; and whether he can state what action have the Estates Commissioners taken in connection with the applications of cottiers and other small tenants on the estate who have applied for a division of the grazing lands, so as to enlarge their uneconomic holdings, in Pilgrim Hill and other districts.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The estate has not yet been inspected. It will be taken in order of priority.
  MR. FLAVIN: Have the Estates Commissioners taken any steps, or must they await the inspection?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Obviously they can do nothing without an inspection of the estate.

  Irish Dispensary Doctors and Politics.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a speech delivered at an Orange meeting on July 12th by Dr. McMaster, of Broughshane, county Antrim; and, seeing that McMaster is a dispensary doctor, whether the attention of the Local Government Board will be directed to the matter.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Board's regulations do not prohibit a dispensary medical officer from addressing meetings so long as his attendance at such meetings does not interfere with the performance of his official duties. It is not alleged that such was the case in the present instance.

  Glanders—Dublin Corporation Regula- tions.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary
  630
  to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether complaints have been made on behalf of the executive committee (under The Diseases of Animals Act, 1894) of the Dublin Corporation, that horses suffering from glanders and others suspected of glanders have been brought from the county of Dublin area into the area of the city of Dublin without the licence of the city authority; whether this was done with the sanction of the veterinary branch of the Department of Agriculture; and whether steps will be taken in future to prevent the rights of the local authority in the city from being thus set aside and the property of the citizens being endangered by the unauthorised introduction into the city of glandered horses.
  MR. WALTER LONG: A complaint to the effect mentioned was received, and it was found that the horses referred to had been removed into Dublin for immediate destruction upon a licence issued by the veterinary inspector of the county local authority and endorsed by the acting veterinary inspector of the city local authority. The sanction of the Department was not given, and it was not necessary. The matter referred to in the final paragraph is one for arrangement between the city and county local authorities.

  Estates Commissioners and the Evicted Tenants.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if the Estates Commissioners, when they acquire untenanted land for the purpose of settling evicted tenants thereon, have power to make free grants for the purpose of stocking farms; can they also make loans for this purpose; and, if not, will he lay upon the Table the Treasury instructions, if any, which hamper their discretion.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The whole question of the power of the Estates Commissioners to make free grants and loans was considered by Mr. Justice Meredith on questions referred to him by the Commissioners in the Wills-Sandford Estate. The judgment of the learned Judge is reported in the 5th new Irish

  631
  Jurist Reports, page 281, and is, I am informed, to the effect that grants or loans may be made for such a purpose as that mentioned in the Question, but that the loans can only be repaid by an addition to the purchase annuity where the estate has been purchased by the Land Commission. In all other cases this must be done by an agreement with the purchaser made at the time. The Treasury regulations, which only refer to the first class of cases, are consistent with this judgment, and in no way hamper any discretion vested in the Commissioners. There is no necessity, therefore, for laying the regulations on the Table.

  Irish Intermediate Education Examinations.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Board of Intermediate Education for Ireland has any objection to the production, for the information of Parliament and the Irish public, of full copies of the Minutes of the meeting or meetings at which it was determined to place at the disposal of the authorities of Trinity College, Dublin, not only the marks obtained by the most distinguished students at the intermediate examinations, but also the written answers of the students; and whether the Board will furnish such information to every institution and every individual founding a scholarship to be held at a University college in Ireland.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The question will be brought before the next meeting of the Board on Thursday.

  Lord Lansdowne's Luggacurran Estate— Evicted Tenant's Grievance.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an inspector from the Land Commission, named Cunningham, called on the representatives of the late Patrick Byrne, of Tully, an evicted tenant on Lord Lansdowne's estate, Luggacurran, Queen's County, at their residence, Woodstock Terrace, Athy, on June 22nd, 1905, and stated that he had only fifteen acres of land to offer them; and whether he will take steps to secure that a larger holding
  632
  shall be given to the representatives of Patrick Byrne, who was evicted from a holding of 120 acres in 1887, owing only one half-year's rent and the hanging gale.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The representatives of the evicted tenant claimed a holding of 120 acres. The inspector explained that it would only be practicable, having regard to the number of other applicants, to consider a claim for a small holding of from fifteen to thirty acres. No such claim was preferred, and the inspector, who carefully considered their circumstances, felt unable to recommend any allotment to them.

  Irish Intermediate Education Inspec- torate.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether nearly two years have elapsed since the Government informed the Beard of Intermediate Education for Ireland that the question of carrying out the Intermediate Education Act of 1900 by the establishment of a permanent inspectorate would not be entertained until the parts which examination and inspection should play in the distribution of State aid in the schools had been settled; and for what further period is it intended to defer the settlement of this point.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Report of the Commission on Intermediate Education in Ireland recommends several substantial alterations in the system, and is adverse to the establishment of a permanent inspectorate, both on educational and financial grounds. I have already informed the hon. Member that a settlement of the question of inspection must await the result of the consideration of the Report of the Commissioners. I have no further statement to make in the matter at present.
  MR. CLANCY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered either part of my Question.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Obviously until a scheme carrying out the Report can be devised it would be improper to adopt any system of permanent inspection.
  MR. CLANCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so long ago as 1902 (October) the Intermediate Board asked the Government to sanction a scheme and the Government has done nothing in the matter.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Of course I am aware. I have stated many times that subsequent information has shown the necessity for a different scheme altogether, and hence it would be absurd to carry out the recommendation of 1902.
  MR. CLANCY: May the Government scheme be expected by 1910?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Outrage at Shilnavogey, County Antrim.
  MR. MAOVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if any cases of killing animals were recently reported to the police at Shilnavogey, Broughshane, county Antrim; whether he is aware that the owner was the only Nationalist farmer in the district; and whether the perpetrators have been brought to justice.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Two animals were recently found dead at this place. The owner has lodged a claim for compensation for malicious injury, and pending the hearing of that claim it would be undesirable to make any statement on the subject.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is this man the only Nationalist farmer in the district, and can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the representative of this constituency has condemned the outrage?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot say.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I can tell you he has not.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Then why ask the Question?
  MR. MACVEAGH: I thought you would like to know.

  The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Reserve Fund.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the
  634
  Irish fund described as the Reserve Fund in Section 43 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, is invested; and, if so, what is the amount of the annual interest thereon, and what becomes of such interest.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Reserve Fund is invested in Consols, and the dividends accruing thereon were similarly invested until January, 1904. The Consols now held on account of the fund amount to £263,212 7s. The dividends thereon, amounting to £6,580 6s. a year, are employed in making the advances authorised by Section 43 of the Irish Land Act, 1903.
  MR. CLANCY: Then the interest has not been paid to any other purpose?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Up to 1904 the dividends were invested. Since then they have been applied to the purposes I have mentioned. If they are not required for that we can take to investing them again.
  MR. CLANCY: I understand that interest has been paid on the fund since it reached the sum of £250,000.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member is more familiar with the subject than I am. Perhaps he will communicate with me privately.
  MR. CLANCY: It is easily explained. This fund was created by the Land Purchase Act, 1891. Several years ago it reached the limit of £250,000—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If Questions are to be explained in this way it would be unfair to hon. Members who have Questions later on the Paper.
  MR. CLANCY: I only explained because I was asked to do so.

  Disemployment of Men Connected with Phœnix Park, Dublin.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the reason for the disemployment of a number of men connected with the Phœnix Park; how many of the men so disemployed were Catholics and how many

  635
  of them were Protestants; Low many of them were entitled to and will receive superannuation, and how many of them Would have been so entitled had they been allowed to remain at their work a few years longer; did the Irish Commissioners of Works, as a body, consider each individual case; and can any Minute on the subject be furnished to the House.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: There has been no special disemployment of labourers at the Phœnix Park. Of the men retired this year all have received or will receive gratuities under the Superannuation Acts, except one who was dismissed for irregular attendance after less than four years service. Nothing is known as to the religious beliefs of the employees. Every case of retirement or dismissal is directed by the Commissioners as a body. I see no reason for issuing a Minute, as suggested by the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question —how many men would have been entitled to a pension had they been allowed to remain at work a little longer time?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: There is only one who will not receive a gratuity.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That is not the point. I am asking about pensions. It is the Treasury way of getting rid of these men and escaping the liability for pensions.

  Addition to Phœnix Park, Dublin.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he hopes before the end of the session to be able to make any statement with regard to the land recently purchased by His Majesty, for the public enjoyment, as an addition to the Phœnix Park; or will the arrangements connected with the user of the new acquisition be shortly published.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The land in question has been purchased by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and will be let on lease to the Board of
  636
  Works, whose duty it will be to preserve it in good condition, so as to secure the amenities of Phœnix Park.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: How soon will the terms of the arrangement be made public?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I hope the arrangement will be completed before long.

  Irish Ordnance Survey.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture by how many has the staff of the Irish Ordnance Survey been diminished within the last five years, and by how many has the Southampton staff been increased; was it in Southampton or in Dublin that the maps connected with the Report of the Trinity College Commission were prepared, and who selected the place where the work should be done.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. AILWYN FELLOWES, Huntingdonshire, Ramsey): The number of men employed at the Ordnance Survey Office in Phœnix Park is now 250, as compared with 282 five years ago, but the aggregate number employed on survey work in Ireland as a whole has increased from 924 to 1,154 during that period. The Survey staff at Southampton has been reduced by 145, viz., from 922 to 777, during the last five years. The maps connected with the Report of the Trinity College Commission were printed at Southampton, some of them being too large for the printing machine at Dublin. The Director-General of the Survey is responsible for the division of the work as between the two offices.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Surely that demonstrates the necessity for improved machinery at Dublin?
  MR. CLANCY: Why has work been taken away from Ireland?
  *MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: On the contrary, the figures show that the work in Dublin has increased during the last five years

  Dismissal of Daniel Scully from the Dublin Postal Service.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in. view of the fact that he has dismissed from employment, after seventeen years service, a man named Daniel Scully, of the engineering department of the General Post Office, Dublin, on a charge of forgery and embezzlement of a sum of £2 odd, he will pay whether Scully was ever given any form of trial, and whether he was confronted with his accusers and allowed the opportunity of cross-examining them; whether he is aware that Scully has denied that he is guilty of either of the charges preferred against him, and has asked that he should be given such an opportunity of vindicating his character as would be afforded by a criminal prosecution; and whether he will now say that he will prosecute Scully or restore him to his employment.
  LORD STANLEY: As I have already explained to the hon. Member by letters of the 6th and 26th June and 26th July, I went very fully into the case to which he refers before coming to a decision, and I find no reason for departing from that decision.
  MR. CLANCY: The noble Lord admits, I take it, that he has discharged this man, who is charged with forgery and embezzlement. I presume he has evidence in his possession to justify that charge, or has he not?
  LORD STANLEY: I have the right which belongs to every Postmaster-General to get rid of any man from the postal service if, for reasons which he thinks sufficient, that man is not capable of offering efficient or honest service.
  MR. CLANCY: That is not my Question. Will the noble Lord answer straightforwardly, has he evidence in his possession justifying the charge of forgery and embezzlement?
  LORD STANLEY: I have nothing to add to my Answer.
  MR. CLANCY: At the first opportunity I shall call attention to the cruelty practised by the Postmaster-
  638
  General in dooming this man and his family to ruin on evidence which he is afraid to produce.

  Women and University Degrees.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that, owing to the refusal of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to grant to women degrees corresponding to their courses of study, and the opening by the University of Dublin of all its courses of study, degrees, prizes, fellowships, and other offices to women, and the agreement between the three Universities that students educated at one University are taken in by another as of the status to which they are entitled by their educational exercises in the first, and that this includes the conferment of degrees known as ad eundem by the second University on all applicants applying to it as graduates of the first, since 1904 nearly 200 Englishwomen from Oxford and Cambridge have gone to Dublin for their degrees in accordance with this arrangement; and whether, having regard to these facts, he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to induce the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to grant to women the degrees to which their educational proficiency may entitle them.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understand the present position is that ladies get education at Oxford and Cambridge and pay their fees for the degrees at Trinity College, Dublin. That seems to be a good arrangement for Trinity College. As regards Oxford and Cambridge, the Government have no power of offering advice to these great and learned bodies, and I certainly cannot give any pledge that legislation will be introduced.

  The Poor Law Commission.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, as Scotland has a separate Poor Law system and had a separate Commission of inquiry on the last occasion, he will consider the expediency of having a separate Commission for Scotland no
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have to say that the matter is under consideration, but I frankly admit that I am disposed to think that the Commission to inquire into the subject would be better constituted if all the three kingdoms were represented upon it, and if they were enabled to deal with a problem common to all. The fact that the Poor Law system is different in Scotland, England, and Ireland seems to me not to be conclusive against that view. On the contrary, there might be some advantage in having persons on the Commission who were intimately and practically acquainted with the working of the system in the three countries.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Is it not the fact that there were separate Commissions for the three countries seventy years ago?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member no doubt refers to the great Commission on the Poor Law which was conducted on the principles he has suggested. Whether, when we are dealing with the industrial aspects of the case and wider problems than they had under consideration, we should have a separate Commission, is a different point. Though I do not pretend that the Government have arrived at a final conclusion, I think the fact of a single precedent on the other side ought not to be conclusive in the direction which the hon. Member desires to see adopted.
  MR. LOUGH: But having regard to the fact that the population of Great Britain is mainly urban, while that of Ireland is mainly rural, might not questions arise involving different treatment for each country?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No doubt the proportion of rural and urban population is different in Ireland from what it is in Great Britain, but there is an urban population in Ireland and a rural population in England and Scotland also.
  MR. GOULDING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the members of the Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Poor Laws have yet been appointed; and
  640
  whether, seeing that the subjects which they are to consider necessarily include the question of out-door relief and the problems of the unemployed and pensions for aged deserving poor, he will, before appointing them, consider the expediency of including members of public bodies who have had experience of these and cognate matters.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Royal Commission is not yet constituted, but the suggestions that have been made by hon. Members will receive careful consideration.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware of the desire that exists in Ireland for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the whole Poor Law system of the country; and if he is now prepared to recommend the appointment of the desired Royal Commission.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any discourtesy if I say I have answered this Question in dealing with the cognate case of Scotland.

  The Telephone Agreement.
  MR. BENN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what course the Government propose to take with regard to the Report of the Select Committee on the Telephone Agreement. Is there any truth in the statement in the Press that they intend to reject all or some of the recommendations of the Committee?
  LORD STANLEY: I must reserve until Wednesday any statement I have to make with regard to the recommendations of the Telephone Committee.
  MR. WHITLEY: May I ask what Resolution the Government propose to put before the House to-morrow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the House is aware, the agreement will come automatically into operation at the end of the month unless some Resolution negativing it is passed by the House. In these circumstances I think that the Resolution

  641
  ought to be one which does negative the arrangement come to between the Government and the companies. My noble friend is of opinion that the Resolution standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Islington should be selected, and I propose to star that Resolution and to take the debate upon it.
  MR. BENN: Does the Government mean to propose no Resolution?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Why should we, when it has been arranged that the agreement between the companies and the Government comes into operation at the end of the month?
  MR. MCCRAE: I understood that the Report of the Committee would come up for discussion according to a pledge given by the Postmaster-General. It seems to me to be irregular to raise the question on an Amendment proposed by a private Member.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Resolution clearly raises all the suggestions made by the Committee.
  MR. MCCRAE: But the subject should be brought before the House by the Government itself.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government are doing all that they were asked to do when they give an opportunity for discussing the recommendations of the Committee.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to put down the Motion of the hon. Member for West Islington as the first order to-morrow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
  MR. WHITLEY: Does the Government, by starring the Resolution, adopt it with the view of supporting it in the lobby?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
  MR. LYELL: Are we to gather, then, that the Government do not intend to
  642
  accept the recommendations of the Committee?
  LORD STANLEY: I have already stated that the hon. Member must wait till to-morrow. He will then know what the Government proposes.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Churches (Scotland) Bill; Aliens Bill; Medical Act (1886) Amendment Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Public, Health Acts." [Public Health Acts (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]
  That they request that this House will be pleased to communicate to their Lordships copies of the following Reports from the Select Committees appointed by this House, in the present session of Parliament, viz., (1) Post Office Telephone Agreement; (2) Registration of Nurses; (3) Foreign Ships (Statutory Requirements); (4) Workmen's Trains; together with the Proceedings of the Committees and Minutes of Evidence.
  Lords Message requesting copies of Reports of Select Committees, considered. Printed copies to be communicated.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA- TION) BILL.
  [SECOND READING]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  *MR. ASQUITH: As by this Bill, Sir, is made final provision for the remainder of the financial year, and as included in it is the salary of every executive officer, it is, I think, proper and in accordance with the usages of this House that on the Second Reading we should take note of the general position and policy of the Executive Government, not merely as it stands at the moment,

  643
  but in its necessary and even in its probable developments. If ever there were a time at which such an examination was justifiable and appropriate, surely it is to-day. Here we are on the eve of the prorogation of Parliament in a situation which I venture to think it would be difficult to parallel in the history of this House. We have a Government which is about to retire into winter quarters with the provision which this Bill gives them—a Government which even the hardiest of its apologists on the platform or in the Press do not pretend to deny has lost the confidence, if it ever possessed it, of the majority of the people. It is, further, a Government which, possessing still an ostensible majority of, I suppose, something like seventy in this House, was only three weeks ago defeated here upon an important issue of public policy in a full House and upon a division which was conducted upon strict Party lines.
  We all know that, as regards that defeat, the Prime Minister, in deference to his own conceptions of constitutional propriety and personal dignity, thinks it his duty altogether to ignore it. But, Sir, it is bare justice to hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that the Prime Minister's supporters, and still more the Prime Minister's Whips, attached to that defeat a very different significance. The incident which the right hon. Gentleman brushes aside so lightly has become to them, as we have all seen during the last few days, a positive obsession. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that they have ever since been in a condition of political hysteria. Their imaginations are peopled by day and by night—particularly by night— with what Milton calls "Gorgons and Hydras and Chimeras dire." They tremble when they see the Opposition Benches full. They tremble still more when they see the Opposition Benches empty. And they tremble most of al when they see the Opposition Benches neither empty nor full. Every one o the commonplace incidents of our Parliamentary life has begun to assume in their eyes a sinister and baleful significance. In events the most ordinary and common place they have learnt to discern, with the aid of the second sight vouchsafed
  644
  to the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, the workings of a dark, unsleeping, and subterranean conspiracy, by which in the first week in August the worst of Oppositions has the unthought-of bad taste and the incredibly low manners to attempt to vex and harass he life of the best of Governments. Am I not right in saying that we are in an unique situation? By means of the provision which is to be made by this Bill now to be read a second time, a Government, admittedly bankrupt in popular confidence—if they do not think they are, let them put it to the test—I say admittedly bankrupt in popular confidence—a Government which is driven to live here in this House from day to day, and I might almost say from hand to mouth, in reliance not so much on the loyalty as on the fears of the panicstriken majority; by the provision to be made by this Bill, such a Government is to be enabled, it may be for six months to come, to conduct the affairs of the Empire in defiance of the will of the nation and without the least semblance of Parliamentary control.
  I am not going to attempt anything in the nature of a retrospect of the past session. It would not be an exhilarating narrative, although it is not without features that will both puzzle and amuse the historian of the future. I need only remind the House—for memories are short—of such episodes as the MacDonnell incident; with the mysterious and still unexplained resignation of the late Chief Secretary and the equally mysterious and equally unexplained retention of office by the Prime Minister. Or, again, I may recall the long series of organised stampedes whenever the fiscal question was raised; or, once more, that memorable week when in order to appease the public indignation aroused by the Report of the Butler Committee, the Government came down here upon three successive nights with three successive policies—a record, I imagine, even in the annals of vacillation. But these things belong to the domain of history; and I would rather utilise the time at my disposal by seeking some much-needed information on matters as to which we may find ourselves, when we meet again (if we do meet again),

  645
  gravely and perhaps hopelessly compromised by the action taken by the Executive during the recess.
  MR. J. P. HOPE: I rise to a point of order. I have to ask whether it is not a fact that in August, 1903, the late Speaker ruled, on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, that it was not in order to discuss the probable or possible future developments of Government policy or the action to be taken by the Government with a view to such developments.
  MR. WHITLEY: Is it not in order to discuss what Ministers may do with the salaries voted under the Appropriation Bill?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have not in my mind the exact circumstance to which the hon. Member for Sheffield refers; but I was waiting to hear what the right hon. Gentleman was going to say. It is open to the House to criticise the administrative action which the Government may take during the course of the recess. If the right hon. Gentleman limits himself to that, I think he will be perfectly in order.
  MR. J. F. HOPE: May I read the terms of Mr. Speaker Gully's ruling, which decided that it would not be competent for the House to discuss on the Appropriation Bill the future fiscal policy of the Goverment or the merits of the fiscal inquiry then being held?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that anything I have said contradicts the ruling cited by the hon. Gentleman.
  *MR. ASQUITH: I propose to take my rulings from the Chair, Sir; and if I digress you will, no doubt, be the first to call me to order. In the first place, I wish to call attention for a few moments —I do not know whether this will offend the purism of the hon. Member—to the growing feeling of disquietude and even alarm which possesses the public mind in regard to the condition of the Army. The hon. Member does not seem to object to that. Whatever else may be said of the present Government, no one can complain that they have been inactive in regard to the Army. If good health
  646
  could be secured by constant change of doctors, of drugs, and of diet, the British Army, after the experiments of the last three years, ought to be the most flourishing organism in the civilised world. It has enjoyed during that time every conceivable variety of treatment. We have had two Secretaries of State for War—I do not see either of them present—men no doubt cast in a different mould, but neither of them deficient in selfconfidence. We have had a Commander-in-Chief, we have had an Army Council, and we have had more Commissions and Committees of inquiry than any one can remember. Last, but not least, we have had the supervision of the whole thing by the Committee of Defence with a strategically-minded Prime Minister at its head. Now, Sirs, how do we stand at the end of all this? It is rather less than three weeks since the country was startled by the deliberate pronouncement of our greatest soldier in the House of Lords that the Army was as ill-prepared for war to-day as at the outbreak of the South African campaign. Lord Roberts was duly scolded in this House by the Secretary of State for War; but since then, in the City, Lord Roberts has returned to the charge. As the words he used are grave words, I will read them to the House—
  "My condensation in the House of Lords of the condition of our armed forces was not, as the Secretary of State has described it, of too sweeping a character. I was justified in stating that the military forces of the Crown are no better prepared for war than they were in 1899 and 1900. The truth is that I rather understated than over-stated the case. While as regards organisation, efficiency, and the power of expansion we are no better off than before the war, in one particular we are far worse off —I mean the falling off in the number of officers."
  Now, it is impossible to have a graver statement than that. We are not concerned to examine to-day Lord Roberts' estimate of our future military necessities nor his suggestions as to the best methods by which those necessities ought to be met. The Prime Minister, I think, is quite entitled to say, as he said yesterday in answer to a Question, that these matters cannot be dealt with by a simple expression of assent or dissent. But I am dealing—and I ask the House to consider it—I am dealing only with Lord

  647
  Roberts' description of things as they are, his deliberate declaration that after three years of ceaseless and costly experimentation we are not better, but even worse, off than we were at the commencement of the Boer War. Now, that is either true or not true; and we are entitled on the Second Reading of this Bill, which is appropriating enormous sums to the Army, a great many of which have not been discussed either in Committee or on Report—we are entitled to ask the Executive Government what they say to that simple proposition of fact. I need not point out its gravity. We are not dealing here with the anonymous grumblings of service newspapers or service clubs; we are not even dealing with the criticism of a general who has retired from the service and who occupies a detached and irresponsible position. Nothing of the kind. For some considerable part of the three years which followed the conclusion of the war, for a very large part of that period, Lord Roberts was Commander-in-Chief; and when he was dispossessed of that office his salary, a large one—I am far from saying unduly large, but a large one—a salary which appears, I presume, in the Estimates on which this Bill is based—his salary was continued in order to secure the advantages of his active services as a member of the Committee of Defence. So this indictment which I have read to the House proceeds from a late Commander-in-Chief, who has only very recently demitted that office, and who is an actual and present member of the Committee of Defence, It is impossible to brush it aside as though it were the obiter dictum of some respectable but irresponsible outsider. I say, therefore, that this House and the country will await with anxiety, and are entitled to-day to receive, whatever reassuring statement the Prime Minister may have to make.
  I come to another matter; it also concerns the executive action of the Government. It concerns that action in quite a different sphere, and as to it the intentions, I will not say announced, but adumbrated by Ministers appear to me to be full of obscurity. I am not going to discuss—of course it would be out of order to do so—the merits of
  648
  those Redistribution Resolutions which were so tardily introduced and so hastily withdrawn. Those Resolutions are dead, and whether they will ever be reincarnated in a Bill we must leave it to time and perhaps to the chapter of accidents to decide. But there is a question which we are entitled to deal with now. We are entitled to know something more of the machine which the Government have announced that they mean in their executive capacity to set up during the recess for dealing with the question of boundaries.
  MR. J. F. HOPE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that this is exactly what your predecessor ruled out of order? He ruled that it is not open to the House to discuss whether or not there is a necessity for collecting information for a Redistribution Bill, and he ruled similarly as regards a fiscal inquiry.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member is quite right. I have the ruling of my predecessor on the point of order beside me. I understand that the point the right hon. Gentleman was going to raise was this, whether the information is to be collected by a Committee or Commission or in what other way? That has been a matter of discussion in this House by Question and Answer, and I think it is perfectly relevant to the question now before the House.
  *MR. ASQUITH: I am dealing with an announcement of the action of Ministers. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to remember—perhaps I may remind him— that there is a provision made in this Bill for the salary of every executive officer of State for the year ending March 31st, 1906. What more appropriate and legitimate occasion could there be for discussing the development of executive action or the course of executive action which the responsible Ministers of the Crown have already announced their intention of taking? I will not waste any further words about that. I rather gathered from an Answer which the Prime Minister gave yesterday to a Question, that this machine was going to take the form, not of a Royal Commission, but of a Departmental Committee. Now, I want to ask one or two Questions about that.

  649
  What is to be its composition? Still more important, what are to be its instructions? Is it to act as though the abandoned Resolutions had been adopted and approved by this House? What is to be its procedure? Is it to be public or private? What opportunity are any of the constituencies which may be affected by its Report or decisions to be given of supplying or checking information, of making objections or offering suggestions? Those are not peddling or gratuitous Questions; they are Questions strictly relevant to the case, Questions to which it is most important that we should have an Answer at once. It is of the essence of a boundary scheme — I do not care by whom it is compiled—that its parts should be interdependent. Every stone is in a sense the keystone, because if you take one out the whole structure falls to pieces; and therefore it is essential, and I hope the Government will agree that it is essential, that the country should know in advance, before this machine is set in operation, what is the nature and what are the conditions of the inquiry, and what are the instructions and what the authority of those by whom it is about to be undertaken. Those are questions, I think, which most strictly arise in reference to the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Now I pass to another and still more important point. The hon. Member may again get out his book. I mean the summoning of the Colonial Conference. Now, if the conference, or a conference—it is perhaps better to use the indefinite article—if a conference is to meet, as was clearly intended in the year 1902, in the spring or summer of 1906, I think it is pretty clear that some steps must be taken with a view to bringing it together during the recess. But notwithstanding the admirable and undefeated pertinacity of my hon. friend the Member for Banffshire, we still remain on this matter in a state, I will not say of darkness, but certainly of twilight. Let me just recall to the House the successive stages of this particular question. In October last year the Prime Minister at Edinburgh used these words—
  "My view is that the policy of this Party should be, if we have power after the next
  650
  election, to ask the Colonies to join in such a conference."
  That is the policy which has since been known as the policy of the two elections, the policy, that is to say, which implied, first, that before any conference was summoned at all to which a discussion of the fiscal question could be delegated in any of its phases a mandate would have to be obtained from the electorate of this country, and, next, that after such a conference had met and come to a decision, that decision again would not be regarded as binding either on the Government or the people of the country until it had been submitted to a general election also. Further, I remember well that the right hon. Gentleman in January of the present year reaffirmed that policy in a speech which he made at Manchester. Now, let me ask the House to look at the subsequent developments. In March, speaking in this House, I think in Answer to a Question of my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, the Prime Minister said—
  "If the calling together of the Conference and the delegation to it of any question of fiscal reform should take place under the present Government India would be represented."
  Mark the word "if"; and later, speaking on May 5th, having had his attention in the meantime called to the fact, which he had forgotten, that in any event there would be an automatic reassembling of the Colonial Conference next year, he used these words—
  "If the conference of 1906 meets before the dissolution, it will be, of course, the conference contemplated by the Resolution of the conference which met in 1902. That Resolution did not suggest either Indian or Crown Colony representation."
  Now, if the mind of the Government on the matter is clear, certainly the mind of the country is not clear; and in view of those declarations which I have quoted textually from speeches and Answers of the Prime Minister himself, I want to put one or two Questions. My first Question is, Are any invitations going to be issued during the recess to the self-governing Colonies to attend any conference of any kind? That is a very simple Question. My next Question is—Are similar invitations to attend that or any other conference going to be sent to the Government of India and the Governments of

  651
  the Crown Colonies? Do the Government, or do they not, regard the conference, which has been called the automatic conference, of 1906 as competent to discuss the question of fiscal preference? Or, to put the same thing in other words, is this conference of 1906 such a one as the Prime Minister contemplated in his Edinburgh speech? My last Question, which I think ought to clear up the whole matter, is—If the Government are re turned to power at the general election, is it still their policy that another conference would have to be summoned to which not only the self-governing Colonies but the Crown Colonies and India would have to be invited? Those are very simple and direct Questions. They are, every one of them, concerned with the action which the Executive, in view of the announcements that have been made, either will take or ought to take during the coming recess; and I earnestly hope that we shall have, if not from the Prime Minister himself, at any rate from the Colonial Secretary, a distinct and categorical Answer.
  I have made these specific inquiries on points which seem to me both grave and urgent, but I conclude with a larger and more general Question to the Government. My Question is this. By what authority, during the months that are covered by this Bill, do they claim to go on speaking and acting in the name of the people of this country? The opinion of the electorate is beyond dispute; you tremble for the very safest seats; and you do not affect to regard a dissolution as leading to anything else but a sentence of death. In this House, as we have seen during these last few weeks, it is only by the most frantic appeals, it is only by the most desperate devices, that you can keep your rank and file in the fighting line. I will go further. I say there is not a foreign country, there is not a British colony, which does not recognise you for what you are, stripped of all moral authority, agents who are trading upon an exhausted mandate; in a word, accidents of the Septennial Act. We hear a great deal of duty and dignity. Is it not time that this long martyrdom to duty and to dignity should come to an end? Let the Government look the facts in the face and let the nation speak.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J.): There is one sentiment at all events to which the right hon. Gentleman gave utterance in which I am in hearty agreement with him. I think he was perfectly justified both by the practice of this House and by the obvious and natural opportunities which a Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill gives in making such a survey as he chose both of the action of the Government since the financial year began and the action of the Government—supposed or prophesied action of the Government —as it might be after the financial year closes. I, for my part, have no quarrel with the object which the right hon. Gentleman set before himself, however little I may think of the arguments by which he supported the intention which he has laid before the House. The right hon. Gentleman dealt briefly with the events of the session, so briefly, that that part of his speech was simply a compressed resume of all the Party attacks which he and his friends have—quite rightly, as the Opposition of the day— made upon the Government from time to time. I do not mean to dwell upon that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because he himself did not pretend to do more than make a most concise summary of all the points which rightly or wrongly he thought could be used against His Majesty's present advisers in their conduct of public affairs during the last six months.
  One observation, indeed, struck me with some surprise. He talked of the defeat of the Government upon an Irish Vote in terms which greatly surprised me from a constitutional authority like himself. He talked of that defeat as if there had been a great passage of arms between the two Parties in which there was some foreseen issue to be fought out and in which there was some great matter of public policy in which the whole Opposition were interested. One section of the Opposition, and I do not deny a most important section, the Gentlemen who represent Irish constituencies, did take great interest in that question. I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman himself was on that bench five minutes. There was not the smallest interest shown by

  653
  any member of the orthodox Opposition in the subject of debate. They took an interest — a legitimate interest — in another and quite a different aspect of the subject before the House; they took a great interest in so arranging matters that there should be a division which they hoped—as it turned out in accordance with the fact — would put the Government in a minority. The idea that they took the smallest interest in the question except in so far as it might be used to damage the Government, the idea that if they came into office they meant to reverse the policy of the Secretary for Ireland, the idea that on this as a considered issue the whole Opposition were acting as one man, determined to substitute a new policy for the old policy—nobody who looked at those sparsely-occupied benches could for a moment entertain such an idea.
  There is another point to which I will call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman as a mere question of constitutional practice. I understand that the hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent Ireland describe themselves, and describe themselves justly, as an independent Party with an independent organisation, in no sense bound up with what is called the Liberal or Radical Party, although it may please them from time to time to act with that Party. [An OPPOSITION MEMBER: They have also acted with you.] If that be so it is, I suppose, because the hon. Gentlemen agreed with us, and they were quite ready to act with us when they agreed with us. I do not quarre with them. If my i's require to be dotted and my t's to be crossed, it is evident that that interruption emphasises the well-known fact to which I ventured to call the attention of the House. The debate was wholly conducted by that Party, the division on which the Government was beaten was taken under the auspices of the Whips of that Party, and, according to all constitutional usage, it should have fallen to the lot of the Member for Waterford to be sent for by His Majesty, and not his subservient allies, had we taken the unconstitutional course, as I think it, of regarding a division under those circumstances and under all the conditions which then prevailed as
  654
  constituting a vote of censure and requiring the resignation of the Government. I only go back to that interesting event because the right hon. Gentleman thought it worth while to make a passing reference to it. I think, even in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, it had somewhat lost its interest, and he evidently, upon the general tenour of his speech, was more anxious to criticise, and, I think, rightly more anxious to criticise, the policy of the Government as it has been, and as he anticipates it will be, than to deal with what occurred three weeks ago in the division lobbies.
  He has asked me Questions upon three separate subjects. He has asked me a series of questions about the Army, some Questions about the Redistribution Bill, and some Questions about the Colonial Conference. I will endeavour briefly to deal with the points that he has laid before the House under each of those separate heads. His first Question was about the Army. The text of those observations was in certain speeches made by Lord Roberts, one in the House of Lords, the other, I think, in the City. He attached great importance to the fact that Lord Roberts was not merely a great general, which everybody recognises him to be, not merely a great authority on military matters, which all allow him to be, but also a member of the Defence Committee; and the right hon. Gentleman, following the well-trodden path of his companions on that bench, has not been able to allude, even in a passing word, to the Defence Committee without a somewhat cheap sarcasm being levelled at myself as a person who affected to have an authority in strategic matters which his training did not fit him to possess. I do not feel much moved by those gibes. I have never made the smallest pretence to any special authority on strategic subjects. I am open to the charge levelled at me by the right hon. Gentleman that I take an interest in those subjects; and I only hope that my successor in office will, when he comes to be His Majesty's principal adviser, also take an interest in the Defence Committee, and that he also will attend its meetings. Is it too much to hope that he will not attend them as a mere perfunctory spectator of discussions

  655
  in which he takes no part, but will also lay himself open to the charge, the severe charge, which, has been levelled against me, that he does hope to arrive by the aid of his expert advisers at some conclusions not useless to the Empire and to discuss some questions which have too long been allowed to sleep, not under this Government only, or chiefly, but under Governments of which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have been members?
  It is true that Lord Roberta is a member of that Committee. It is also true that on that Committee Lord Roberts has done, and is from week to week doing, admirable service. I do not remember a single occasion—I speak from memory—on which Lord Roberts has either felt or expressed a different opinion from that at which the majority of the Committee have arrived. But that Committee Lave not got under their charge, as I have said over and over again in this House, the questions of the organisation and discipline of the Army, and it would be in the highest degree inexpedient that they should have under their charge the organisation and discipline of the Army; that must rest primarily with the War Office; secondly, with the Government as a whole. When Lord Roberts speaks upon that subject he speaks with all the authority of a man who Iris himself an unparalleled military record behind him; he speaks also with the authority of a man who was, I think, himself Com-mander-in-Chief over the greater number of those years whose barrenness in military reform he now regrets. I would only add to that, that as regards the actual details of contemporary Army administration, I can see that Lord Roberts is probably very well informed, but he has no official cognisance of what has been done or is being done. He is not connected now in any official sense with the War Office. He speaks on these subjects, which are outside the purview of the Defence Committee, with the authority of a great soldier, with the authority of a man who has himself been in the highest office in the War Office. I do not know whether anything could add to the authority with which he speaks in these two capacities; at all events, he gains no additional authority
  656
  from the fact that he is doing the admirable service on the Committee of Defence which I have already indicated to the House.
  Without going into details on the criticism which Lord Roberts has passed on the Army, I agree with him about the officering difficulty both here and in India. I do not agree that the Army is in the same condition that it was in 1899. It has improved, in my opinion, upon the Army of 1899, just as the Army of 1899 improved on that of 1895.
  MR. MCKENNA: Just in the same way.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I say so without either suggesting or desiring to suggest criticism upon those who were responsible in 1899 or 1895. With the progress of years and the increased knowledge, it would be unfortunate if no corresponding increase in efficiency were attained.
  I think the next subject upon which the right hon. Gentleman asked me a series of Questions was the policy of the Government in respect of the redistribution of seats, and more particularly the course they meant to adopt in regard to any inquiry to be conducted during the recess which may lay the foundations of a Bill to be introduced next session. I think there is no difficulty in satisfying the right hon. Gentleman upon these heads. We propose to follow very closely the example set up by Mr. Gladstone in 1884. Mr. Gladstone, as the House knows, appointed a Committee in the early days of the recess. That Committee carried on investigations and made a confidential Report to the Government. They were then, with the addition of one or two members, turned into a Commission. The Commission held public inquiries, and the result of those investigations, both public and private, both confidential and not confidential, were embodied in a Bill and subsequently passed into law.
  Mr. ASQUITH: By consent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bill passed by consent. [Cries of "No," and

  657
  "The Commission was appointed by consent."] Yes, but the Committee was not. That is really the important point. After all, the fact that the Bill passed by consent was an accident in the political situation. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite could not get their Reform Bill without a Redistribution Bill, and we could not get a Redistribution Bill without a Reform Bill. There were the elements of a compromise, which are absent at the present moment, as we do not propose to introduce a Reform Bill, and I doubt whether hon. Members opposite are more enthusiastic in that direction than we are ourselves. That circumstance does not alter the procedure we intend to adopt, nor doss it seem to me to have any bearing upon it whatever. We are proposing to appoint a Committee, as Mr. Gladstone appointed a Committee, which should have large freedom of action, to report to us confidentially, and we should then, either at a later stage, possibly, indeed, only just before, or even after the Bill had been introduced, appoint a Commission, though on that point I should like to reserve absolute liberty of action. There is no reason, so far as I know, why the Commission should receive statutory assent, and I think the best course to pursue will be that which enables the Government best to prepare their Bill, and which will best provide the House with an opportunity to judge whether that Bill is or is not founded upon reasonable principles and ought or ought not to be passed into law.
  MR. ASQUITH: Will the Committee proceed upon the assumption that the abandoned Resolutions are to form the groundwork of the new Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The view of the Government on that point is quite clear. I think the Resolutions should form the basis of any inquiry which the Committee makes. Of course, it does not follow at all that the Report of the Committee itself may not induce the Government in some respects to modify the Resolutions.
  The right hon. Gentleman then went on to discuss the question of the Colonial Conference; and he asked me four Questions, three of which, at all
  658
  events, I think have been categorically answered, and the fourth, if not categorically answered, the answer to which carries with it no new principle. The right hon. Gentleman first asked me whether, in respect of what is known in the phraseology of the fiscal controversy as the automatic conference, the invitations to that conference will be issued during the recess. I conceive, if Parliament meets at its usual time next year, there can be no reason, either of precedent or otherwise, why the Government should issue those invitations before the meeting of Parliament. The next Question the right hon. Gentleman asked me was whether India and the Crown Colonies were to be represented in this automatic conference. With regard to the Crown Colonies, let me say it has been held, and I think with some justice, that their proper representative at any conference would be the Colonial Secretary for the time being. As regards India, we shall of course not issue any invitations to India for the automatic conference. Then the right hon. Gentleman asked me two Questions which may be treated together. He asked me what would be the relations of this conference to the conference of which I spoke at Edinburgh, and which it would be the duty of His Majesty's Government to summon should we be returned to power at the next election. I have more than once said that the automatic conference cannot be a substitute for the conference which would be summoned if at the next election we were returned to office. At the same time, although that conference could not be a substitute for the conference we should summon after a successful general election, we do not propose so far as we are concerned to prevent the representatives of the conference discussing what matters they please. We think that no precedent would be worse than that of the mother country saying to the Colonies, "You may come here, but you must come fettered. There are some topics which we can allow you to discuss; there are other topics on which we must respectfully request you to hold your peace." No such principle will be laid down by us; no invitation couched in language so insulting will issue under our auspices from the Colonial Office.

  659
  I hope the right lion. Gentleman will see that, although I have answered the four Questions he put to me briefly, I have answered them completely, and there ought to be no doubt whatever as to what is the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard both to the automatic conference and the conference which is to succeed it, supposing what hon. Gentlemen opposite are pleased to term impossible should come to pass and we should be returned to power. As the right hon. Gentleman based the whole of his speech on the conviction that such a consummation was impossible, I do not know why he is so anxious about a contingency which could only occur if the impossible takes place. All through his speech not only was he of opinion that the public never would give a verdict in favour of the Government on which he has showered so many uncomplimentary epithets, but he also assumed that every Gentleman on this side shares to the full that opinion. But then, why bother about what is going to happen after we are returned to power? I cannot understand this morbid curiosity which shows itself on every occasion on the benches opposite about a contingency which they neither in public nor private admit to be even conceivable. I think that is curiosity gone mad. If it is so absolutely certain that that united Party is to return, with a united policy, and on the crest of a popular wave extending over England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, into power at the next general election, why trouble your heads with what the present holders of office would have done had something quite different occured? I think really some of the debates on this question might almost be abbreviated if hon. Gentlemen would consistently assume that the hypothesis to which they pin their whole credit as political prophets was finally accepted, and we were spared a catechism which only deals, on their own view, with the impossible.
  As I am on my legs, and as all these Questions are being asked about what is to happen after the election, and what the present holders of office are going to do after that event, I should like to know if any speaker follows on that bench what they are going to do. It is quit an important question.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Is it in order?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We shall be, according to their view, reduced to the comparatively humble rôle of requiring the Government to sit up until four o'clock in the morning over an uncontentious Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: On a point of order, would it be in order for hon. Members on this side, following the Prime Minister, to go into the details of the Liberal policy in the event of their return to power.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That was a rhetorical retort; it is conceivable that the salaries might be drawn by hon. Gentlemen on the other side.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon has, I think, very naturally interrupted me. I think his intervention was, if not justified on a strict point of order, at all events justified from the point of view of expediency as he sees it. I cannot imagine, if it were in order to put the hon. Member for Carnarvon through a cross-examination as to what he was going to do on the Education Act in Wales, and out of it, anything more embarrassing to the hon. Gentleman, and he was perfectly right to invoke the rules of the House to protect himself from so unpleasant a prospect. But I do not press that point. It is sufficient that I have asked the Question; it is sufficient that that Question is a very unpleasant one ["No",] and the obvious reluctance to deal with it is all the Answer that I require at this moment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It would prolong debate.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I admit that if each section of the Opposition were to give their views of what the constructive policy of their Party ought to be, the clock would have gone twice round its circle before we brought the debate to a conclusion, and when it was brought to a conclusion, I do not know in what condition the Opposition would be found.

  661
  The right hon. Gentleman is very indignant that a Government should retain office, which, as he says, has lost all authority not merely at home, but abroad, not merely in be mother country but in the Colonies. I do not agree with his diagnosis of the facts. I may say, incidentally, that I take a much more favourable view of hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite than is taken of them in foreign countries I have never been a pessimist about right hon. Gentlemen who sit upon that bench when they come to occupy this. I have no doubt they will rub along somehow. If they add neither to the glory or the stability of the country, at all events they will, I dare say, get out of a position into which they have rashly got without any fatal degree of discredit. I think well of them. But I can assure the House that my opinion of them is not universally shared. If you were to go through, the Chancellories of Europe and through the various colonies that make up the British Empire, you would find a, fear, which I hope and believe is groundless, but a genuine and great fear, lest in the ordinary mutations of Party government, this Treasury Bench should be occupied with other occupants than it has at present. If I shared the views of these ill-informed or half-informed persons, I should think very ill of the British Constitution, because under the British Constitution such mutations of Party are inevitable and necessary. They have always taken place at intervals, and they will always take place at intervals; and if the whole Empire has simply to depend on the efforts of one Party, of course it is a very serious matter. I do not go that length at all.
  Of course, I think, what, indeed, is obvious, that right hon. Gentlemen opposite will have to eat a great many of their words when they come to deal with the actual facts of the case. I have to assume, and I do assume, that when instead of irresponsible critics they become responsible governors, a very different tone will pervade their speeches. I do not think that, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman himself and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, I have heard a single Member of the Opposition during the
  662
  whole session make the sort of speech which I should have thought a wise man would have made if he felt that he might be responsible for public affairs within the next two years. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean did speak the other day like a man who felt the responsibility that may come to the Party to which he belongs. But how many others spoke in the same sense? Not one. They go on repeating the old Party parrot cries, things that a year or two ago brought down the cheers on the platform. That may be all very well when you see five years of Opposition before you. But if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite believe, as they profess to do, that the fruit is almost within their grasp; that it is ripe—some of them would say, perhaps, it is over-ripe — if they believe that, I am unable to understand how they carry on the sort of irresponsible campaign they do, both in this House and in the country. His Majesty's Government possess the confidence of this House. We do not think that while we possess the confidence of this House it can justly be charged against us that we lack authority to deal with home, foreign, or colonial affairs. I repudiate as utterly unconstitutional the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. The Government of the day derives its authority from nothing but the majority of this House. That is a constitutional doctrine upon which the right lion. Gentleman himself has relied in the past, and I have no doubt that he will have to rely on it in the future; and it is upon that doctrine that I base myself on the present occasion.
  *MR. VILLIERShoped that, as this was the first time he had ventured to address the House, there would be extended to him the same indulgence that was invariably extended to new Members on such occasions. He had refrained from addressing the House until now because he had always considered that a new Member, like a new boy in a public school, should be very slow to assert himself, and perhaps he would not have spoken even now but that he felt that he could not miss the opportunity which this debate afforded of making an earnest appeal to the

  663
  Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament in the autumn. He did not ask for an Answer that afternoon; but he did hope that the right hon. Gentleman would consider some of the words which he would venture to address to him. With regard to this House he had been more an outsider than an insider during the life of the present Parliament; he had therefore, perhaps, occupied a better position than those actually concerned in the work of the House from which to judge the ethics of the question. It was not a pleasant duty to tell anyone that he had outstayed his welcome and that his portmanteau was on the doorstep, but he had no alternative but to voice the protest made with such overwhelming force on the occasion of his own election. He gave the Prime Minister credit for the most patriotic intentions in remaining in office, but he thought, nevertheless, that the right hon. Gentleman entirely missed the situation. In fact, he had no hesitation in saying that the course the Prime Minister was adopting, well intentioned as he was sure it was, was doing much to lower the standard of honesty, efficiency, and mutual confidence between the governors and the governed, which should always distinguish the life of a Ministry.
  In the first place, he maintained that the Prime Minister could not continue in office without breaking faith with the country. The present Government was returned almost entirely on the war issue. The country was given to understand by utterances of Ministers themselves that no contentious measures would be passed by means of the majority so obtained, and it naturally concluded that when South Africa was settled another appeal would be made. The evasion of that compact was producing in the country an intense resentment. The sense of wrong was spreading and deepening with every additional week of those unredeemed promises. It took a long time for a political conviction to reach the bed-rock of the electorate, but he had seen the effect of this conviction on the minds of hundreds of those who were not naturally political, who in taking up a newspaper looked at the cricket and football and every other news before they looked at Parliamentary
  664
  debates; he had seen the effect on young men just formulating their political opinions and getting their first impressions of the standards of political life; and he had also seen old supporters of the Government at their wits end to give a satisfactory explanation of the conduct of Ministers, and wincing under the imputation of broken faith with the electorate.
  And they knew what had been the effect in that House. This cooked policy had led to inefficiency on the one side and exasperation on the other, probably unparalleled in the history of Parliament. The ignoble position had been reached of Ministers truckling to their followers and fleeing from their foes; support was obtained anyhow and from anywhere; fruitful legislation was sacrificed to catch-vote measures; genuine debate was closured; votes of censure were met by mere technicalities; honest issues were evaded by reference to The "previous Question"; personalities were induced, insults pocketed, colleagues betrayed, and reputations lost. In a word, truth was throttled and artifice reigned supreme. Through all this the Prime Minister was, he believed, actuated by the highest motives. Though his action was sapping the "fountains of belief" in the country and reducing the House of Commons to a spectacle, he believed the right hon. Gentleman honestly thought that out of all this evil good would come. The Prime Minister feared to entrust the Empire to the Liberal Party, who, in his opinion, were a ragged and unravelled lot, without cohesion and without policy.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not use those expressions; I leave that sort of epithet to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  *MR VILLIERSsaid the Prime Minister had inferred it, and as to the Liberals having no policy he could assure the Prime Minister that he was mistaken. "Honesty is the best policy." With regard to union, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House that he did not say a word just now about that matter. But "Justice is a great ally," and he could promise the

  665
  Prime Minister that in a young Parliament there would be a number of men possessed of some ability and much determination, banded together in the cause of good government, which was the cause which the right hon. Gentleman himself had at heart. They would be prepared to preserve the continuity in foreign policy; they would be as devoted to economical administration, constitutional principles, and individual rights, as was the Prime Minister himself. They would have as great a horror of plunder and pillage as any he could possess. And if, on the other hand, the Prime Minister thought that by continuing in office be would save the Conservative Party from adopting projection, he could vouch for it that he might confidently leave that matter in the hands of the electorate. The country had shown no liking for protection, and what it did not like any batter was mystification. Dual utterances such as those the Prime Minister had delivered during the last two years on the fiscal question, it could not and would not understand. He would remind the Prime Minister, with his great classical knowledge, of a law which obtained among the ancients which required hermaphrodites to declare themselves, and to choose the sex to which they wished to belong. He thought that the political hermaphrodites of to-day might declare themselves with advantage. What they wanted was more sincerity and straight dealing. They had heard a great deal lately about the return to the simple life. They had it in furniture, art, and manners. Might he put in a plea for its extension to the domain of politics? Cromwell, Pitt, and Gladstone were all straightforward men, and their names were great in the political history of this country. He appealed again to the Prime Minister to put an end to this artificial situation. The advantages he might see in continuing were as nothing to the fundamental wrong of breaking faith with the nation. By so doing he was not considering the interests of his country, his Party, or himself. He who clung to office very often lost power, and he begged of him to take a straight course and thus earn the respect of his contemporaries, and enable the historian
  666
  to secure for him a place in the temple of fame.
  MAJOR SEELYmoved that the Bill be lead a second time on that day three months. Having congratulated the hon. Member for Brighton on the eloquent speech he had made on his first appearance in the House, he said the Prime Minister had endeavoured to show that the Government legislation and the conduct of the business of the House, for which he was responsible, was not lacking in authority because he had a majority in the House. He was not prepared to dispute that at the moment. What he was concerned about was the lack of skill on the part of the First Lord of the Treasury with regard to national defences. Three years ago he brought before the House on this very occasion the deplorable state of the defences of the country, and the Prime Minister, in replying, expressed agreement with many of the statements he then made. It had been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, that since that date three years ago, according to the highest authority who could be found in regard to Army matters, the state of our defences as a whole was not only not better, but positively worse. In regard to the defences as a whole, what was then asked for was that a Committee of Defence should be appointed—a thinking department, as it was called by the noble Lord who then represented Woolwich. At last a Committee of Defence was appointed, but he was sorry to say that the proceedings of that Committee had made confusion worse confounded. It was perfectly possible that their private proceedings might be of advantage to future Governments, but in so far as the Committee of Defence had been a guiding force in the strategy of this country, it seemed to him that their influence had been deplorable, for, after all, what had it done? It had brought confusion, and it had spread uncertainty.
  The right hon. Gentleman had given long and deep thought to this matter. He had no doubt at all that if the Prime Minister had been Dictator of the country, and if he had had a united Party to lead, he would

  667
  have given wise and sound advice, and we would not have been put in the position in which we now stood. The Prime Minister had been obliged, in order to keep his Party together, and in order to keep two divergent schools of thought in one, to adopt the limited liability view of the British Empire—the most fatal view that was ever suggested from the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman had to reconcile two schools of thought, one represented by the present Secretary of State for War, who adopted the naval policy that the invasion of this country was, if not altogether impossible, at last impossible except in small numbers. On the other hand there was a large body of Volunteer officers who in secret conclave unburdened their souls with some freedom as to the danger of invasion. The surer and the wiser course was to assume that every danger was possible, and that if the people were willing to take precautions they should be encouraged to do so. The Prime Minister had to make a compromise, and his view was that invasion was possible, but not by a greater force than 70,000, and that they could be effectually opposed by a certain number of troops in this country. He asked the House to observe that this tallied with the views of the Secretary of State for War. That was what might be called the limited liability view of national service to be given by the citizens of this country.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the decision of the Committee of Defence was arrived at before the present holder of the office of Secretary of State for War had come into that office at all.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous interruption. It seemed to convey the suggestion that the view he was urging was not founded on fact. As a matter of fact, it did prove that the advice on which the Committee had arrived at their decision was that of the late Secretary of State for War, the present Secretary of State for India. At that very time the extreme naval school were not represented on the Committee of Defence, but when they were afterwards represented a conflict of opinion took place.
  668
  He could not conceive how any reasonable man who looked at the history of this country and other countries during the last few years, and even months, could seriously support the views of the Prime Minister. The whole history of the Far Eastern war tended to show that the theory that responsibility could be limited to a certain definite number of invaders was always the height of folly. It was on that rock that Russia split. Russia propounded precisely the same limited liability theory in regard to Japan which the Prime Minister had propounded as to the possibility of invasion of this country. They made statements as to the number of Japanese necessary for invasion, they used the same arguments as the Prime Minister as to the difficulties of transport, and they used the same arguments with regard to torpedo boats and ships at Port Arthur. After all, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India had reason now to congratulate himself that the views he upheld in this matter with pertinacity and determination—although some hon. Members differed from him as to the way of carrying them out—had been so fully justified by the events of this war. Disaster had followed disaster upon sea and land to the Russian arms.
  He had made his protest against this limited liability view. It was hopeless for the authorities to talk about compulsory military service for national or Imperial defence in this country except in the hour of great national danger. All they could do was to take the people into their confidence and tell them that it was impossible to foresee the manifold dangers of war, but that one thing was certain—however numerous the number of men trained to arms, the country would always want more. No general in the field had ever had too many men, and no Prime Minister had ever had too many supporters. Therefore it was that, in this country more than in any other country—more than in Russia—this suggestion that our dangers were less than had been supposed was particularly to be avoided. He asked the Secretary for War to correct the impression that had gone abroad tending to sap the patriotic effort of the people that, after all, we

  669
  had taken more trouble than was necessary in providing a vast array of men. He blamed the right hon. Gentleman for having introduced a state of confusion and uncertainty in all branches of the military forces. He noticed that the Secretary for War was not in his place, though he was not surprised at it. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he would not stand at that box unless his scheme was enforced. Why had the Secretary of State for War not come boldly forward with his schemes to enforce and defend them? and when the House looked back on the history of the past they had reason to regret the loss of a War Minister like the Secretary for India, who had the courage to state his views and to adhere to them. That was not the situation now. The Regular Army had been thrown into the melting-pot. They believed that the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for a dual Army would be disastrous, and that they must end in enlistment for short service only, thereby causing difficulties in the Indian Army. The right hon. Gentleman would not say whether or not he proposed to begin this disastrous experiment when Parliament had no opportunity of being able to veto the scheme. He maintained that the right hon. Gentleman's action was a highly unconstitutional proceeding, especially if he proceeded during the recess to make a fundamental change by establishing a home-service Regular Army without the previous sanction of Parliament.
  That was not all. The Militia had also been placed under a sentence of death, and infinite harm had been caused by the action of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the Volunteer force. An order had been issued stating that the Volunteers should be medically examined for foreign service. Was there, he asked, any precedent in the Army for the issue of an order by the War Minister for which there was no legal sanction? He did not believe that there was any precedent, and the attempt by the right hon. Gentleman to establish it now had caused great concern to the force, and would cause grave injustice to it. He had made inquiry as to what had been the result of the right hon. Gentleman's illegal proceeding. In one
  670
  corps of 508 men with which he was familiar only twenty-four men were returned as being unfit for foreign service, a fact which showed that there was a higher proportion of Volunteers available for foreign service than among the rank and file of the Regular Army. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he should withdraw the obnoxious circular, and said that if the right hon. Gentleman were wise he would stop his perpetual attempt to upset the existing order of things in the Militia and Volunteers, which had served the country so well. The right hon. Gentleman should devote himself to the humble but more profitable work of using the weapons placed in his hands to the best advantage, he should attempt to improve the condition of the soldiers and officers, and should not embark on any policy that would not only undermine the patriotism of the Auxiliary Forces but the whole military spirit of the nation.
  *MR. McCRAEin supporting the Amendment, said he thought after the second speech of Lord Roberts the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War ought to make some statement as to what his intentions were with regard to the Army and Volunteer forces during the Parliamentary recess. It was admitted on all hands that they had chaos at the War Office, and as he would have to criticise the right hon. Gentleman pretty severely he ought at once to say that there was one thing for which the right hon. Gentleman was to be commended. At least he had repaired the damage done to the Army by the action of his predecessor in introducing the three years enlistment system, which deprived this country of the necessary drafts for India. He had done so by the introduction of the nine years enlistment system by which they again hoped to provide the necessary drafts for India and the Colonies. But did the right hon. Gentleman, after having accomplished the purpose for which the nine years system of enlistment was introduced, intend it to remain as part of the permanent Army administration, or did he mean to proceed at once with the short-service system of two years enlistment which he put

  671
  before the House on the 14th of July last? Or was this short-service system to follow the Army corps of his predecessor? He understood that the right hon. Gentleman was not to proceed further with the establishment of this short-service home-service Army, but that he was going to make an experiment at Lichfield. He did not know whether that was so or not, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would lay all doubt upon that matter at rest.
  The present Army administration was causing great dis-service to the Army itself. He had spoken to a great number of officers of the Line, and they were all of opinion that their position was untenable at the present time. The Volunteers had certainly been the victims of vivisection; they had been experimented on almost to the death, and he wished to know whether, in the coming months of the Parliamentary recess, the Volunteers were to have the same privileges which were to be accorded to the politicians— were they to have a close time? Might they rest assured that until Parliament met again there would at least be some stability with regard to that force. They had survived ridicule; they had been almost killed by the present Administration, and he wanted to put this straight Question to the right hon. Gentleman: What did the right hon. Gentleman wish the Volunteers to do? Did he wish them to be the home-service Army? If so, why did he impose conditions which could only apply to foreign service?
  The circular which had been so much debated was an evidence of the administration of the War Office. They did not know their own minds. They issued an order unaware of what was to be the consequence of its issue. He was constrained to say that he thought the right hon. Gentleman had come to the verge of his political veracity in regard to this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman would take his mind back to the time when the attention of the House was first called to the order in this circular and compare the Answers given to Questions then with the Answer given by him yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman would at once see that there Was something that called for explanation. The Answers given on the 10th of July
  672
  were certainly not in accordance with that given by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday. The Volunteers did not object to being brought to a high state of efficiency. That could only be limited to the conditions of employment in their ordinary occupations; but with regard to the tests the right hon. Gentleman wanted to impose on the Volunteers it was only by such a test that the right hon. Gentleman could get his way and reduce the present strength of the Volunteers, which was now 240,000, by 65.000. The right hon. Gentleman could only do that in one way and that was in this way.
  To show how absurd the issue of that circular was he need only illustrate the case of the 32nd Brigade when it was training at Stobs. The men, having been engaged from 6·15 a.m. till noon were at a quarter-past eight at night called out for a route march. From 8.15 at night until 3.30 in the morning they marched fifteen miles, with short intervals for rest. At 3.30 they were placed in the line of battle without a rest and were engaged until six in the morning. Though they were under arms all the time there were no complaints and not more than half-a-dozen men fell out. The men underwent the test after two days in camp, and yet he believed that a great number of them would be rejected as unfit on the examination which was to take place according to the circular issued by the right hon. Gentleman. Did the House realise what that meant? A great many of these young men were under the age of nineteen years; they had not the physical equivalent of nineteen years of age, yet they were capable of undergoing all that. He did not believe they all had teeth which would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, but that did not prevent them marching or enjoying a very good breakfast after it was all over. That was simply an illustration of the absurdity of the circular that was issued by the right hon. Gentleman. He did not think that the mere fact that the circular was not discussed at the meeting of which they had heard was to be taken as evidence that all the officers agreed with the circular. He had come across a good many officers within the last three weeks, and he had discovered only who supported the

  673
  right hon. Gentleman, and that one had given himself away to the right hon. Gentleman one night at a Volunteer celebration after dinner. With that one exception, he did not know of an officer who approved of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman.
  He believed the right hon. Gentleman had been very much handicapped in this matter. It was notorious that the members of the Army Council were at loggerheads, and that the War Office and the right hon. Gentleman were at loggerheads. The right hon. Gentleman had a scheme of Army reform, but he had not been allowed to carry out that scheme in its entirety. The sample that had been given to the House was a thing of mere threads and patches. There was only one course to be followed when the right hon. Gentleman came to loggerheads with the Army Council. The right hon. Gentleman should either have insisted on carrying his scheme en bloc, or have sent in his resignation. It would have been much better if the right hon. Gentleman had taken the latter step, and he regretted that he had not taken up that position. He also regretted that he had taken up this policy of continually nagging at the Army, the Volunteers, and the Militia. There was a great deal to be done if the right hon. Gentleman would only apply the same time and energy that he had applied to upsetting the Volunteer force in other directions. The right hon. Gentleman would have done a great deal of good if he had applied himself to perfecting a scheme of transport for the Volunteers. He (Mr. McCrae) felt he bad been hardly treated in this regard. He served on a Committee in 1902 which formulated a scheme of transport for the Volunteers, and the cost was put on the Estimates for 1903–4, yet nothing had been done. If the Volunteers were to be efficient they must have a complete system of transport. They had been crying out for it for many years, and nothing had been done. The right hon. Gentleman's attitude with regard to the Volunteers had been one of destructive criticism, instead of constructive policy. Both Lord Roberts and the right hon. Gentleman agreed that we ought to have a small Volunteer force, highly equipped
  674
  and trained, but in his opinion that was altogether a wrong idea. What we wanted for this country was not only efficiency from a military standpoint, but that every young man capable of bearing arms should have an opportunity of going through a course of training. The right hon. Gentleman's policy had been the reverse. His policy had been to reduce the Volunteers to 180,000. The right hon. Gentleman should see that there was increased efficiency, but he should bear in mind also that he could not conscientiously take up that view, for he proposed to reduce the grant by £300,000 when he proposed the scheme for the reduction of the force to 180,000.
  The Government had no consistent policy either with regard to the Army or the Volunteers. They had adopted all along a hand-to-mouth policy, not knowing what they were to do from day to day. They had been the sport of every wind that blew, and now the final stage had come, and he did not think they would be worried by the right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Bench for many months longer. Was it, therefore, too much to ask that during that short period the House should be assured that neither the Army nor the Volunteers should be subjected to any further treatment of this very irritating kind. The First Lord of the Treasury had asked what the Liberal Party were going to do with regard to this policy. He could not speak except for himself, but he thought he voiced the views, if not of the Front Bench, at least for the private Members on that side of the House, when he said that the Liberal Party, when they came into power, would see that the Army was treated in a different way to that in which it had been treated during the last three years.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months'."—(Major Seely.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he had for a considerable time been moved by feelings of the greatest pessimism as to the Army, but he confessed that after what he

  675
  heard he felt more gloomy than ever as to any real Army reform taking place. In his view the real difficulty in the way of dealing in a statesmanlike fashion with the defence of the Empire lay with Party politicians in that House. They had opposed the whole of Supply practically on the specific ground that they did not approve of the way in which the Army problem had been dealt with. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who opposed this Bill spoke very highly of Lord Roberts' views; the seconder said those opinions were wrong. He certainly thought when hon. Gentlemen came down to the House to speak against any scheme for the defence of the Empire they ought at least to agree. He, therefore, claimed he was justified, considering the gravity of the issue, in saying that the difficulties in the way of dealing with the problem of the defence of the Empire lay in that House.
  He thought it would be as well if those who criticised took more trouble to study and had a better sense of responsibility. This was about the biggest problem that could be faced. The problem of the defence of the Empire was doubly difficult because it was a complex problem of naval power and military force. They had heard nothing about that. They had heard a great deal about whether a man was fit to go abroad, but they had heard nothing about the principle except from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was pleased to say, with regard to the Committee of Defence, that it only made confusion worse confounded. He had great respect for the sincerity of the hon. and gallant Member and thought when he was older and had studied this question more he would be a useful military Member of the House.
  After the Peninsular War, for forty years this House and this country had practically no experience of war involving great naval operations. The only experience this country had had since Waterloo was the Crimea, where the moral effects of the combined fleets secured automatically unquestioned command of the sea. The Indian Mutiny and the war in South Africa did not involve naval operations of war. The series of military wars in Europe and America kept the mind of this House and the country in
  676
  a purely military groove, till at last everybody supposed that the Army was an abstract question to be discussed by itself. Naval Estimates were reduced and nothing was heard of invasion except as a purely military question. Then came the war between Japan and China followed by the Spanish-American War, which showed distinctly, with regard to over-sea warfare, that large military operations over-sea could not be attempted without sea command. That, at once, brought the mind of the country towards the old principle and practice of this Empire, which was that our Navy was not merely our first line of defence, but that the command of the sea was essential to us for economic reasons. Such command necessarily guaranteed immunity from over-sea attack. Then the House realised that it could not discuss Army policy without relation to Navy questions, but to do so was transgressing the rules of debate. He did not know how many times during the last twenty years he had been called to order for attempting, to discuss the problem in that way. Out of this came a feeling in the House that it was a ridiculous thing, and a recognition that if the problem of the defence of the Empire was to be dealt with on common-sense lines there would have to be some expert body, responsible through Ministers to this House, whose duty it should be to grasp the problem presented by the Empire as a whole, and to lay down principles for the guidance of military policy based upon assertion of naval supremacy. Thus the Committee of Imperial Defence was appointed, and he regarded the appointment of that Committee as the greatest step ever taken towards economy and efficiency.
  For fifty years there had been built up a military policy which ignored naval conditions and it was not to be expected that the Committee would produce a great change immediately. The absence of perspective or the sense of proportion in the mind of the hon. Member opposite was shown by the fact that the greater part of his speech was devoted to the Volunteer circular. The real military obligations of the country were not at home but over-sea. He denied that he belonged to the extreme naval school.

  677
  He belonged to a school which looked to past history and the teaching of all wars in cases involving combined naval and military operations. He belonged to a school which, in view of the economic position of this country and the fact that our Empire was an oceanic Empire, held that our first principle must be the ability to assert and keep command of the sea, and when the hon. Member referred to the "extreme naval school" he was not talking of any body of men worthy of being called a school, because nobody who knew anything at all about the subject could ignore the fact that the Army was the necessary complement of the Navy. The fact of the Navy making these Islands secure from attack did not in itself secure the land frontiers of the Empire abroad. It was necessary for students of this problem to get rid of small ideas, and to fix their eyes on the British frontiers abroad, remembering that if only one of those frontiers were broken through the whole structure of Empire would come down like a pack of cards.
  The real burden of Lord Roberts' speech was how were we going to discharge our military obligations over-sea. He was glad Lord Roberts had raised that question, because the matter would only be properly dealt with under the pressure of a sense of duty in the citizens at home and throughout the Empire. The Army itself had been brought up in a false school of thought as to its military obligations which were over-sea and not at home. The readiness with which generals rushed to the platform and declared this and that about invasion, quarrelling with the Government and with the Secretary of State, was one of the difficulties which we encountered in regard to Army reform. The time had come when the Ministry ought to show their teeth a little more in dealing with such persons. He thought that General Lyttelton, as Chief of the Army Council, should have received notice to quit when he made his first speech, and certainly when he made his second. And when a late Commander-in-Chief, a Field-Marshal on full pay drawing £5,000 a year and a member of the Defence Committee, covertly attacked the Government and the War Office at a
  678
  meeting with the Lord Mayor in the chair, and committed a breach of every rule of military discipline, the Government ought to put their foot down. If the Army was to be reformed it must be done by a determination to stand no nonsense from these generals. Greatly as he admired Lord Roberts, he did not accept him as a great administrator. He had been some three years Commander-in-Chief and had done nothing to remedy evils of which he now complained. A great general in the field was seldom a good administrator in peace. When Lord Roberts came forward as a teacher in questions of military strategy and tactics he was entitled to be listened to with all respect, but when, while in receipt of full pay as a Field-Marshal, he came forward as an Imperial administrator and quarrelled with the Government, he was doing wrong and ought to be stopped. The difficulty in Parliament was Party politics. If General Lyttelton had been told to go, questions would have been raised night after night on Motions for the adjournment of the House.
  He was afraid he had but feebly discharged what he felt was the obligation to look at this question from a broad point of view, but he was over-weighted with anxiety as to what awaited this Empire if we went on dealing with the Army in the present pettifogging spirit, and blocking all sincere efforts to carry out a reasonable programme of reform. Whilst he was entirely at one with the general principle of policy of his right hon. friend, which was absolutely consistent with the true conclusions of the Defence Committee, he did not agree with the methods or the manner on which he proceeded to their accomplishment. He should vote against the Amendment, believing it was calculated to do more harm than good. He desired to see the House rise to a higher patriotism and help to arrange methods by which the great military obligations of the Empire could be discharged in a way more worthy of our traditions.
  *SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid the House had listened, as it would always listen, with interest and respect to the hon. and gallant Member

  679
  opposite when he spoke in support of the policy which he had consistently enunciated with regard to Imperial defence. Speaking generally, it might be said that all who addressed themselves to this question were in general agreement with the main principles laid down by the hon. and gallant Member, namely, that the Navy must be paramount, and that our frontiers must be placed on a strategic basis. But as practical men they had to realise that it was impossible, in the future as in the past, to rely upon being able to maintain those frontiers, in the event of a foreign war, solely by resorting to the Regular Army. It was with that intention they urged upon the Secretary of State for War the paramount importance of maintaining a large and efficient Auxiliary Army in this country, not only for home defence, but sufficiently equipped and susceptible of rapid training to form what must be the only real reserve for a large Regular Army abroad.
  The Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill afforded an opportunity for reviewing and commenting upon the legislation and administration of the Government during the session, and perhaps it would not be considered out of order if he ventured to make something in the nature of a personal explanation. For the first time after a service of thirteen years in that House, he found himself speaking from benches opposed to the Party with which he had been associated so many years. The House would readily understand that anyone who had been in the House of Commons for a period so long as that did not take that step, which was a grave one, with personal significance to oneself, without very careful reflection and due deliberation. Others of his hon. friends had found themselves obliged to do it before; he had not a doubt there might be found, as time proceeded, others who would follow in the wake hereafter. But he felt confident that all, whoever they might be, would only do it after weighing the cost and looking very carefully into what they were undertaking. Ever since the fiscal question had been before the public, he had found himself opposed to the Government upon that issue. But anyone opposed to a Party upon a single
  680
  issue reflected for a long time before he severed himself from that Party. In fact, it might be said it was seldom found sufficient, even if the question was of great importance, to sever connection with the Party which one supported, upon a single issue.
  For two years he had been placed in a position of independence, to judge questions upon their merits, free from Party predilections. He had received whips from neither Party, and he had tried to address his mind to all the subjects brought forward by the Government with an independent view and to decide upon them on an impartial basis. What had been the result? He had found himself invariably and instinctively opposed to nearly all the main questions put forward by the Gentlemen who sat upon the Treasury Bench, and under those circumstances he had come to the conclusion that he was no longer justified in sitting upon that side of the House with those hon. Members who continued to act with and support the present Government. He fully recognised that there was ample and distinguished precedent for him to have remained below the gangway on the other side. Many Members remembered distinguished Members sitting in the closest possible proximity to hon. Members with whom they were in the acutest antagonism. He had taken this course purely on political grounds, and he was not actuated by anything but the deepest admiration for the Prime Minister, who for many years had been his Leader. He realised, as everybody in that House must recognise, the high character of the right hon. Gentleman; that he possessed in an unique degree Parliamentary qualities unsurpassed by any one in that House. He had failed to escape, like every Member of the House, in whatever quarter he sat, that charm which the Prime Minister shed over the whole atmosphere of the House, and probably the chief regret he had, in severing himself from the Party with which he had acted in the years gone by, was that he would sever his political connection with the Prime Minister. But in saying this he could not, he ventured to assert, advance a stronger illustration

  681
  of the deep-seated aversion that he held to the Prime Minister's policy during the last two years. Were his personal inclinations to lead him, he would go one way; but were his political convictions to lead him, he was driven in another. He would indeed have to ransack his brain to find any important question brought forward and passed in that House during the past two years by the Government to which he could give unstinted approval.
  The Government had claimed for many years to be the Imperialist Party in this country. Many members of the Unionist Party had never ceased to instil into the minds of the electorate that that Party was really the only Party that could truly control and promote the interests of the Empire. He could remember a few years ago when domestic questions in that House were relegated to a place of secondary importance, and those who devoted their minds to such questions were looked upon as objects for pity, as men possessed of minds encumbered by parochial ideas. He was glad to see that opinion was to-day less prevalent. There might be many contributory causes, into which he would not enter. In 1900, he, with the rest of the Unionist Party—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The events of 1900 are rather remote from the Appropriation Bill of 1905.
  *SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid he would make only the barest allusion to them in order to establish his point. In 1900 the Unionist Party was returned with a perfectly clear mandate—to terminate the war in South Africa and reform the War Office and reorganise our Army organisation. No Government set out with more favourable conditions for the realisation of that object. They had a great Parliamentary majority, the Members of which vied one with another in their anxiety to see that object realised; the country was ripe for drastic changes in the Army system, and was prepared to exercise every kind of self-denial to bring them about. Five years had passed away, and he ventured to say that the last condition of the Army to-day was worse than the
  682
  condition five years ago. He did not say that everything should be done in five years, but they did expect that something should be done in that period. Was there any Minister on the Treasury Bench, was there any general in the British Army, who could accurately and clearly define to-day the Army policy of His Majesty's Government? It was as difficult to define the Army policy of the Government, after all these changes and shifts, as it was to define the fiscal policy of the Government.
  What they wanted to know first of all was whether, according to the Government, this country required an Army for home defence. The Secretary of State for India, when Secretary of State for War, had told them that they required a large Army. Now they were told in more recent speeches that an Army for home defence was practically not a necessity in the general military organisation of the country. Could they feel any reliance that the present period of service in the Army was to be continued permanently in the future? There had been many changes. They had long service, then they reverted to short service, and now they had reverted to long service again. These changes meant great loss to the strength and efficiency of the Army. He would ask whether we were to have in future any real established scheme for the employment of men whose time had expired in the Army. He believed that this was one of the most important questions not only of Army reform but of social reform. If we continued the present system of voluntary enlistment, and if a man was able to show a proper record at the end of his term of service, there should be ensured to him, without let or hindrance, some settled and respectable employment Questions had often been asked on this subject, but nothing had been done. What was to happen to the Volunteers? These were vital and urgent questions, and it appeared to him that the very existence of the Government depended on their carrying out their duties in regard to them. Lord Roberts, the late Commander-in-Chief, had said that the Army was no better prepared for war than it was before the South African War.

  683
  What was the cause of this state of affairs? In his judgment it was because the fiscal question caused the Unionist Party to be divided from top to bottom. In order to keep in office the Prime Minister was obliged to trim his sails to catch both winds. After two years of this confusion and indecision was not the continuance of the present Government in office a greater injury to the State than would be its immediate extinction? The baneful influence of this fiscal question was to be traced in every work and act of the Government. What was the conclusion to which he was obliged to come in the face of all this? The conclusion he had come to — the conclusion at which the overwhelming majority of the people had arrived—was that the Government must be brought to an end as quickly as possible. That was the reason why he could not any longer remain an object of negation on the other side of the House, and why he had determined to work with those who now sat around him to bring to a speedy conclusion a condition of things which impaired the dignity and efficiency of the House and was fatal to the best interests of the country.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FOESTER,)said he was not surprised at the present attitude of the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division. It was a considerable time since the Government had had the advantage of the support of the hon. Member. But he thought the hon. Member took an unnecessarily gloomy view of the position of the Government in Army matters. The hon. Member had mis-quoted Lord Roberts, He represented Lord Roberts as having said that the Army was worse now than it had been five years ago. Lord Roberts said something very different.
  *SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: He said something very like it.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: What Lord Roberts said was that he did not believe the Army was inefficient, that on the contrary he agreed with Sir John French that it was better trained and more efficient than it had been before the war.
  684
  "What he meant," said Lord Roberts "was the unpreparedness of the Army force generally." There was no issue between Lord Roberts and himself on that point. If there was any man who had urged in season and out of season that the Army as at present organised was not prepared for the task which it had to discharge he supposed it was himself. He had had a lecture from the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, who told them that the one duty of this Government ought to be, and that the primary duty of the next Government would be, to do nothing—to let matters stand.
  *MR. McCRAE: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he is misrepresenting and mis-quoting me. I accused the right hon. Gentleman of a destructive as against a constructive policy. I hoped that there would be a constructive policy, and that we should not worry the Army or Volunteers.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he took a note of what the hon. Member said. He said that the best policy was to leave things alone.
  *MR. McCRAE: No.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was glad that they were agreed on this. He was convinced that whatever Party was in power they would find that the policy of leaving things alone was not possible; that the organisation of the Army in its every branch required change to meet the great and ever-growing needs of the country.
  The hon. Member for East Edinburgh had said that in the Auxiliary Forces the country had got the only reserve for the Army on service abroad. He admitted that that was a fair but general statement. He believed an Army system could be framed which would give a very large reserve, without having to depend exclusively, or even mainly, on the Auxiliary Forces. At the same time he admitted that the country must rely on the Auxiliary Forces for reinforcements for the Army over-sea in time of war. But what was the inevitable conclusion which followed from that? It was that the Auxiliary

  685
  Forces must be kept in a state of efficiency which would enable them to discharge the duty that was cast upon them in that respect. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh had quite unintentionally travestied a good many of his views with regard to that branch of the subject. He put the question to the House: Was the Volunteer force efficient now? All the evidence was that it was not so efficient as modern necessities required. He cherished the hope that the Volunteer force might, when the demand was made upon them, be capable of satisfying that demand.
  There were three courses open. The first was whether they could largely increase the Army Estimates for the purpose of giving to the Volunteers that which they did not now possess; the second was to leave things exactly as they were, in which case they would be leaving the Volunteers in a state which they believed to be unsatisfactory; and the third was whether, without making a large addition to the Army Estimates, they could give them that which they ought to have in the interests of efficiency. He eliminated the first of those alternatives because they were told the Army Estimates were already too high. The policy of leaving things as they were was an alternative which he for one would never accept. The third was the course which he suggested and which he believed the Volunteers generally were most ready to accept themselves.
  As to the recent circular, he appealed to common sense as to whether it was not an ordinary reasonable document issued in discharge of the obvious duties of the War Office. [Cries of "No."] They were all agreed that a great number of Volunteers would serve abroad, [Some HON. MEMBERS: No.], and, what was more, a great number ought to serve abroad. Experience had taught them that no troops could serve abroad in tropical countries, where our Army had so often to serve, unless they complied with certain conditions. Were they to disregard the experience of every nation, including our own, and make no inquiry as to whether the men who were willing to serve were fit to serve? Were they to wait until the pressure of war came to ascertain what was the force with which we could
  686
  make war? The War Office imposed no conditions on the Volunteers at all—none. They simply issued an order to commanding officers to furnish them with certain information which they did not possess, which they ought to have, and which he was confident the Volunteers were only too anxious to afford. It might be there were individuals or corps which did not desire to submit to the medical examination, which was the best way of obtaining this information. He believed there were very few of them. From every part of the country he had got the same reply, and he found that commanding officers among the best corps were furnishing the War Office with this information. They were having no difficulty about it. With regard to corps which might be unwilling, the position was that the Department did not know to what extent they could help them in time of war.
  It was alleged that there were signs of discouragement and a falling off in recruiting. Were there such signs? There were difficulties which must be overcome, but he could not see how these difficulties were to be overcome by disseminating a spirit of despair. In the Regular Army last week they took more recruits than in the corresponding week last year. Recruiting for the Militia was going up. The Volunteers were increased by 2,000 men. Volunteer camping was in excess of what it had ever been. The demand for commissions in the Army was larger than it was before, though it was true there had been a falling off in one branch of the Army owing to special conditions which had no relation to the rest of the Army. He therefore asked the House not to believe that discouragement existed; and, in any case, even if it did, it would not help them to disseminate a spirit of discouragement and despair which facts did not warrant. He still believed that the principles which he had laid before the House were the only principles upon which the problem of the Army could be dealt with.
  On the general principle he was confident that the moment any Party came to look at the problem face to face they would follow step by step along the lines which he had already proposed. Hon. Members talked about a return to the

  687
  Cardwell system, but that system would not give them the Reserve they desired. He admitted the difficulties of the question and the slow rate of satisfactory progress. Lord Roberts gave one not unilluminating reason for some part of the delay. He told them very frankly that he was responsible for the reduction of the three years system of recruiting. What were they doing now? They were taking exceptional measures to relieve the Army from the difficulty in which it was placed by that three years system. He could wish that Lord Roberts had been able to give them his counsel in another form and in another way. No one would accuse him of being wanting in admiration and respect for that great soldier, but he had for so many years felt that the Committee of Defence was an absolutely essential part of the equipment of this country, and what this country had lost by the non-existence of such a body, he had been able to see even how much good might be done by such a body still in its infancy, that he could not help regretting that counsels so weighty, coming from an officer of so much distinction, were not placed before them in another way.
  It might be that this would be the last time he should have the opportunity of meeting hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in conflict. It might be that next year the rôles being filled by hon. Members opposite and the Government would be reversed; but having had some experience in the administration of the Army, he would say that hon. Members would certainly never find in him a too hasty critic of any policy they might desire to adopt. His belief was that the evils which beset our Army system were far deeper than many of the references made to it would seem to imply. He thought that he was expressing a view which was coming more and more into favour, cutside the House at least, that questions of Army administration must be treated to a far greater extent than now us being non-Party and non-political in their character, so that they might be enabled with advantage to take counsel between the two Parties in the State in order to see whether the problem could not be solved on a basis satisfactory to all. In the meantime he claimed that
  688
  the administration of the Army was not open to the charges brought against it. In dealing with the Regular Army, the Militia, and the Volunteers, he disclaimed any desire to act otherwise than to fit each branch of the service for the varied rôle for which each existed. He had not uttered a word of criticism against any branch of the Army except when he believed it to be unfitted for its work. Though he had said many things about the Volunteers, he had not said a word which could justify any hon. Member in looking upon him as being otherwise than an admirer of this great force. He knew the splendid material of which the force was composed, and was conscious of the zeal which animated it. He had longed to see it made more efficient, and he believed that when hon. Gentlemen opposite came to deal with the problem they would do the same thing for the Volunteers as he wanted to do for them now. In this hope and belief he appealed to the House with some confidence to support the Government in this matter.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that the circular he had issued had caused not only irritation and disquiet, but that it was universally acknowledged to be an unfortunate step towards that development of the Volunteer force which the right hon. Gentleman desired, and which everybody ought to desire who knew what an important force it was. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that whoever might address himself to this question in the future would be obliged to come to the same conclusion as those to which he had arrived, and that anyone who desired to reform the Army would have to follow the lines which the right hon. Gentleman had laid down. Were the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues following those lines? Had he convinced them that this policy was the only one which could be followed? Because, if so, why had there not been more progress made?
  The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to give an effective Answer to the very valuable criticism addressed to the House by his hon. friend the Member for Edinburgh, nor did he deal with the criticism of Lord Roberts. The case of Lord

  689
  Roberts was that six years after the outbreak of war in South Africa this country was no better prepared for war than it was then. That was the gravamen of the whole matter. The one consolation they were told to draw from the war was that, at any rate, they were never to be in a similar plight; yet Lord Roberts told them after all these years, after all these schemes of Army Corps and short service by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that they were not better prepared, but rather worse, than when the war started. The First Lord of the Treasury, in answer to those criticisms, said that Lord Roberts was not necessarily conversant with the state of the Army because he was a member of the Defence Committee. Lord Roberts, up to a recent period, was the Commander-in-Chief of the Army. As his colleagues on the Defence Committee he had the First Lord of the Treasury, who was the President, and the most important members of the Committee were the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War. He asked, therefore, how was it possible that a member of the Defence Committee could not be conversant with the state of the Army when he had such men for his colleagues, and, further, how could the Defence Committee address itself to the question of the defence of the Empire unless it was conversant with the state of the Army? How could the Imperial Defence Committee deal with the question of the North-West Frontier of India unless it knew everything in the mind of the Secretary of State for War? The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War had done nothing to remove the gravity of, or allay the anxiety caused by, the statement of Lord Roberts. Lord Roberts was the best witness they had as to the state of the Army, and at present his statement stood unanswered, and much would have to be done before they could accept the Government's point of view upon that subject.
  On the subject of Redistribution, the Prime Minister had told the House that he would follow the precedent of Mr. Gladstone in 1884. But in 1884 an agreement was arrived at between both sides of the House as to the principles on which the inquiry should proceed, and a Committee was appointed
  690
  to draw up a scheme on the principles arrived at by both sides of the House. Supposing that the Commission drafted a scheme on the lines indicated by the Prime Minister, and Parliament, made changes in it subsequently, which made it impossible to carry it through in the form in which it was brought in, any part of the scheme taken out would render the rest of the scheme impracticable because it was brought in as a whole, so that the House would be in this position, that it must either accept the scheme as proposed by the Prime Minister, in which case it lost its freedom, or it must reject the scheme, with the result that another Boundary Commission must be appointed and a new scheme drawn out, with the result that the settlement would be postponed for another year.
  On the subject of the Colonial Conference, he contended that the Colonies ought to know beforehand what the policy of this country was as to preferential duties. It was not very candid or courteous to allow these people to come here with instructions, perhaps, to open the subject, and in some cases to propose or formulate a proposal —it was not fair to allow them to come here and find when they arrived that those proposals would be disapproved of by the people of this country. If the opinion of this country was once known, the Colonies would be in the position in which they ought to be, and be possessed of the questions which would really be allowed to come before the conference for discussion.
  He would like to say a few words upon another topic which was forcibly brought to their minds by the position in which the House now stood when it was going to vote money to carry on the administration of the country for the next six months. He wished to draw the attention of the House to the neglect by Ministers of those minor measures of legislation which were so essential to the welfare of the people of this country. Some years ago the power of private Members for legislation was practically taken away, and for the useful unpretentious measures of which the House had thus been deprived the Government had not provided an

  691
  substitute. Commissions and Committees reported, and no action was taken on their recommendations.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that he did not see how these matters were relevant to the Bill before the House.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the failure of the House to respond to the demands of the country proved that Parliament had become an impotent body. That was due, to some extent at least, to the fact that the House of Commons and the Government had lost the moral authority which they ought to enjoy. The love of the House for the Government had grown cold, and had recently required rather exceptional measures of heating. But the real source of the authority of the House was to be found in the confidence of the people; and the Prime Minister was not on constitutional ground when he said that the confidence of the House, without the confidence of the people behind it, was enough. Without that confidence the House became so many persons—a body without a soul.
  The British Constitution was peculiar in leaving more than any other Constitution did to the influence of good sense and tradition and respect for usage. Our Constitution was free and flexible and remarkable in the amount of liberty and discretion which it gave in the confidence that it would not be abused. If those traditions were disregarded and the understandings of the Constitution transgressed, the greatest possible injury was done to the Constitution itself. If the powers demitted to Ministers and Parliament in the trust that they would not be abused were, in fact, abused or strained, the system must necessarily break down. Every deviation from the traditions and precedents established by the wisdom of past times became a precedent for the future, and was likely to be pushed still further by those who had to follow. Every violation of the spirit of the Constitution was likely to lead to further violations, and it would be impossible to go on with the Constitution as it had been worked hitherto. If the principle that Ministers must enjoy the confidence of the country was neglected, there
  692
  would have to be some device for shortening the term of Parliaments, or some plan such as the rejerendum adopted, to ensure, that the Legislature were representing the will of the people. Most Members would be very unwilling to contemplate such changes as those, but if the Constitution was to be subjected to the unprecedented strain which it had borne during the last two years such proposals would have to be expected. The country had grown very impatient with the present state of things; he doubted whether the Prime Minister realised the indignation, not to say disgust, with which the nation viewed the present position. No one had more personal regard than he for the First Lord, or would be more unwilling to make any severe criticisms on his political methods, but whatever the right hon. Gentleman's motives had been, the nation was being driven to the conclusion that he was thinking more of his Party than of the interests of the country, and that both Parliament and the Constitution were suffering greatly from the methods which had been adopted during the last few months. The Opposition held, therefore, that the time had long since come when the people should be allowed to express their opinion upon these issues, and to empower a new Parliament to deal with problems which the present Parliament was obviously unfitted to solve.
  Mr. SWIFT MACNEILLcalled attention to an act which he regarded as a great administrative misfeasance, viz., the appointment of General Sir Forestier-Walker to the Military Governorship of Gibraltar. Although the Secretary of State for War was the official agent, the act must be impugned as the deed of the Government itself, because, while the appointment came within the purview of the patronage of the Secretary of State, it was well known that the right hon. Gentleman would not make it without the sanction of the Government as a whole. Personally, he had no feeling whatever against General Walker, but during the whole of his Parliamentary life he had always protested against any connection between officials and Government contracts. Such cases were not likely to occur in the future for

  693
  the simple reason that with the exit of the present Administration the close connection between Ministers of the Crown and company directorates would cease, and never again would the country see an Administration the members of which divided amongst them no fewer than seventy-one directorships, and who, therefore, had difficulty in seeing where public interest ended and private interest began.
  General Walker was appointed to the command of the Cape on the recall of General Butler, and was there for about two years, during which period there was a contract known as the "Cold Storage Contract" out of which the company were said to have realised no less than £6,000,000 sterling. Meat brought to the Cape at a total cost of 3d. or 3½d. per pound was sold to the Government for 11d. General Walker at this time was in command of the lines of communication, having under him the officers who passed these contracts, and he could have made things very unpleasant if the cold storage contract had not gone smoothly. The command at the Cape was generally for a term of five years, but in 1902 General Walker came home. The first thing the public heard was that he had shares, obtained after his relinquishment of the command, in the Cold Storage Company —£100 in his own name and £200 jointly —and then that the Cold Storage Company was to be succeeded by the Australasian and South African Storage Company. In the Westminster Gazette of March 1st, 1902, it was announced that General Walker was to be a director of the new company, and was bringing to it his shares from the vendor company. The new company was the notorious concern about which the Army Stores Commission would have something to say. Now, of all persons in the world, Sir Forestier-Walker was seat to Gibraltar, where in almost every step he took he must deal with contracts or stores. Without impugning in the least General Walker's good faith and honour as a military man, he submitted that, in view of all the circumstances, the appointment was not one that ought to have been made.
  Passing to another subject, he traversed entirely the statement of the Prime
  694
  Minister that, having a majority of the House of Commons, he was constitutionally in power. A Ministry might be strong in the confidence of the House of Commons when the House of Commons reflected the mind and wishes of the people of the country, but when it ceased to reflect those sentiments it was no longer the House of Commons. The House of Commons had no power at all, except so far as it represented the voice of the people, and the Prime Minister had no right to speak of the support of his majority when seventy-eight Members of that majority had declared that they would never face their constituents again, and had no more legislative authority than the merest stranger in the lobby. If there was one man in history upon whom he looked with abhorrence it was Oliver Cromwell, but if he were there he would put a stop to the Government and all their works, and, great as was his abhorrence of that personage, he would willingly bring the Protector up or down for that sole purpose.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLcalled attention to the treatment by the Treasury and the Irish National Board of the Irish language in the national schools of Ireland. They had been trying in that House to get from the Chief Secretary the Minutes of the meetings held by the National Board at which it was decided to withdraw payment for the Irish language as an extra subject in the national schools. They had also tried, without success, to get the right hon. Gentleman to lay on the Table of the House the correspondence which had passed between the Treasury and the National Board with regard to the subject. He did not know why the Chief Secretary should be so much afraid to lay the correspondence on the Table of the House. There was no need for secrecy in the matter if neither body had done anything dishonourable He and his friends felt that there was something which these men were afraid to disclose to the light of day. In the last debate, on the Education Estimates they were told that the Treasury had decided to withdraw the payment for Irish as an extra subject, and that the National Board, which was supposed to represent Irish interests in matters

  695
  of education, had unanimously agreed to that decision on the part of the Treasury. Every Irishman who was interested in the educational development of the people felt that the language movement of the last ten years had been one tending to their intellectual advancement. The peasants were now taking an interest in the education of their children, such as had not been known in the country for a century. He would impress on the House that Protestants and Catholics, the educated classes of the country, men from Trinity College with the highest degrees the college could confer, were enthusiastically supporting the movement which had for its object the propagation and extension of the Irish language.
  MR. SLOANsaid he did not think the hon. Gentleman was right in saying that the Protestants were supporting the movement.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid the hon. Member had a perfect right to hold his own opinion on that matter. He was stating an actual fact, and he had no desire to treat the subject controversially. He was proud to say that members of all classes and creeds felt that this movement had for its object the intellectual uplifting of the country. For ten years the movement had been going on, and that House and the National Board had consistently opposed all advance towards the study of the Irish language. That was rather a sad state of affairs. If the body of Irish thought which hid grown up from North to South, independent of creed, Protestant or Catholic, was going to continue, then no National Board, no Chief Secretary would deny to the Irish people the right to know their own language. There was no crime in knowledge, or in the possession of the truth.
  He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary what had been exactly the condition of affairs during the last ten years, during which the Irish language had been taught in the Irish national schools as an extra subject. The teachers had been paid 10s. for each pupil who had passed the examination at the end of the year. Gradually from 1893 to the present day the number of
  696
  boys and girls taught the Irfsh language in these schools had increased from 2,000 to 100,000. But the Treasury were rather looking with disfavour on the Irish language as compared with French and Latin. The Treasury suddenly discovered that last year a sum of £20,000 had been paid to the teachers for teaching the Irish language, and they asked the Board of National Education in Ireland what was the meaning of all this, as too much money was being spent in teaching the Irish language. The Board of National Education meekly and quietly submitted, and said that after 1906 the Irish language should no longer be taught in Irish schools to Irish boys and girls except under certain special conditions. He, himself, had been convinced that the time had come when the Irish language should not be taught as an extra subject. He thought that it should not be taught at the end of the school day, but as part of the ordinary subjects and tuition throughout the day.
  He had endeavoured to find out from the Chief Secretary and from the National Board whether they had made provision that the Irish language should be taught in the ordinary school hours, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had never been able to answer that Question. He did not in the slightest degree suggest that the Irish language should be taken out of the category of extra subjects, provided that it was properly taught to Irish boys and girls within the ordinary school hours. What he wanted was that the Irish language should be taught as an ordinary subject in ordinary school hours. Why should the Treasury have a fear of that? When he asked the Chief Secretary a Question on that subject, the right hon. Gentleman referred him to Rule 123 (b) which stated that all extra subjects might be taught, provided they did not interfere with or impair the teaching of the ordinary school subjects. But if the ordinary school subjects were not taught with efficiency within the ordinary school hours, how could Irish be taught at all? That affected the position of the teachers, who had a long and difficult programme to carry out. Under these conditions there was not the slightest chance of

  697
  their taking up the subject of teaching the Irish language out of school hours.
  He felt that this was an indirect attempt to stifle the study of the language of his own country. Why should the Treasury grumble at the payment of the paltry sum of £20,000 for the teaching of the Irish language? Ireland was a country where education had been blocked, and they were fifty years behind any modern country. They were denied a quarter of a million per annum less than was given to Scotland and England, and at the same time they were grudged a paltry sum of £20,000 which was doing the best work in the country. He and his friends felt a keen interest in the matter, and it was then determination that no effort on the part of the National Board or the Treasury should block a movement which had done so much for Ireland. He trusted the Chief Secretary would be able to say that it was not a dodge on the part of the Treasury to grab any more money, or a dodge on the part of the National Board to turn aside a great movement which was capable of uplifting the country educational.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,)said the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had asked him if the Minutes which had passed between the National Board, the Government and the Treasury with regard to the teaching of Irish would be laid on the Table. He had repeatedly answered that Question. Those Minutes were of the ordinary confidential character of Minutes which passed between two Departments, and they could not, of course, be laid on the Table. He did not think the hon. Member had fairly described the attitude of the National Board or the Treasury in connection with the fees for the teaching of Irish. It was suggested that the Treasury desired to grab £14,000 which would have been paid for the teaching of extra subjects in school hours, and that such action would destroy the teaching of Irish in the national schools. The hon. Member had rightly told the House what were the two rules of the National Board which governed the subject. The first was one which enabled Irish to be taught in those districts which were
  698
  Irish-speaking, and the second was one which enabled Irish to be taught as an ordinary subject, provided there was no injury done to the general curriculum of the school. The hon. Gentleman had said that by the abolition of the fees the whole teaching of Irish would disappear. The extra subjects were only taught under the special fee system for a few half-hours in the course of forty weeks, and it Irish was so much valued as a subject of education, and people were so anxious to learn it, surely it was obvious that a minimum number of half-hours outside school hours would not be sufficient. It was only as a part of the ordinary curriculum that it could be taught with success.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman meant to suggest that the treatment of English in the same way would be tolerated.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not think the hon. Gentleman could seriously ask him to consider the two languages on the same footing. There were a certain number of schools where the children desired to learn Irish. They could learn it in ordinary school hours under precisely the same system as obtained in Scotland and Wales. In Scotland there were more children above three years of age speaking Gaelic than in Ireland. In England there was no money voted in extra grants, neither was there in Wales. The National Board had before them a proposition that the extra fees, which had grown from £2,000 to £14,000, should be terminated in the course of another year, and they passed a resolution consenting to the abolition of fees for extra subjects on the understanding that the money should not be absorbed by the Treasury but should be placed at the disposal of the National Board for the provision of additional instructresses considered necessary in the smaller schools. That was now under discussion between the National Board, the Government and the Treasury. It could not, therefore, be said that the teaching of Irish had been destroyed or that the Treasury had acted in a parsimonious spirit. Irish was taught in the training colleges, and there was full opportunity for those who desired to do so to learn it.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he wished to protest against the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the subject. He evidently regarded it as quite a trivial matter, but he would find before he had been Chief Secretary much longer that it was serious, and that his action would be resented by the whole people of Ireland. The Treasury bad interfered and sent directions to the National Board telling them that money should no longer be spent in teaching Irish, and the National Board had meekly acquiesced. The whole proceedings of the National Board were on a wrong basis. It was perfectly monstrous that they should conduct their business in secret. They ought to have a straight Answer to the Question as to who initiated the discussion with regard to the fees.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Treasury suggested the revision of the system.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that, in his view, it was a most serious matter that the Treasury should have so interfered. He had risen to protest against the cavalier way in which the Chief Secretary had endeavoured to nut the matter on one side. His action was most offensive. There was no subject about which there was stronger feeling than that of the teaching of Irish in the schools, and for the right hon. Gentleman to get up without waiting for anybody to speak on
  it and to endeavour to close the discussion by two or three words was a proceeding he regarded, and which would be legarded in Ireland, as offensive. The movement for the revival of the national language was one that had taken deep root, and if the right hon. Gentleman entered into a contest with it he would come off second best. He and his colleagues were deeply interested in the movement and would take every opportunity of pressing it on the Government.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the Business.
  Whereupon Mr. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: That is a most uncalled for and offensive action.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE, on a point of order, asked whether, the clock having actually struck half-past seven, it was competent for the closure to be moved.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is competent to move it on the interruption of business.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 197; Noes, 87. (Division List No. 356.)

  AYES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Crossley, RW. Hon. Sir Savile

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Bull, William James

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Butcher, John George

  Dewar, SirT.R.(TowerHamlets

  Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Arrol, Sir William

  Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dixon-Hartland,SirFred.Dixon

  Balcarres, Lord

  Caultey, Henry Strother

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Doxford, Sir WilliamTheodore

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A.(Wore

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Dyke, Rt.Hon.SirWilliamHart

  Banner, JohnS. Harmood-

  Chapman, Edward

  Faber, George Denison (York

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Fellowes, RtHnAilwynEdward

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Glive, Capt. Percy, A.

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Bigwood, James

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Finay,Rt HnSirR.B.(Inv'rn'ss

  Bill, Charles

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fitzroy, Hon.Edward Algernon

  Bond, Edward

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Brassey, Albert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Forster, Henry William

  Lyttelton.Rt.Hon. Alfred

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Maconochie. A. W.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Gore, Hon. S. F. (Ormsby)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Marks. Harry Hananel

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Greene, HenryD.(Shrewsbury)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Gretton, John

  Melville, BeresfordValentine

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Groves, James Grimble

  Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Milvain. Thomas

  Smith, AbelH.(Hertford, East)

  Hardy, Laurence(KentAshford

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Smith, RtHnJ.Parker(Lanarks

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Moon. Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Heath, SirJames(Staffords.NW

  Morgan. DavidJ(Walthamstow

  Stanley, Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Morpeth. Viscount

  Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stanley, Rt.Hon. Lord Lanes.)

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Morton, ArthnrH. Aylmer

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Horner, Frederick William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Howard, John(KentFaversham

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stroyan, John

  Hozier, Hon.JamesHenryCecil

  Myers, William Henry

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Neill. Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Jessel, Captain HerbertMerton

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Kennaway, Rt.Hon.SirJohnH.

  Peel, Hn.Wm.RobertWellesley

  Tuff, Charles

  Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh)

  Percy, Earl

  Turnour, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Walrond, Rt.Hn.SirWilliamH.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Plummer. Sir Walter R.

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Lawson, Hn.H.L.W. (Mile End

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.Fareham

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wills, SirFrederick(Bristol,N.

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Liddell, Henry

  Randles, John S.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wylie, Alexander

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Lowe, Francis William

  Renwick, George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  and Viscount Valencia.

  NOES.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, NE

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Bell, Richard

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)

  Benn, John Williams

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lundon, W.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Gray, Rt.Hon.SirE. (Berwick)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hammond, John

  M'Crae, George

  Caldwell, James

  Harrington, Timothy

  Murnaghan, George

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Harwood, George

  Murphy, John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Col. JohnP.(Galway,N.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Hutchinson, Dr.CharlesFredk.

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

  Crooks, William

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Parrott, William

  Cullinan, J.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Delany, William

  Joicey, Sir James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Rea, Russell

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Redmond, JohnE.(Waterford)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Edwards, Frank

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Lambert, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lamont, Norman

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Langley, Batty

  702

  703

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ure, Alexander

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

  Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(IsIeof Wight

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Sullivan, Donal

  Weir, James Galloway

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Thompson, DrEC. (Monagh'n,N

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 197; Noes 87. (Division List No. 357.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Faber, (George Denison (York)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fellowes, RtHn. AilwynEdward

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Allhusen, AugnstusHenryEden

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

  Marks Harry Hananel

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Finlay, RtHnSirR.B.(Inv'rn'ss

  Massey-Mainwaring,Hon.W. F.

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maxwell W. J.H.(Dumfriessh.)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fitzroy, Hon.Edward Algernon

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Middlemore,John Throgmorton

  Balcarres, Lord

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Balfour,RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christen.)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Morgan,David J(Walthamstow

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Gorst, Rt. Hon.Sir John Eldon

  Morton, Arthur H. (Aylmer)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bigwood, James

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Myers, William Henry

  Bill, Charles

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gretton, John

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Bond, Edward

  Groves, James Grimble

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Brassey, Albert

  Hamilton, Marq.of(L'nd'nderry

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Peel, Hn.Wm.RobertWellesley

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Heath, SirJames(Staffords.N W

  Percy, Earl

  Bull, William James

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Burdett-Courts, W.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Butcher, John George

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Horner, Frederick William

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Campbell,J.H.M.(DnblinUniv.)

  Howard,John(Kent,Faversham

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Purvis, Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Chamberlain, RtHnJA.(Wore.)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Randles, John S.

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton)

  Kennaway, Rt.Hon.SirJohnH)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Chapman, Edward

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo.T.(Denbigh)

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Keswick, William

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Knowles, Sir Lee

  Renwick, George

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Law, AndrewBonar (Glasgow)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse,

  Lawson, Hn.H.L.W.(Mile End)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

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

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants, Fareham)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Liddell, Henry

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Davies,SirHoratioD. (Chatham)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Dewar, SirTR.(TowerHamlets)

  Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham)

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lucas,ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Smith, AbelH.(Hertford, East)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Smith, RtHnJParker(Lanarks)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Dyke, Rt.Hon.SirWilliamHart

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stanley,Hon Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Stanley, EdwardJas.(somerset)

  Tuff, Charles

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

  Stanley, Rt.Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

  Turnour, Viscount

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

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Wylie, Alexander

  Stroyan, John

  Walrond,Rt.Hon.SirWilliamH.

  Wyndham-Quin, col. W. H.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

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

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol, N.

  and Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Bell, Richard

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Benn, John Williams

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Russell

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Higham, John Sharp

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hutchinson, Dr. CharlesFredk.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Caldwell, James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Runciman, Walter

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Seely,Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones William(Carnarvonshire)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crean, Eugene

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Slack, John Bamford

  Crooks, William

  Lambert, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cullinan, J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Delany, William

  Langley, Batty

  Thompson,Dr.EC (Monagh'nN.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Tully, Jasper

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Ure, Alexander

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lundon, W.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Edwards, Frank

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Weir, James Galloway

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Crae, George

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murnaghan, George

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Findlay,Alexander(LanarkNE)

  Murphy, John

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick(Kilkenny)

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.)

  Mr. Causton.

  Harwood, George

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Parrott, William

  Mr. A. J.BALFOUR claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 196; Noes, 85. (Division List No. 358.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bill, Charles

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Allhusen,Augustus HenryEden

  Bond, Edward

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brassey, Albert

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bull, William James

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

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Balcarres, Lord

  Butcher, John George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

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

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Balfour,RtHn.GeraldW.(Leeds

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

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Davies,Sir HoratioD.(Chatham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dewar,SirT.R.(TowerHamlets)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

  Dixon-Hartland,Sir Fred Dixon

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Chamberlayne, T.(S'thampton)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Bigwood, James

  Chapman, Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Renwick, George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Dyke,Rt.Hon.SirWilliam Hart

  Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Fellowes,RtHn.Ailwyn Edward

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lucas,RoginaldJ. (Portsmouth)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Finlay,RtHn.SirR.B(Inv'rn'ss)

  Lyttelton. Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rutherjord, John (Lancashire)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Fitzroy, Hon.Edward Algernon

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Smith,Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

  Smith,Rt.HnJ.Parker(Lanarks

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset)

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Stanley, Rt.Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Gretton, John

  Morgan, DavidJ.(Walthamstow

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stroyan, John

  Hamilton,Marqof(L'nd'nderry)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashford

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Heath,Sir James(Staffords.NW

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Tollemache. Henry James

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Myers, William Henry

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tuff, Charles

  Horner, Frederick William

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Turnour, Viscount

  Howard,Jn. (Kent, Faversham,)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hozier,Hon.James Henry Cecil

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Peel,Hn. Wm.Robert Wellesley

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Percy, Earl

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

  Jeffreys,Rt.Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Kennaway,Rt.Hon.Sir John H.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wills, Sir Frderick (Bristol,N.)

  Kenyon,Hon.Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

  Keswick, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wylie, Alexander

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Purvis, Robert

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Lawson, Hn.H.L.W. (Mile End)

  Randles, John S.

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

  Rankin, Sir James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Viscount Valentia.

  Liddell, Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  NOES.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Jones,David Brynmor(Swansea

  Bell, Richard

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Benn, John Williams

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lambert, George

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Findlay,Alexander (Lanark,NE

  Lamont, Norman

  Caldwell, James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Langley, Batty

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

  Lundon, W.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hammond, John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harrington, Timothy

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  MaeVeagh, Jeremiah

  Crean, Eugene

  Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir ArthurD.

  Marnaghan, George

  Cremer, William Randal

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Murphy, John

  Crooks, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Cullinan, J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Delany, William

  Hutchinson, Dr. CharlesFredk.

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,Mid

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)

  Doogan, P.C.

  Joicey, Sir James

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

  708

  709

  Parrott, William

  Shipman, John Dr. G.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Rea, Russell

  Thomas,DavidAlfred (Merthyr)

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thompson,Dr.EC.(Monagh'n,N

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Tully, Jasper

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Ure, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  M'Crae and Major Seely.

  Runciman, Walter

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  Main Question put accordingly.

EVENING SITTING.

  RATHMINES AND RATHGAR EXTEN- SION AND IMPROVEMENT BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
  MR. CLANCYmoved its rejection, his object, he said, being to defeat the Bill. He admitted that it was an extreme course to take, but his excuse and justification in taking it was that it was an audacious Bill, although it had passed through both the Commons and the Lords. The promoters of the Bill had adopted a very significant course in trying to get the Bill through Parliament. If he were to attribute to them political motives no doubt they would be repudiated by those in charge of the Bill in the most emphatic language, but it was extraordinary that when the Bill was passing through the House circulars were issued to the Unionist Members to support it. For his own part, he could only draw the inference that in addition to the false pretences upon which the Bill was founded, political motives were at the bottom of it, and, as representing the County Council of Dublin and the county of Dublin, he felt bound to oppose the measure at every stage and in every way known to the Constitution and rules of the House.
  He described the Bill as an audacious Bill, because seven times in recent years the corporation of Dublin had attempted, by Bills promoted in that House, to add
  710
  to the city of Dublin the urban districts of Rathmines and Pembroke. Those two districts were practically and physically part of the city of Dublin; only an artificial boundary separated them, and if anyone were to consider the matter impartially they would come to the conclusion that it would be as ridiculous to say that Shoreditch was not a part of London as that Rathmines and Pembroke were not parts of Dublin. Nevertheless on each occasion upon which a Bill for extending the area of Dublin and taking in Rathmines and Pembroke had been before the House, the local authorities in Rathmines had opposed on the ground that their taxes would be increased, and on other grounds. On each occasion Parliament had refused to add Rathmines to the city of Dublin, and now, after Rathmines had refused to be annexed to Dublin, it actually had the audacity to propose to Parliament the annexation of the rural district of Terenure. The House of Lords had not rejected this proposal, and in pissing it had shown that it was determined not to give a proper hearing to the opposing representatives of the county of Dublin. The House of Commons' Committee was scarcely better, but for them there was the excuse that it was generally under stood that all the minor details would be discussed in the House of Lords. Several Amendments which the opposers had intended to propose in the Commons were not even considered in the Lords, and for that reason he moved to reject the Bill at this stage.
  One clause had reference to the supply of water to the new district. The corporation obtained the right to supply this district with water so far back as 1872, and went to considerable expense in laying down mains and in other ways. The inhabitants were, under statutory contract, bound to pay the water rate

  711
  levied by the corporation of Dublin. One would imagine that the new authority which desired to annex this district would have no hesitation in accepting a clause which provided that the inhabitants should not be charged twice over for their water, but the authorities in this audacious Bill refused to accept the clause. That was the case for the corporation of Dublin, but it was not the matter that appealed most to him, because although he represented the corporation he also represented a great portion of the county. He represented here the rural district of Terenure which this urban district sought to annex. The particular false pretence upon which this Bill was recommended to Parliament was that this particular district was not sufficiently sewered and drained. It was a very curious thing that the Rathmines Council never sought to annex this district until the sanitary authority of Terenure at their own risk and at their own expense, commenced to sewer and drain the place. Then it was that the Rathmines District Council, who had had their eye on this district for a long time, thought that no time should be lost in seizing on the district.
  In its present condition Rathmines was a moral district governed by highly respectable persons, who had come to Parliament and opposed the Dublin Corporation when it sought to annex their district and made statements as to their financial condition which deceived and deluded both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. They had their envious eye on this district and had determined to annex it in order to lessen their rates. Their excuse was that the sewering of the district was not perfect. It had been without it for thirty years and no inquiry had been lodged, and the only reason why Rathmines desired to annex this district now was to obtain possession of the rates. That was their real object. When Dublin proposed to annex Rathmines the higher rates of the city of Dublin were urged as an insuperable obstacle, but when Terenure resisted annexation on the same ground it was set at naught, despite the wishes of the inhabitants. The House of Lords' Committee paid no more attention to the
  712
  petition against the Bill than if it had come from somewhere in East Africa. The House of Commons were now asked to correct the error of the House of Lords and to refuse to sanction a scheme of annexation which traversed all ideas of justice and would inflict enormous hardship upon a district which at present was comparatively immune from such high taxation as existed in Rathmines. Although he had a strong suspicion as to the ultimate object of the Bill, he did not now allege any political motive. The reason he put forward for the rejection of the Bill was, he thought, ample, viz., that sufficient consideration had not been given by the Committees either of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords to all the circumstances of the case against the Bill. He begged to move that the Lords Amendments be considered that day three months.
  MR. T. M. HEALYin seconding the Amendment, said he thought that this Bill would mark an historic date in the annals of the House of Commons as a legal tribunal, and it raised as grave and as important considerations as had ever come before the House on Lords Amendments. They were at that moment acting as a sort of wayward Court, of which Members passed in and out, and without the assistance of counsel, without hearing the bodies interested, and without knowing anything of the merits of the case, they were asked by a Conservative House of Lords to take upon themselves the duty of passing judgment upon clauses which had never been before the House of Commons' Committee, and of which notice had never been given to the municipality or to anybody concerned.
  The time had come when Parliament must refuse to be strangled by the legal profession practising before it. Gentlemen practising in the Committee rooms had established the rule of deliberately overriding a Standing Order of Parliament by refusing to go into clauses on the ground that if they did so they would be refused a hearing against the preamble in another place. But the rules of Parliament declared that a petitioner against a Bill originating in the House of Lords who had discussed clauses in that House should not on that account be precluded

  713
  from opposing the preamble in this House, and a similar rule existed with regard to Bills originating in the House of Commons. That being so, by what right did counsel take up such a position? It was now the 8th August, and had it not been for the fact that the riots at Manchester compelled the Prime Minister to put down the Unemployed Bill and to devote two days of Parliamentary time to that measure, the session would probably have concluded that day. Therefore, but for a Parliamentary accident, the Parliamentary agents would have been too late. What right had the Parliamentary agents to ask them at this late date to consider for the first time contentious clauses of which they had never heard and which had never been submitted either to the electorate or to the opposing parties?
  Parliament had arrogated to itself the position that in the Private Bill Committees of the two Houses they had two tribunals absolutely divorced from politics, which would deal with gas and water questions with fair and open minds. It had been proclaimed that whatever grievance the Irish people had with regard to public questions, they possessed in the Private Bill Committees an absolute sanctuary from oppression. How could that be said any more after what had happened with regard to this Bill? By what right had a Committee of the House of Commons, without any instruction or authority from the House, inserted a clause involving expenditure of nearly a quarter of a million? The proposal for the purification of the Liffey was no doubt excellent if brought forward in a proper way after due consultation with the districts affected, but under the circumstances the Committee had just as much right to insert a clause separating Rathmines and Pembroke from the United Kingdom and annexing them to the United States. If this had been done by a Tory Committee with a Tory Chairman, every Liberal in the House would have been up in arms against it; but it was done by a Radical Chairman, by a Home Rule Chairman, and he objected to being bludgeoned with the Baronetcy of the hon. Member for Northwich. Although it was a Home Ruler who stuck in the pin, he smarted nevertheless; he might almost say he was wounded in the house of a friend.
  714
  He thought he could therefore appeal with confidence to the Unionist Party to override and set aside this deplorable injustice.
  There was a Standing Order of the House of Lords, which was in all other cases stringently enforced, to the effect that clauses which had not been before the constituency should not be allowed to get even a First Reading. Upon this question Rathmines seemed to possess the key of the House of Lords, for they had no difficulty whatever in getting them to suspend their Standing Orders. How did the House of Lords proceed to remedy this grave injustice? One of the areas included was not a party to the Bill and it had never been submitted to them at all, and they saw an entirely new system of main drainage being created. In these matters the only protection which the common people had was that Parliament should stand upon trodden ways and upon precedents, and come to its decisions by reason of what had been done before. If there was one thing which Englishmen valued it was vested rights, and they had always insisted that a man who had a vested right by statute should not have that right taken away from him without compensation. The same principle was applied to areas, and when any area had got a statutory created interest neither that House nor the Upper House had ever deprived such area of its right to the protection of that interest without compensation. That was especially the case in regard to the supply of water. They knew what happened in London in regard to the water supply of the Metropolis. He saw the hon. and gallant Member opposite who was once connected with the water companies of London, and he hoped that he was now much better off.
  The corporation of Dublin had a vested interest in supplying water in one of these areas at 3d. per 1,000 gallons, but under this Bill that same area would have to pay 1s. 1d. per 1,000 gallons. London would have been revolutionised if such a proposal had been made in this House, but because this occurred in a little Irish place it did not matter. The Government had even refused to take any notice of a defeat

  715
  because it was only upon an Irish question. This was only an Irish area and, forsooth, Parliament was making those who had hitherto been paying 3d. per 1,000 gallons of water pay 1s. 1d. under this Bill without their having done anything to deserve such treatment. It was not even alleged that there had been a shortage of water or any failure in the supply of the Dublin Corporation. He had been told that there were a good many more microbes in the thirteen-penny water than in the threepenny water.
  What was the case of the Dublin Corporation? Forty years ago, after enormous difficulties and obstruction in that House, the Dublin Corporation succeeded in obtaining the right to supply water to the citizens of Dublin and the surrounding areas. This House was convulsed by discussion and the question was threshed out in Committee and in the Upper House, and after enormous labour the city of Dublin acquired the right to supply water to its own area and surrounding districts, and it consequently provided a much larger reservoir and staff, and laid down larger pipes than would otherwise have been necessary if it had imagined that Parliament would afterwards have interfered and taken away from it certain areas. By this Bill they were robbing the corporation of Dublin of a right conferred upon them by Parliament to supply water to this district at 3d. per 1,000 gallons, and they were at the same time compelling the unfortunate ratepayers in that particular district to pay four times as much for their water supply. If such a proposal was made for the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands, or for South Africa or Johannesburg, there was not a single Member of the House of Commons who would support it. And yet hon. Members opposite were ready to vote for a Bill which would rob the corporation of Dublin of this right. He hoped on some future occasion they would make England ring with this unjust proposal. This was the action of the House of Lords, and not of the House of Commons. The Dublin Corporation was to be given as compensation the price of the old pipes. This simply meant that after they had established what had become a going concern, supplying water at a cheap rate,
  716
  they were to allow strangers to step in to supplant them, and the only compensation they would get for the business was the price of the old pipes.
  He had never come down to the House with more curiosity that he had done on this occasion, to hear the manner in which this proposal would be defended by the Front Bench opposite. He understood that the Attorney-General had been instructed to state the case of Rathmines as against the case of the Dublin-Corporation. He urged hon. Members to remember that there was a good time coming when there would be a Liberal Government in office. He asked hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider from the point of view of high Conservatism the arguments which he had ventured to address to the House. He appealed to the House upon those lines. No doubt the hon Member for South Derry and the Attorney-General for Ireland would attempt to prejudice the Court by-dragging into this question some political considerations which he had endeavoured to avoid in his remarks. He had endeavoured to confine himself to the absolute merits of the case, and to questions of bare technique. He had confined himself to technicalities as regarded procedure and to the merits as regarded the question of vested interest. If an appeal was made to Party prejudice he asked hon. Members opposite to remember that they were acting upon as sacred a matter as if they were members of a Committee upstairs before which these clauses came for the first time. If they were appealed to by reference to the fact that the Dublin Corporation consisted of Nationalists and Rathmities consisted of Conservatives, he asked the House to reject as unworthy any such ignominious and paltry considerations. To him such considerations were absolute matters of indifference, for he had confined himself solely to the question of right and wrong and the irregularity of the procedure adopted, and he had not gone closely into the merits of the case, which would be dealt with more fully when they came to discuss the clauses. Hon. Gentlemen opposite always stood up in defence of vested interests, yet every one of them, in the teeth of justice, would go into the lobby and vote in favour of robbing the Dublin Corporation simply because it was

  717
  a Nationalist body. He hoped the House would not make this an occasion for Party recrimination or division, because much higher principles were involved that questions of Party. They had to consider in this matter the question of the regularity of their proceedings, and that was a matter which must have a far-reaching effect upon the action of the Committees of the House of Commons.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. GORDONsaid the hon. and learned Member opposite had endeavoured to secure the support of those interested in the government of London by reminding them of the dire consequences which might ensue if this Bill passed. He wished to remind the Committee of the exact position in which the matter stood. Rathmines was a township which managed its own affairs. The city of Dublin had endeavoured to annex it and this House and the House of Lords had refused to allow it, and a Joint Committee of both Houses had also refused to allow Rathmines to be, annexed by Dublin.
  The particular matter with which this Bill dealt was the extension of the boundaries of Rathmines so as to include another district which had developed into a thickly-populated area which had no sewerage scheme of its own. It was true that this district had a water supply from the corporation of Dublin, but there was no care taken of their buildings, no regulations as to how they should be erected, and they were, as a matter of fact, a danger to themselves and to their neighbours, and so this Bill had been promoted to remedy these difficulties. All these questions came before the House of Commons on the Second Reading of the Bill, were debated at considerable length, and the Bill was carried by a majority of sixty. The hon. and learned Member opposite had told them who the Chairman of the Committee was, and what his political views were. That Committee heard counsel and witnesses for eight days, and after hearing everything that could be urged on all sides
  718
  came to the conclusion that the Bill should pass, and they were unanimous in arriving at that conclusion. He would point out that the Committee had inserted a clause which would be very onerous upon the promoters. The Rathmines people undertook that the sewage should be properly purified before being turned into the estuary. The promoters of the Bill acquiesced in that, and now the hon. and learned Gentleman said that this was putting an onus on the Pembroke people without their knowledge or consent. He knew, or ought to know, that they got notice of this before the Bill came before the House of Lords, and that they were perfectly satisfied with the new clause. An effort was made on the Third Reading to reject the Bill in that House, but it was carried by a majority of 115. The Bill as it then stood contained the clause in reference to Pembroke township drainage, and it also provided that water should be supplied by the Rathmines people to this area. It was an absolutely necessary Bill. He did not know whom the hon. and learned Member for Louth represented.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I represent myself
  MR. GORDONsaid the hon. and learned Member represented himself, and dealt with imaginary grievances on the part of those people.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am a ratepayer in both areas.
  MR. GORDON: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman will pay for water in this area or not.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I shall not.
  MR. GORDONsaid that the corporation of Dublin supplied water to 165,000 of the population in the area, while Rathmines supplied 376,000. When all the facts were brought before he House of Lords it was suggested that a clause should be brought up to provide for the interests of the corporation. The promoters of the Bill brought up a clause providing that they should pay for the pipes which the corporation of Dublin had laid in that area. The pipes had been laid for thirty years. The corporation of Dublin brought up a clause providing that nothing should affect their

  719
  right of supplying water to the particular people who were getting water from them, and that there should be different bodies in the same area supplying water. When the question came before the House of Lords' Committee the Chairman said the sensible thing would be for the water supply of the new district to rest with Rathmines. Afterwards the clause was brought up which was now in the Bill. It provided that the corporation of Dublin would get what the pipes cost them thirty years ago, and that Rathmines should supply the water to the new area. The House of Lords had an absolute right to take that course, and was this House going to disagree? There had been a clause inserted in the Bill with reference to the disposal of sewage, on the suggestion of the Committee of this House. It did not specifically refer to the rights of the corporation, but, at the instance of the corporation, the House of Lords gave the corporation specifically some rights with reference to the enforcing of the purification of sewage by the Rathmines people. The object of the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin was clearly to defeat this Bill. So far as he could see that was the only ground that could be put forward. He ventured to say that the corporation of Dublin was satisfied.
  MR. T. HARRINGTONsaid that, whatever might be the fate of this Bill, the manner in which it had been treated in that House was not such as to give the people of Ireland confidence in the way matters were administered there. Every principle on which private Bills were dealt with in that House had been violated in this instance. There was intervention from the Government Bench at every stage. From first to last it was made a political Bill, and that was because the majority of the corporation of Dublin and of the county council differed in politics from the Rathmines Commissioners and the Pembroke Commissioners. He must confess that in his opinion the parties who were opposing this Bill were treated somewhat better before the House of Lords' Committee than before the House of Commons' Committee. There seemed to be a disposition on the part of the members of the latter Committee not to
  720
  believe anything that was stated from the other side. They had the extraordinary spectacle in the Commons' Committee that while counsel representing every interest were present in the room the Committee was constantly sending to the law officers of the Crown and the Chief Secretary to obtain some private information. Did not that fact give a complexion of officialism to the proceedings on the Bill? And that was why Rathmines got their big majority at previous stages of the Bill. [MINISTERIALIST indications of dissent.] He repeated that he saw the Government Whips at the door—secret Whips, though they did not "tell"—and for all practical purposes it was a purely Party division.
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON.)said he interposed to disabuse the mind of the hon. Member for Dublin Harbour of the notion that the Government were in any way responsible for the opposition to the Bill, or for the course that either of the Committees took upon it. The hon. Member for Dublin Harbour was entirely in error in supposing that the Chief Secretary was asked to influence anybody or appear before the Committee.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: Do I understand that neither you nor the Solicitor-General nor the Chief Secretary were sent for by the Chairman of the Committee? because the Chairman stated in the room that that had been done. I will not say there was any interference.
  MR. ATKINSON: My hon. friend was never sent for. I was sent for.
  MR. CLANCY: You were the man who spoke in the House.
  MR- ATKINSON: I gave the very curt reply that I would neither go nor interfere in any way in the matter, and my hon. and learned friend did not go and did not interfere.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: I did not say interfere. I spoke of the action of the Committee in regarding all the people on one side as liars.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): They did not send for me at all.
  MR. ATKINSON: The only person sent for was myself, and in the strongest terms I refused.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Chairman then sent for the Solicitor-General when you refused.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he was not aware of that. The hon. Member for North Dublin had asserted that politics were involved in this matter. If they were involved, he had a strong suspicion that they were not involved on one side alone. He contended that to accept the Amendment would be to reverse the whole procedure on private Bills. If the whole thing were to be ripped up again, there would be no finality to these proceedings. As to the question of drainage, he understood that the corporation of Dublin objected to sewage being discharged into the River Liffey in a crude state, but the House of Lords had put in a clause to meet the conditions of the corporation and to provide that within a period of five years a proper system of drainage should be executed in that district. He submitted that if the decision of the Committee upstairs and of the Committee of the House of Lords was to be overruled because some hon. Members did not agree with it, there would be no finality in these matters.
  MR. MACVEAGHsaid that the right hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-General for Ireland, had declared that this was not a political question, but the right hon. Gentleman had never lost an opportunity of making a strong and vigorous speech in that House in support of the Bill, nor had the Chief Secretary, who had probably never seen Rathmines, even in a motor-car. The right hon. Gentleman had omitted to say that the House of Lords Committee had absolutely refused to receive the evidence of the inhabitants of Terenure. The Attorney-General for Ireland had said that it would be a monstrous proceeding to override the decision of the House of Lords' Committee, but the other day a decision of a Committee of the House of Commons and of a Committee of the House of Lords, in regard to the London Tramways Bill, had been overridden by the House of Lords, and all the labours of the
  722
  two Committees had been thrown away. He asked the House to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend on the broad ground that it was contrary to the practice of Parliament to annex the territory of one district to another against the wishes of the people of the district concerned. The people of the district in this case believed that the Bill would enormously increase their rates, that they would be subject to disabilities from which they did not now suffer, and that they would be liable for loans for works with which they had no concern.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid that it had been stated by hon. Gentlemen opposite that this was a question entirely apart from politics; that it was merely a matter of gas and water supply. But it was recognised as a fact that those hon. Gentlemen imported politics into every matter in that House or in Ireland. Was it conceivable that that House would pass a Bill relating to gas and water for any district connected with London against the opinion of the whole of the people affected by the Bill? This was only one more example to Irish Members of the necessity of having their own affairs discussed and decided upon by those who knew them best. The right hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-General for Ireland, had tried to influence the House to come to a decision in favour of his political friends, and that showed the Irish people how impossible it was to get legislation in their own favour. No Member for the county of Dublin or the city of Dublin had spoken other than strongly against this Bill, and he trusted that the House would listen to reason instead of to the prejudices of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Benches. He had listened with amazement to the statement of the Attorney-General. On the broad principle that no public body in the district concerned had demanded this Bill, and in view of the fact that no hon. Member representing the city or county of Dublin had spoken in favour of it, he should register his vote against this measure.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid he should oppose this Bill because it had never been asked for by the district immediately concerned. He had attended most of the meetings of

  723
  the Committee by which this Bill had been con idered, and more scandalous treatment than that which was meted out to the opponents of the Bill he had never heard of. It was only right that they should point out to English Members who were now called upon to deal with an Irish question that every representative of the district to be annexed repudiated the Bill. The hon. Member for South Deny had said that this district was being taken over because the people of it were not able to look after themselves. The speculators were all flocking into this district now, and they were well able to look after themselves. The area in question had already a double water supply, one from Dublin and another from Rathmines. With regard to the drainage, it was not until it became known that the district was entering into negotiations with the Dublin Corporation upon this subject that Rathmines brought forward the argument that the area proposed to be annexed was not able to arrange for its own drainage. With regard to the injunction which had been spoken of he never knew more scandalous means than those which were adopted in order to obtain it.
  Who were the people in favour of this annexation? Mainly those who came from Belfast, Deny, North Armagh and other places, who were strong Conservatives. It was only the hon. Member for South Deny, the Attorney-General, and the hon. Member for North Down who asked the House to override the opinions and the appeals of the people in the district concerned who were most affected by this Bill. By this Bill they were allowing a district to be grabbed which did not wish to be grabbed. A plebiscite was taken of those residing in the district which was being taken over, and they decided by a large majority against the Bill. Pembroke had never been consulted in the matter at all. The promoters had rushed this measure through the House, and they had only been able to succeed by the assistance of the Attorney-General and the hon. Member for South Derry and his friends. The way the people interested had been treated in this matter was a wanton act of injustice. The Dublin Corporation had been supplying this area with water for forty years, and this right was to be
  724
  taken away from them and they were going to be given simply the price of the old pipes as compensation. There had always been consideration given to trading interests that might be affected; and he did not see why, when it was a case of the corporation of Dublin, unless it was because of political bias or because of animus against the Corporation, they were not to get justice. He appealed to the House to act straightly and fairly and to do justice to them. Such a thing would not be tolerated anywhere except in an Irish city like Dublin.
  He appealed to the House to reject the Bill. The people did not want it, the representatives of Dublin did not want it, the Member for the division in which Rathmines was situated was opposed to it, and the Member for the district about to be annexed was against it. Under these circumstances, he asked the House, notwithstanding the circular sent out, to vote in a spirit of fairness and justice to the district about to be annexed, remembering that at present they were receiving water at 3d. per 1000 gallons, that they would have to pay 1s. 1d. per 1000 gallons for it, and that they would have to pay increased rates.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid it struck him as somewhat peculiar that the only excuse for the Bill came from Gentlemen from the North of Ireland whose interests were not, in that part of the country, affected by the Bill. He could not find in the speeches of other hon. Gentleman a single argument in favour of the project to which they were now asked to assent. For a number of years there had been a contest going on between the corporation of Dublin and the district of Rathmines. In the contest he had always sympathised with the corporation of Dublin. Rathmines and Rathgar had established a kind of municipal autonomy of their own, when by all the laws of geography and common-sense they should with Terenure form a portion of the city of Dublin. It was monstrous and reflected upon the system of administration of Irish affairs that those districts were kept outside the city of Dublin and that energetic assistance was invariably given to prevent the House assisting the people of Dublin as it ought in the administration of the affairs of Dublin. Although

  725
  Dublin was the capital of Ireland, it was always treated with hostility, and the surrounding districts always had the support of the House. This Bill was an attempt on the part of Rathmines to still further fortify itself against the corporation of Dublin. It proposed to establish sewage and water systems of its own. Dublin had lately constructed a very fine main-drainage system, and it seemed an extraordinary thing, when that bad been done at great cost, that it should not be utilised by Rathmines under the corporation of Dublin. Instead of annexing Terenure to Rathmines, Terenure ought to have been annexed to Dublin. The municipal boundaries of Dublin ought to have been extended. Then there would have been no possibility of Terenure using the Dublin main sewers for their sanitary purposes.
  The first reason given in the circular sent round that day for voting for the Bill was one, to his mind, why they should vote against it. The main object of the Bill, it was said, was to extend the urban district of Rathmines and Rathgar; and he had endeavoured to show that they should extend the boundary of the city of Dublin. He would be prepared to vote for a Bill which would include Rathmines and Rathgar in the city of Dublin. They were told that Terenure, which was to be added to Rathmines, had a certain number of houses, and a very bad drainage system. His hon. friend informed him that the Dublin Corporation was prepared to promote a Bill to include Terenure in that city, and surely they might suspend the matter until that could be done. The Bill had always been strenuously opposed by the corporation of Dublin with the full consent of the people, and surely that was
  some reason why the House should pause before assenting to it. They were told that if they rejected the Bill they would be creating anew precedent, but it was competent for the House to disagree with the Lords Amendments to a private Bill, as well as with such Amendments to a public Bill, and he thought it would be an extremely good thing if they showed that capability and that independence. He did not know whether it was too late for a compromise, but possibly his hon. friend, though he did not know, might be prepared to accept the Bill if that part which referred to Terenure were left out. These constant disputes between Dublin and Rathmines called for investigation. He considered that a Committee ought to be appointed to go into the whole matter, and see whether arrangements could not be made between Dublin and the surrounding districts. Bills were constantly being brought up to cut off portions of Dublin's legitimate territory, and to set up independent communities.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is touching upon matters not at all relevant to the Bill.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid he had not the least desire to tread upon forbidden ground, but he did think it was time the House took into consideration the possibility of effecting some improvement in the matter.
  Mr. GORDON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes, 108. (Division List No. 359.)

  Davies,SirHoratioD.(Chatham,

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Dewar,SirT.R.(Tower Hamlets)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Pym, C. Guy

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Randies, John S.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawson,Hn.H.L.W. (Mile End)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Renwiek George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Doxford, Sir.William Theodore

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Long, Col. Charles W. ((Evesham

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dyke,Rt.Hon.SirWilliam Hart

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

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Fellowes,Rt.Hn.AilwynEdward

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Finlay,Rt.Hn.SirR.B(Inv'rn'ss

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gardner, Ernest

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Stroyan, John

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Maxwell,W.J.H (Dumfrieshire

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milvain, Thomas

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Green, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Tuff, Charles

  Gretton, John

  Morgan, DavidJ.(Walthamstow

  Tumour, Viscount

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hamilton,Marq.of (L'nd'nderr,

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Heath,SirJames(Staffords.NW)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Walrond,Rt.Hon.SirWilliamH.

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne)

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Horner, Frederick William

  Peel.Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Howard, Jn.(Kent,Faversham)

  Percy, Earl

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hozier,Hon.James Henry Cecil

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Jessel, Captain HerbertMerton

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Kennaway,Rt.Hon.Sir John H.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  John Gordon and Mr. Lons-

  Kenyon, Hon.Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  dale.

  Keswick, William

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  NOES.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jones,DavidBrynmor(Swansea

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Findlay,Alexander(Lanark,NE

  Tones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  Benn, John Williams

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kitson, Sir James

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lambert, George

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

  Lamont, Norman

  Burns, John

  Grant, Corrie

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Caldwell, James

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Leese Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hammond, John

  Lough, Thomas

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hardie,J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  Lundon, W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Harrington, Timothy

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cremer, William Randal

  Harwood, George

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Crooks, William

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Cullinan, J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Delany, William

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  M'Crae, George

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Doogan, P. C.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murnaghan, George

  Edwards, Frank

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murphy, John

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Evans,SirFrancisH.(Maidstone)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

  728

  729

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Ure, Alexander

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Rose, Charles Day

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

  Runciman, Walter

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  O'Connor,James (Wicklow,VY.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Kelly,James (RoscommonN.

  Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Parrott, William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Slack, John Bamford

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

  Rea, Russell

  Sullivan, Donal

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOBS—Sir

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

  Thomas Esmonde and Mr.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Thompson, Dr. EC(Monagh'n, N.

  Patrick O'Brien.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Tully, Jasper

  And, it being after Midnight, the Consideration of the Lords Amendments stood adjourned.
  Lords Amendments to be considered to-morrow.

  EAST INDIA LOANS (RAILWAYS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. HARDY (Kent, Ashford) in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  MR. BRIGHTin moving to substitute "12 for 20" in line 14, said he was proposing the Amendment in consequence of a reply he had received from the Secretary of State for India. That reply, for the greater part, was very clear, but it omitted to say how much money per annum was required for capital expenditure on new Government railway works, so that the right hon. Gentleman was really asking for a blank cheque which might run over a very long period. About £10,000,000 was to be spent on the purchase of the Bombay and Baroda Railway, but he desired to know what the balance of £8,000,000 or £10,000,000 was for. From the statement of the right hon. Gentleman it was not clear how much of the £8,000,000 annual capital expenditure on State and guaranteed railways was to be paid by the State and how much by the companies themselves. The object of the Amendment was to ascertain how much per annum the State expected to expend on new railway construction, and to prevent the loss of Parliamentary control over large expenditure for any
  730
  considerable length of time. For sever of years the capital expenditure had apparently averaged about £1,500,000, so that the amount asked for in the Bill would enable the right hon. Gentleman to go on for six or seven years without coming to Parliament. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 14, to leave out the word 'twenty,' and insert the word 'twelve'."—(Mr. Bright.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the clause."
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,)said that the general sense of the House was in favour of proceeding with the construction of new railways in India. More than £10,000,000 was needed for the purchase of the Bombay and Baroda Railway, which the State now had tin opportunity of carrying out with, considerable advantage to itself, leaving less than half the sum provided for in the Bill for expenditure on other Indian railways. Even if the rate of progress were limited to the 1,000 miles per annum, which the Indian Government had made for several years past, the amount of capital expenditure provided for would not be sufficient, and the House had practically decided that the rata of progress should be increased. He believed the hon. Member was at one with the Government and the House in desiring that the rate of progress should be not only maintained but increased, but if the sum named in the Bill were decreased to £12,000,000 the Indian cultivator would be debarred from obtaining the advantages of improved railway communication which he so much required. The money now asked for would carry the Government on for a couple of years, or perhaps a little longer.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the point they wished to emphasise was that the right hon. Gentleman was justified in taking the money for this year, but not beyond. The cost had been put down at £5,000 a mile, but anybody familiar with Indian railways knew that they did not cost anything like that sum per mile. He also objected to the power given under the Bill to raise this money in cash. The whole of the £20,000,000 might be raised in this country in one year, and in the present unsatisfactory state of the money market he did not think that was at all advisable. The probability was that the right hon. Gentleman would not require this money at al. Clause 4 provided that the power given to the Secretary of State should be deemed to include power to create stock or securities in discharge of any obligations mentioned in the Act. That meant, supposing there was a railway already in existence of which the stock or bonds were valued at £10,000,000,that the right hon. Gentleman would then only need to issue stock or bonds to an equivalent amount. The right hon. Gentleman could raise £10,000,000 simply by transferring from one stock to another, and he ought to be content with the power to raise not more than £10,000,000 in cash at the outside. He did not think that the Committee would be wise in giving the Secretary of State any such power. He had reminded the right hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion that in the past it had been the custom to raise half of this money in India. Why did the right hon. Gentleman now propose to saddle the British money market with this large sum when it was not capable of providing it?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that nobody in the House of Commons objected to spending money in India upon the development of its resources. The right hon. Gentleman talked of the Indian cultivator, and said this money was intended to assist him, and in another part of his speech he indicated that these railways were built out of the
  savings effected upon current expenditure. That being so, he did not think this was the right time to borrow large sums. It was suggested that this large sum of money should be borrowed when the credit of this country was much lower than it had been for a considerable number of years. The right hon. Gentleman had himself shown that this money was not actually wanted for another two years. Why should the Indian taxpayer be burdened with this loan if the whole of the money was not required for another two years? Perhaps in two years time they might be able to obtain money at a cheaper rate. He did not think there was any other place in the world where taxation hit the poor cultivator so heavily as in India, because it affected the necessities of life. They had had experiences of this kind before in regard to the proposals of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman now declared that this Bill was absolutely necessary in order to develop the resources if the country, and credulous hon. Members opposite would accept anything that a Minister told them. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] It was quite true, because hon. Members opposite had given their sanction to matters in the division lobby even when their votes were quite contradictory. He thought the hon. Member for Oswestry had made it quite clear (hat the money was not required. They were asked to accept this on trust from the author of the abandoned Army schemes—the Gentleman who proposed scheme after scheme and piled up the expenses of the country—schemes which even the Government themselves had had to abandon. Who knew but that these railway schemes might be just as mythical as the six Army Corps they had some time ago? He submitted that the Committee ought not to accept this simply because the right hon. Gentleman said it was necessary to the development of the resources of the country.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 171; Noes, 142. (Division List No. 360.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood,Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bill, Charles

  Chamberlain,Rt Hn.J.A(Wore.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chamberlayne, T.(S'thampton)

  Allhusen, AugustusHenryEden

  Bond, Edward

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Chapman, Edward

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Brassey, Albert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Cochraue, Hon. Tho. H. A. E.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bull, William James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Balcarres, Lord

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Balfour,RtHn.GeraldW.(Leeds

  Butcher, John George

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.)

  Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cavendish,V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Davies,SirHoratioD.(Chatham,

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Dewar,SirT.R.(Tower Hamlets)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Pym, C. Guy

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Randies, John S.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawson,Hn.H.L.W. (Mile End)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Renwiek George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Doxford, Sir.William Theodore

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Long, Col. Charles W. ((Evesham

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dyke,Rt.Hon.SirWilliam Hart

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

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Fellowes,Rt.Hn.AilwynEdward

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Finlay,Rt.Hn.SirR.B(Inv'rn'ss

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gardner, Ernest

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Stroyan, John

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Maxwell,W.J.H (Dumfrieshire

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milvain, Thomas

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Green, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Tuff, Charles

  Gretton, John

  Morgan, DavidJ.(Walthamstow

  Tumour, Viscount

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hamilton,Marq.of (L'nd'nderr,

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Heath,SirJames(Staffords.NW)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Walrond,Rt.Hon.SirWilliamH.

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne)

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Horner, Frederick William

  Peel.Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Howard, Jn.(Kent,Faversham)

  Percy, Earl

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hozier,Hon.James Henry Cecil

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Jessel, Captain HerbertMerton

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Kennaway,Rt.Hon.Sir John H.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  John Gordon and Mr. Lons-

  Kenyon, Hon.Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  dale.

  Keswick, William

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  NOES.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jones,DavidBrynmor(Swansea

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Findlay,Alexander(Lanark,NE

  Tones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  Benn, John Williams

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kitson, Sir James

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lambert, George

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

  Lamont, Norman

  Burns, John

  Grant, Corrie

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Caldwell, James

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Leese Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hammond, John

  Lough, Thomas

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hardie,J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  Lundon, W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Harrington, Timothy

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cremer, William Randal

  Harwood, George

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Crooks, William

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Cullinan, J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Delany, William

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  M'Crae, George

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Doogan, P. C.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murnaghan, George

  Edwards, Frank

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murphy, John

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Evans,SirFrancisH.(Maidstone)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

  728

  729

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Ure, Alexander

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Rose, Charles Day

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

  Runciman, Walter

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  O'Connor,James (Wicklow,VY.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Kelly,James (RoscommonN.

  Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Parrott, William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Slack, John Bamford

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

  Rea, Russell

  Sullivan, Donal

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOBS—Sir

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

  Thomas Esmonde and Mr.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Thompson, Dr. EC(Monagh'n, N.

  Patrick O'Brien.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Tully, Jasper

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arnold-Forster,Rt,Hn.Hugh O.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gordon, J.(Londonderry,South

  Myers, William Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Gretton, John

  Percy, Earl

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hamilton,Marq.of (L'donderry

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bentinek, Lord Henry C.

  Heath, Sir J. (Staffords. N.W.)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Bill, Charles

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bond, Edward

  Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Randles, John S.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bull, William James

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Renwick, George

  Butcher, John George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Ridley, S. Forde

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

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Keswick, William

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Round, Rt. Hn. James

  Cavendish,V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Kitson, Sir James

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool)

  Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A (Wore.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Chapman, Edward

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (MileEnd

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

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

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Stroyan, John

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lonsdale John Brownlee

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Lowe, Francis William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlets

  Lucas, Reg. J. (Portsmouth)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tuff, Charles

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Turnour, Viscount

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Doughty, Sir George

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Walrond, Rt.Hn.SirWilliam H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Maxwell, WJ.H.(Dumfriesshire

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

  Dyke,Rt.Hn. Sir William Hart

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton and. Lyne

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Whitmore Charles Algernon

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Finlay,RtHnSirR.B.(Inv'rn'ss)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Forster, Henry William

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Alexander Acland - Hood

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  and Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork N.E.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Edwards, Frank

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Elibank, Master of

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Barry, E. (Cork S.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Benn, John William

  Crean, Eugene

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Boland, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cullinan, J.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

  Delany, William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Findlay,Alexander(Lanark,NE

  Burns, John

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Buxton,N.E.(York,NR,Whitby

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Caldwell, James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Duffy, William J.

  Grant, Corrie

  734

  735

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Crae, George

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Hammond, John

  M'Killop, W. (Siigo, North)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Mooney, John J.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Runciman, Walter

  Harrington, Timothy

  Moss, Samuel

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Harwood, George

  Muldoon, John

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Murnaghan, George

  Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murphy, John

  Sheehy, David

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

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

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Joicey, Sir James

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

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thompson,Dr.EC(Monagh'n,N

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Tully, Jasper

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Dowd, John

  Ure, Alexander

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.)

  O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Lambert, George

  O'Malley, William

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Mara, James

  Weir, James Galloway

  Langley, Batty

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Levy, Maurice

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Lloyd-George, David

  Rea, Russell

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

  Lough, Thomas

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Lundon, W.

  Reddy, M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Bright and Mr. William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Jones.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:— Ayes, 166; Noes, 142. (Division List No. 361.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Chapman, Edward

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Gretton, John

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

  Hamilton,Marq.of (L'donderry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Colomb,Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.HughO.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Heath, Sir J. (Staffords., N. W.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Corbett,T. L. (Down, North)

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Balcarres, Lord

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

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

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

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

  Dewar,SirT.R. (Tower Hamlets

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Doughty, Sir George

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Bill, Charles

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T (Denbigh)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Keswick, William

  Bond, Edward

  Dyke,Rt.Hn. Sir William Hart

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Brassey, Albert

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Laurie, Lieut. -Grneral

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Finlay,RtHnSirR.B (Inv'rn'ss)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawson,Hn. H.L.W. (MileEnd)

  Bull, William James

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

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

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead),

  Butcher, John George

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol)

  Cavendish,V.C.W (Derbyshire)

  Gordon,J (Londonderry,South)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Lowe, Francis William

  Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A (Wore.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Lucas, Reg. J. (Portsmouth)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stroyan, John

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Purvis, Robert

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Maxwell,W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

  Pym, C. Guy

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Randles, John S.

  Tuff, Charles

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Rankin, Sir James

  Turnour, Viscount

  Milvain, Thomas

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Renwick, George

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Ridley, S. Forde

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton and. Lyne

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Mount, William Arthur

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Myers, William Henry

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  O'Neill. Hon. Robert Torrens

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Alexander Acland - Hood

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Percy, Earl

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Murphy, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Grant, Corrie

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hammond, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Benn, John Williams

  Harcourt, Lewis

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

  Boland, John

  Hardie, J. K. (Morthyr Tydvil)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Harrington, Timothy

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

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Harwood, George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Brown,George M.(Edinburgh)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

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

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Dowd, John

  Burns, John

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N)

  Buxton,N.E.(York,NR Whitby

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Caldwell, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Malley, William

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Mara, James

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rea, Russell

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reddy, M.

  Crean, Eugene

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cullinan, J.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Delany, William

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Devlin, Chas.Ramsay(Galway)

  Lamont, Norman

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Langley, Batty

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal,W.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Walter

  Doogan, P. C.

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Samuel,Herb L. (Cleveland)

  Duffy, William J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Edwards, Frank

  Lloyd-George, David

  Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight

  Elibank, Master of

  Lough, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Lundon, W.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Slack, John Bamford

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Ffrench. Peter

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thompson,Dr.EC (Monagh'n,N

  Field, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Tully, Jasper

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

  Morgan,J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Moss, Samuel

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Muldoon, John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Murnaghan, George

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  738

  739

  Weir, James Galloway

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOE THE NOES—MR.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Theodore Taylor and Mr.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

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

  Lyell.

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

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSOX (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he should like to ask whether it was competent to move an increase. He was afraid it was not.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he should therefore have to move a reduction of £100 in order to protest against the obvious inadequacy of the amount placed at the disposal of the Public Works Loans Commissioners. They were a most admirable body of men, who worked very hard and spent their money very economically. They assisted very largely in the development of local works, and the sum placed at their disposal was the only limit to the beneficence of their administration. Therefore, in order to express the emphatic opinion that a larger sum should be placed at their disposal, the security of the rates being adequate, he should move a reduction of£100.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 9, to leave out the words 'five hundred thousand' and insert the words 'four hundred and ninety-nine thousand and nine hundred.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said he would like to join the hon. Member for Carnarvon, who was himself one of the Commissioners in his appreciation of the Public Works Loans Commissioners, but he hoped he
  740
  would not persist in his Amendment. The State had had to borrow largely on its own account, and the municipalities, which had been passing through difficult times, had had to have large recourse to the Local Loans Fund. The borrowing, therefore, could not continue on the same scale, and they had been obliged to restrict it. The sum this year was the same as that granted last year and was, he thought, sufficient to meet really urgent cases. He thought it was very undesirable that at the present time they should increase their charge upon the fund. He was in hopes that they would not have to raise any funds for this purpose in the current calendar year, and he thought it would be generally felt that they should have as little recourse as possible to the market at the present time. It would be better for the credit of all concerned. He had not been able to keep out of the market altogether, but he had endeavoured to restrict borrowings as much as was compatible with the due performance of their obligations. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would agree that this was an Amendment which should not be pressed under the present circumstances, and that the Committee would sanction the same sum as was voted last year.
  *MR. MCKENNAsaid he entirely agreed that it was most undesirable that they should go too frequently to the money market, but whether they increased the amount of the Local Loans Fund or not it would not affect the total amount of borrowings. The only thing the Local Loans Fund did was to enable local authorities to borrow more cheaply and thus to save the rates. By restricting the amount they would be penalising local authorities in compelling them to go to the money market. All those who had the interest of local authorities at heart should insist upon the amount being increased. They could borrow more cheaply from the Public Works Loans Commissioners than if they went into the open market; and the House had the alternative of agreeing to an increase of lecal rates or of continuing a system which had worked so admirably for a

  741
  great many years. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to treat this as a Party question, but to consider the interests of the ratepayers.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 163; Noes, 137. (Division List No. 362.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Allhusen,Augustus Henry Eden

  Forster Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gardner, Ernest

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Myers, William Henry

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.HughO.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Arrol, Sir William

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bal arres, Lord

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Peel, Win. Robert Wellesley

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

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, RtHnGerald W.(Leeds

  Gretton, John

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton,Marq.of (L'nd'nderry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bathurst,Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Heath,Sir James(Staffords.NW

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Purvis, Robert

  Bill, Charles

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Pym, C. Guy

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Randies, John S.

  Bond, Edward

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Rankin, Sir James

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Howard, John(Kent,Faversham

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Brassey, Albert

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Renwick, George

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Bull, William James

  Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Kennaway, Rt.Hon.SirJohnH.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Butcher, John George

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.

  Keswick, William

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A.(Wore.

  Lawson, Hn.H.L.W. (Mile End

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Chapman, Edward

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants,Fareham

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead

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

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stanley, Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk

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

  Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon.Lord (Lanes.)

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnC.R.

  Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham

  Stroyan, John

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

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

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lowe, Francis William

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Davies, Sir HoratioD.(Chatham

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Tuff, Charles

  Dewar, Sir T.R.(TowerHamlets

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Turnour, Viscount

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn.SirWilliamH.

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton and.Lyne

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Wylie, Alexander

  Dyke, Rt. Hon.SirWilliamHart

  Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Fellowes, RtHn.AilwynEdward

  Milvain, Thomas

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Finlay,Rt Hn SirR.B.(Inv'rn'ss

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Fitzroy, Hon.Edward Algernon

  Morpeth, Viscount

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Benn, John Williams

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Boland, John

  Burns, John

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Buxton, N.E.(YorkNRWhitby

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Caldwell, James

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Malley, William

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Mara, James

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Jones,DavidBrynmor(Swansea

  O'Shee, James John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Crean, Eugene

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cullinan, J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Russell

  Delany, William

  Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galway

  Lambert, George

  Reddy,M.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N)

  Lamont, Norman

  Redmond, JohnE. (Waterford)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Langley, Batty

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs

  Duffy, William J.

  Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Edwards, Frank

  Levy, Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Elibank, Master of

  Lough, Thomas

  Rose, Charles Day

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Lundon, W.

  Runciman, Walter

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Evans, SirFrancisH.(Maidstone

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Sheehy, David

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Crae, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Field, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Findlay, Alexander(LanarkN. E

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Sullivan, Donal

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Moss, Samuel

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Muldoon, John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Murnaghan, George

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Gladstone, Rt HonHerbert John

  Murphy, John

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Grant, Corrie

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nolan, Col. JohnP.(Galway,N.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hammond, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,Mid

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Harwood, George

  O'Connor, John Kildare, N.)

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Dowd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  MR. Lloyd-George and Mr.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

  M'Kenna.

  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Schedule.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid there were one or two matters on which the Committee ought to have some information. He was glad to see, from the White Paper which had been issued, that the amount of bad debts was so small. In the case of one item, however, he noticed that the debt had bean secured on land which did not belong to the person to whom the money was lent. Could the hon. Gentleman say whose fault that was? There were also one or two other items, which he would not go into, that required explanation.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH)said he was unable to give
  744
  any further information than was furnished in the White Paper. He could not say on whose shoulders the responsibility rested for the matter referred to by the hon. Member.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be road a third time To-morrow.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 31st day of July, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before Two o'clock.