Commons Sitting of 3 July 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the

  729
  Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Dover Harbour Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.
  Seaham Gas Bill; Swansea Corporation Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Barrymore Estate Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Hythe Corporation Bill [Lords]; Stepney Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  University College, London (Transfer) Bill [Lords]; Weaver Navigation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  London County Council (Tramways) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Malvern Water Bill. As amended, considered. Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 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.
  Mansfield Corporation Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Sandgate Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Shepton Mallet Gas Company (Electric Lighting) Bill [Lords]; Workington Harbour and Dock Bill [Lords], Read a second time, and committed.
  South Eastern and London, Chatham and Dover Railways Bill [Lords] (by Order). Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Blackpool Improvement Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That Standing Orders 204 and 235 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Bill accordingly read a second time and committed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10), Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4)Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend The Crown Cases Act, 1848." [Criminal Cases (Reservation of Points of Law) Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to remove difficulties which prevent the dealing by way of mortgage with the fee simple of certain estates of the late Thomas George Corbett, esquire, deceased, situate in the County of Lincoln; and for other purposes." [Corbett Estate Bill [Lords.]
  Corbett Estate Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners, of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Greenock, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN BILL.
  Petition from Dewsbury, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
  Account [presented 29th June] to be printed. [No. 222.]
  PUBLIC REVENUE (INTERCEPTION).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 4th May; Mr. Gibson Bowles]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 223.]
  PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BOARD.
  Copy presented, of Thirtieth Annual Report (for 1904–05), with Appendices [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 224.]
  PACIFIC CABLE ACT, 1901.
  Account presented, showing the money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of the Pacific Cable Act, 1901, and of the money received, expended, and borrowed, and securities created under the said Act to the 31st March, 1905, together with a Copy of the Report of the Chairman of the Pacific Cable Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 225.]
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (AGRICULTURAL RETURNS).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Agricultural Returns for Great Britain, with Statistics for the United Kingdom, British Possessions, and Foreign Countries for 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EXPLOSIVES.
  Copy presented, of Twenty-ninth Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives, being for the year
  732
  1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF CAMBRIDGE).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of Cambridge, redividing the Eastern District of the County into Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Twenty-third Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1904. Part III. Scientific Investigations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Copy presented, of Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers Foundation for the year 1905–6 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 226.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Irish Education—Bilingual Scheme.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the National Board of Education has, through its inspecting staff or otherwise, taken any steps to facilitate the introduction of the bilingual scheme of education into schools in suitable places, or whether it -is prepared to co-operate to any extent with managers and teachers in Irish-speaking or bilingual districts so as to enable the children to be educated through the only language they know, or the one they know best; and, if so, to what extent.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Commissioners have approved of a bilingual programme which they are prepared to sanction in suitable cases on the application of managers of national schools. I have forwarded to the hon. Member a copy of this programme, and of the instructions relating

  733
  to it which have been issued by the Commissioners to their inspectors.

  Suggested Abolition of a Police Hut at Gurtramough.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the negotiations which have been in progress for the sale of the Warden Estate at Sneem, he will consider the advisability of abolishing the police hut at Gurtramough on this estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Two constables are employed in affording protection to a caretaker on an evicted farm at this place. Their services cannot at present be dispensed with.

  Suggested Reduction of Police Force at Sneem.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the diminution of cases at Sneem Petty Sessions, he will arrange for a reduction of the police force at Sneem.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) There has been no appreciable diminution of cases at Sneem Petty Sessions. It is not proposed to reduce the strength of the local police force.

  Seizure of Cattle for Bent on the Beecher Estate, County Cork.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings in connection with recent attempted seizures of cattle for a half-year's rent from four tenants on the Beecher Estate, Castlemagner, county Cork; is he aware that these seizures were made in consequence of the refusal of the landlord either to sell to the tenants or to allow an abatement of the current rents; if he will say what number of policemen escorted the sheriff and bailiffs on the occasion in question, and from what districts they were drawn; and whether the sheriff and constabulary party started on this cattle-seizing expedition before daybreak; and, if so, what constabulary regulations empower policemen to act by night with a sheriff
  734
  in proceedings by distraint under ordinary civil bill or other decree.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Police protection was afforded to the sheriff in the execution of writs issued by the High Courts. I have no information as to the second inquiry. The force employed consisted of thirty-five men drawn from various districts of county Cork, E. R. The seizure was made at three o'clock in the morning. The police are bound to afford protection to the sheriff in the execution of writs of this character, and such writs may be executed at any hour of the day or night.

  Sanitary Condition of Cootehill Workhouse.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, considering the number of deaths in the Cootehill workhouse in January, 1904, after medical operations from alleged blood poisoning, the Local Government Board have taken any steps to ascertain the cause of death in these cases; and, in view of the difference of opinion by local experts as regards the cause of these deaths, and that the Local Government inspector reported that it was difficult to assign a direct and definite cause for the outbreak in this case, he will consider the advisability of ordering a sworn inquiry before the guardians are called upon to incur heavy expenditure for structural alterations.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Board's medical inspector has already made minute investigation into the cause of this outbreak of blood poisoning. Though he was unable to assign a definite cause for the outbreak he was strongly inclined to the opinion of the union medical officer that the source of infection was in the wards of the infirmary. In the opinion of the Board a sworn inquiry would not be likely to throw further light on the matter.

  Expenditure on Cootehill Workhouse Infirmary.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what has been the total amount spent on the work-

  735
  house infirmary at Cootehill during the eight years ending 31st March, 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) £68.

  Defalcations of late Staff Officer of Office of Royal Irish Constabulary, Dublin.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why, whilst a charge of defalcations in accounts has been brought against the late Staff Officer of the Office of the Royal Irish Constabulary, Dublin Castle, extending over a period of four years, and his widow mulcted to the extent of over £400 out of the insurance accruing to the deceased officer, these accounts do not appear to have been audited in the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, London, as is evidenced by the fact that his bank book had not been written up for some two or three years; and if the Government can see their way to refund the amount stopped to this officer's widow, in view of this accounting for expenditure of public money without accounts being properly audited.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) There is no foundation for the suggestion that the accounts of this officer were not properly audited. The accounts were supported by vouchers furnished by him, but some of these vouchers, which purported to be receipts for money, proved to be forgeries. In addition, the bank pass book relating to the account for which the deceased was accountable was cleverly falsified after it had been written up by the officials of the bank. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the negative.

  Extra Police at Brackaville and New Mills, during Elections.
  MR. DOOGAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many extra police were required at the local election of 1902 when the polling booth was at Brackaville, Coalisland; how many extra police were on duty at the recent election of 1905, when the Brackaville booth had been transferred by the returning officer to New Mills; can he state the difference in cost in the two elections and how it
  736
  will be charged; and also the number of extra police on duty in Coalisland on the 1st instant, the necessity for such a draft, and its cost.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) No extra police were employed in 1902 in connection with these elections; in 1905 thirty-five extra men were employed. The cost of the extra police chargeable to the Dungannon rural district is approximately £5 10s.

  Lambert Estate, County Galway.
  MR. ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Lambert Estate, situated in the county of Galway, which includes part of the town of Athenry, is managed by the Lunacy Department of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; that this estate is mainly agricultural and about being sold to the occupying tenants; and that it has been represented to the Lord Chancellor that the town tenants are anxious to buy at the same time; and whether, in view of the desirability, in the interest of the vendor, that this estate should be sold as a whole, he will represent to the Estates Commissioners the necessity of advancing the whole of the purchase money.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) This estate is under the control of the Lord Chancellor during the minority of the owner. The Lord Chancellor has given leave to the receiver to negotiate with the agricultural tenants for the sale to them of their holdings, but has refused an application that the town tenants should be included in the negotiations. The reply to the last inquiry is in the negative. The question there raised is one for the determination of the Estates Commissioners, subject to the review of the Judicial Commissioner.

  Derry McEdmond Property, King's County.
  MR. REDDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have made arrangements with Mr. Lloyd, the owner of the Derry McEdmond property,

  737
  situated in the barony of Clonlish, King's County, to purchase this estate; whether he is aware that the former tenant, Amos Palmer Doolan, paid £143 per annum rent for this holding, and that it is now let to a man named Friend, who became the tenant in 1903, at the annual rent of £75 a year; and will he say how much money the Estates. Commissioners can advance to Friend should he desire to purchase; and whether, taking all the circumstances into consideration, the Estates Commissioners will take steps to secure the restoration of Amos Palmer Doolan to his former holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The facts appear to be as stated. The question of making the advance of £2,000, applied for by Mr. Friend, is still under consideration by the Commissioners, who expect to give their ruling thereon at an early date.

  Earl of Drogheda's Estate, at Rosenallis.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a portion of the tenants upon the estate of the Earl of Drogheda, at Rosenallis, have signed agreements to purchase at terms which amount to over twenty-five years purchase, without the bonus; that over one-third of the tenants have refused to purchase at the price; and that the tenants who have signed agreements occupy the most impoverished portion of the estate and have been induced to purchase by the fact that a year's and in some instances a year and a-half's arrears have been added to the purchase price; and whether, under the circumstances, the Estates Commissioners are prepared to sanction the sale.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Agreements to purchase sixty-eight out of a total of seventy-three holdings on this property have been lodged, the average number of years purchase being 25. 1. The Commissioners have no knowledge of the amount of arrears, if any, added to the purchase money. They are making further inquiry, and have not yet declared the sixty-eight holdings to be. a separate estate.

  Annual Meeting of Irish Protestant National Teachers' Union.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the political addresses delivered at the I annual meeting of the Irish Protestant National Teachers' Union, held in Belfast, on Saturday, 24th June, in which charges I were preferred and attacks made against the managers of Catholic elementary schools in Ireland; and whether, seeing that these teachers are in receipt of salary or other remuneration from the; Government, and in view of the regulations governing the conduct of public I servants, he will say what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Yes, Sir; I have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings, in which the president is stated to have denied that the Protestant teachers had ever I done anything to show hostility to Roman Catholic managerial authority. The Commissioners have issued a circular to national school teachers calling their attention to the rules which require them to abstain from controversy and to avoid meetings at which questions of an objectionable character are likely to be discussed.

  Maconahy Estate, County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any inspection of the Maconahy (county Longford) Estate has yet been ordered; whether he is aware that these agreements have been entered into nearly a year and a-half ago and the tenants are now being called on to pay interest without getting the vesting orders they thought they would get almost immediately; and, with a view to preventing further loss to them in this matter, will the sale be immediately sanctioned and the vesting orders be issued at once.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The agreements were lodged on August 24th last, and the lands declared an estate on November 22nd. The tenants are now being called on to pay the interest in lieu of rent which they agreed to pay

  739
  pending the completion of the sale. The inspection of the estate will shortly take place.

  Irish Land Purchase—Tithe Redemption.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of tenants in Ireland paying a fee-farm rent to a landlord, and also tithes, who are now called on to purchase, subject to redeeming the tithe rent-charge; whether he is aware that this charge, in the case of such holdings in county Longford, was fixed in 1826, when wheat was largely and profitably grown in Ireland; and will he see that some reduction is made to such tenants when now called on to redeem this charge.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The proper scale on which these tithes are to be redeemed in any case is a matter for the determination of the Land Commission or Land Judge. I have not any power in the matter.

  Name Plates of Streets in Gaelic—Surcharge of Wicklow Urban Council.
  MR. COGAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the names of streets in several cities and towns in Ireland are indicated in the Gaelic language; whether such name plates were erected by the local authorities out of the funds at their disposal, and the payments duly passed by the auditors; whether, seeing that the auditor has recently surcharged three members of the Wicklow Urban Council in the sum of £3 3s. for signing payments for a similar purpose, he will explain why such a surcharge was made; and whether, seeing that in Wicklow town and county the Irish language is very generally spoken and used, he will order the surcharge to be withdrawn.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) If the Wicklow County Council think the surcharge illegal, they can proceed in a Court of law. If they desire to appeal on equitable grounds, they can appeal to the Local Government Board, when the
  740
  matter will come before me as President of that Board. It would, therefore, be-improper for me to express any opinion; as to the propriety or legality of the-, auditor's action.

  Carrickmacross Petty Sessions Clerk.
  MR. MCKEAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the agent for the estate of the late Mr. Pringle is also petty sessions clerk for the Carrickmacross district, and that occasionally while acting in his official capacity he also appears before the Petty Sessions Court as plaintiff in suits against tenants on the aforementioned estate; and whether, in the public interest, he will take such steps as will lead to the resignation on the part of the official in question of one of the positions which he now holds.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I understand that the facts are substantially as stated, save that the petty sessions clerk appears not as plaintiff, but as a witness in the cases referred to. I am making further inquiry into this, matter.

  Irish Presbyterian Church—Appointment in the Gift of the Crown.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the-Chief Secretary' to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Executive have been in correspondence with a committee of the General Assembly of the Irish Presbyterian Church on the subject of appointments under the Crown to members of that communion; whether he is aware that the Rev. D. Reuter, in a report presented on behalf of this committee to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, stated that a number of appointments had been made through the action of this committee; what explanation, if any, has he to give for the recognition of the religious faith of the applicants as an element in the selection and appointment to places of profit under the Crown; and whether he will lay upon the Table-the correspondence between the Irish Executive and this committee of the General Assembly of the Irish Presbyterian Church.

  741
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Representations have been made to the Irish Government from time to time on behalf of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in support of the claims of members of that Church to appointments in the gift of the Government. Similar representations have been received from various persons in favour of the selection of individuals professing other religious beliefs. All such representations have been duly, acknowledged. I have not seen the report made by the reverend gentleman named in the Question. The fact that an applicant for appointment is a member of a particular religions creed in no way prejudices a fair consideration of his candidature; but the Government, in making such appointments, do not proceed on the principle suggested in the Question, with one obvious exception, namely, the appointment of chaplains. It is not proposed to lay the correspondence referred to upon the Table of the House.

  Motor Vehicles in Hyde Park.
  MR. SEELY: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, why, in view of the provisions of Section 9 of The Parks Regulation Act, 1872, no notice was given to Parliament of the rules under which he is now excluding motor vehicles from Hyde Park.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) I have; to refer my hon. friend to the Answer I have given to the hon. Member for the New Forest Division.

  Eviction of Mr. Patrick Dooley.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Patrick Dooley and his sister were evicted from their home at Ardkeenagh, county Roscommon, on June 14th, 1905, though he and the other tenants on the estate had offered terms of purchase which the agent, Mr. Ernest H. Browne, J. P. Tullamore, refused to accept; and that the police authorities assisted in carrying out the eviction in question, and subsequently allowed the tenant's house to
  † See page 777
  742
  be burnt to the ground; whether he can state by whose instructions the house was burned; and whether he will take any steps through the Estates Commissioners or otherwise for the assistance of the evicted tenant.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Negotiations were entered into for the sale of this estate in May last, but they proved abortive. The ex-tenant named in the Question was evicted for nonpayment of rent, and the eviction was carried out by the sheriff, who was protected by a force of police. There is no foundation for the statement that the police allowed the house to be burnt, nor are they in a position to say at whose instigation the burning took place. I have no power to take any steps for the assistance of the evicted tenant.

  King Estate, Templeboy, County Sligo.
  MR. WILLIAM McKILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the King Estate, situate in the parish of Templeboy, barony of Iveragh, county of Sligo, contains two grazing ranches comprising nearly one-fifth of the entire acreage of that parish, and that the landlord is desirous of retaining these ranches with the object of reselling them to non-residential graziers; and, if so, whether steps will be taken by the Estates Commissioners, before purchase negotiations are sanctioned, to ensure that these grazing farms are included in the sale, so that the uneconomic holdings in the district may be enlarged.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) No proceedings for the sale of this estate have come before the Commissioners.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants— Application of Representatives of the late Patrick Byrne.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a claim for reinstatement has been received by the Estates Commissioners from the representatives of the late Patrick Byrne, Tully, Queen's County, a tenant on Lord Lansdowne's property at Luggacurran; whether he is aware that the late Mr. Byrne was evicted in 1888 out of a farm of 124

  743
  Irish acres with a good residence built by his predecessors; and, as the estate is now before the Estates Commissioners for sale and settlement, whether he can say what provision is being made for the representatives of the evicted tenant in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.). The application has been received, and will be considered by the Commissioners when dealing with the estate.

  Mutilation of a Donkey at Abbeyfeale, County Limerick.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a donkey, the property of John Ahearn, of Caherlane, Abbeyfeale, county Limerick, was mutilated on the 23rd June by having its tail completely cut off; has he any report on this matter: and can he say whether any arrests have been made by the police.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The fact, I regret to say, is as stated. No arrest has yet been made by the police, but they are doing their utmost to bring the perpetrator to justice.

  Boycotting at Loughrea.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to notices posted up in the neighbourhood of Loughrea, warning people to keep aloof from the occupier of the Caherhenryho Farm; will he say what action has been taken by the police with respect to these notices; and whether any clue has been obtained as to their authorship.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Yes, Sir, my attention has been directed to these notices, which were of a specially reprehensible character. They were removed by the police as soon as they were observed, and every endeavour is being made to trace their author.

  Irish Town Tenants—Case of Mr. Fahy of Ballinrobe.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware
  744
  that a notice to quit has been served on Mr. Fahy, a draper in the town of Ballinrobe, county Mayo, who has been in possession of these premises for over twenty years, has paid large sums of money for rent and repairs, and owes no arrears whatever, and is prepared to purchase the whole place; and, if so, whether, in view of similar cases, he will facilitate the passing of the Town Tenants Bill into Law.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have no knowledge of the matters referred to in the first part of the Question. I cannot undertake to give facilities for the passage of the Bill.

  Grazing Lands on the Brown Hall Estate, County Mayo.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Brown Hall Estate, near Balla, county Mayo, which was purchased over two years ago by the Congested Districts Board, and on which there are several hundred acres of grazing lands, is being used by that Board for grazing purposes instead of being divided amongst the tenants and fenced; and, if so, whether he will take immediate steps to have these grass lands, divided.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) As I have already informed the hon. Member, the Board's officers are engaged in rearranging these lands and preparing them for re-sale. Until this work has been completed the lands must be let for grazing.

  Examination of Bag of Denis Cullinane by Constable Delaney.
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a constable named Delaney accosted a man named Denis Cullinane, near Barty, who was returning from his work, and insisted on examining a bag which Cullinane carried, and which contained utensils necessary for drink which he used at dinner, and that the constable threatened to summon Cullinane if he refused to allow him to search the bag; and will he say on whose authority the constable acted in that manner.

  745
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The constable had reasonable grounds for suspecting that Cullinane's bag contained fish which had been illegally taken. He had power, under the 6th Section of 54 and 55 Vic, cap. 20, to search the bag, but the necessity for doing so did not arise, as Cullinane voluntarily showed its contents.

  Arterial Drainage in Ireland.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to appoint a Committee of experts to inquire into and report upon the question of arterial drainage in Ireland; and, if so, can he state when such Committee will be constituted.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have nothing at present to add to my reply to the similar Question on Monday† last of the hon. Member for North Kildare.

  Irish Education—Fees of Pupils attending Model Schools.
  MR. SHEEHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Treasury have yet arrived at a decision in regard to the appropriation by them of the local contributions to elementary education in Ireland in the shape of the fees paid by the pupils attending model schools; if so, what that decision is; and whether any communication on the subject has been made to the Commissioners of National Education.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Yes, Sir; I am pleased to say that the Treasury have agreed to forego their claim to these fees, which have hitherto been appropriated in aid of the Vote under an arrangement of many years standing. The sum available will be distributed amongst model school teachers, as follows:—(1) To each head mistress appointed since 1st April, 1900, £20 per annum as an allowance for residence; (2) To each head master and head mistress appointed since 1st April, 1900, £10 per annum to stand in the place of endowment or local aid; (3) The residue to be distributed among all the teachers
  † See page 99
  746
  (head teachers and assistants) at present serving, or hereafter appointed, in model schools, on the principle that the head teacher shall receive twice the share of an assistant. The distribution will take effect in the current financial year, provided the expenditure in lieu of fees can be met out of savings on the Vote.

  Singleton Estate, County Louth.
  MR. SHEEHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have yet sanctioned advances to the tenants on the Singleton Estate, county Louth, whether the Commissioners investigated the claim of Owen Kirk, an evicted tenant on the property; what inquiry, if any, was held; and what decision, if any, was made.
  MR. SHEEHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Admiral Singleton is selling his estate in the county of Louth to his tenants; and, if so, whether, seeing that there are two evicted tenants from this property, Owen Kirk and Nicholas Callan, he will say if these are being restored, under purchase, to their holdings; and, if not, why this is not being done.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I will, at the same time, reply to both the hon. Member's Questions. Proceedings for the sale of this estate (which is situated in county Meath, not Louth) are pending before the Commissioners, who have inquired into the applications of the evicted tenants named, but have not yet come to a decision upon them.

  The Magisterial Bench in County Cavan— Appointment of Catholics.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of appointments to the magisterial bench made in county Cavan during 1904, and up to and including the 30th May, 1905; and, further, will he state the number of such appointments conferred upon Catholics.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) During the period mentioned ten magistrates were

  747
  appointed, and, so far as is known, none of these are Catholics.

  Qualifications and Examinations of Candidates for the Office of Petty Sessions Clerk in Ireland.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what are the qualifications required from men appointed to the office of petty sessions clerk in Ireland; what is the programme of examination on which candidates are examined; and how soon after appointment does the examination take place.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Information with respect to all these matters is set out in two lengthy printed circulars, copies of which I have forwarded to the hon. Member.

  Sales of Irish Estates under the Land Act of 1903
  MR. O'DOWD: TO ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland will he state what is the total amount of the purchase money of the estates for the sale of which agreements have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners under the Act of 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The amount of the purchase money in respect of direct sales is £21,987,135, of which £5,438,517 has been advanced. The amount in respect of sales under Sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Act and of sales to the Congested Districts Board is £4,573,727, of which £984,787 has been advanced.

  Circular to Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the terms or nature of the circular recently issued by the Board of Education in Ireland to the Irish national teachers; and will he say whether the issue of such a circular was due to incidents arising out of a dinner held in connection with the teachers' annual congress during Easter week in Sligo.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have sent to the hon. Member a copy of the circular, which was published in the Dub-
  748
  lin newspapers. The Answer to the second inquiry is in the affirmative.

  Issue of a Receivable Order against Mrs. Margaret Conlan.
  MR. DELANY: TO ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Margaret Conlan, of Mullaghanard, Rosenallis, Queen's County, a tenant on the estate of the Earl of Drogheda, has been served with a receivable order for interest in lieu of rent, amounting for five months to £6s 5. 10d., which represents twenty-eight years purchase of the present rent of her farm; and whether, as Mrs. Conlan states she signed no agreement to purchase, he can say what course the Estates Commissioners are going to take in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) This receivable order was issued in error, and Mrs. Conlan has been so informed by the Commissioners. No proceedings for sale to her are before the Commissioners.

  The Derry McEdmond Properties, Kings County.
  MR. REDDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the date on which Mr. Friend became tenant of the holding on the Derry McEdmond properties, situated in the barony of Clonlish, King's County, and whether the Land Purchase Act provides that the Estates Commissioners cannot advance more than £500 for the purchase of a holding the occupier of which became tenant since January 1st, 1901; and what steps, if any, the Estates Commissioners are taking to reinstate the evicted tenant, Amos Palmer Doolan.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Mr. Friend became tenant on August 17th, 1903. Section 53 (1) of the Act of that year provides that the limitation mentioned may be exceeded in certain circumstances in a non-congested county. The Commissioners have not yet come to a decision as to Doolan's holding.

  Advances under the Land Purchase Act.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the

  749
  amount of the advances applied for under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1903, up to and including 30th June, 1905, the amount which has been actually advanced, and the amount sanctioned; and what is the date of the receipt of the agreements which are being dealt with now by the Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have answered the first inquiry in reply to the Question which the hon. Member for South Sligo has just put. I am making inquiry as to the latter part of the Question.

  Fines Imposed under the Weights and Measures Act.
  MR. CULLINAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what becomes of fines imposed under the Weights and Measures Act; whether fines under the Food and Drugs Act are transferred to county councils; and whether he will take steps to have the fines imposed under the former treated in the same manner as those in the latter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Fines under the Weights and Measures Act are payable by statute to the Crown, and fines under the Food and Drugs Act to the prosecuting local authority. I am not prepared to introduce legislation to alter the application of these penalties.

  Farm of late Matthew Mooney, of Kilross, Tipperary.
  MR. CULLINAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have recently been taken by the Estates Commissioners to purchase from Count Moore the evicted farm of the late Matthew Mooney, Kilross, Tipperary; and whether, as the landlord informed the widow of the evicted tenant that he was willing to sell the holding to the Estates Commissioners, he will state what is the cause of delay in completing the negotiations.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Commissioners have made an offer for the purchase of this farm, but the offer has not yet been accepted.

  Local Taxation (Ireland) Account.
  MR. HAMMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he would state what was the balance to credit of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account on March 31st, 1905, as compared with that on the same date of preceding year; and what were the receipts and expenditure in connection with the same account for the year ending March 31st, 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The credit balance on March 31st, 1905, was £221,478 15s. 3d., and on March 31st, 1904, it was £213,366s. 5d. The receipts for the year ending March 31st, 1905, amounted to £1,430,528 10s. 6d., and the expenditure to £1,422,411 11s. 8d.

  Mr. Rider Haggard's Report.
  SIR JOHN GORST: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government proposes to take action on Mr. Rider Haggard's Report on the Salvation Army Colonies and Scheme of National Land Settlement; and, if so, when, and in what manner; whether it proposes to send a Commissioner to South Africa, as suggested by Mr. Rider Haggard, to inquire into the suitability of that country for land settlements under the scheme which he has formulated; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to appoint Mr. Rider Haggard to be a Commissioner to report upon the possibility of establishing land colonies on similar lines, and managed by the same machinery, within the United Kingdom, as Mr. Commissioner Haggard offers to do in paragraph 39 of his Report.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The importance and difficulty of the subject dealt with in Mr. Rider Haggard's Report have induced me to propose the appointment of a Departmental Committee to consider the questions raised in that Report in the light of the large experience gained from previous schemes of colonisation. I am not prepared at present to reply further to the Question of my right hon. friend.

  White Slave Traffic Convention.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Under-Secretary

  751
  of State for Foreign Affairs whether the ratifications by all the contracting States who were parties to the International Convention respecting the White Slave Traffic, signed at Paris on May 18th, 1904, have now been deposited; and whether, in view of the fact that the Convention will come into force throughout Europe on 18th July next, the text of the documents embodying its terms, as well as the Papers relating to the International Diplomatic Conference held at Paris in July, 1902, will now be laid upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) There still remain three States who have not, as yet, deposited their ratifications, but it is competent for them to do so before the 18th instant. After that date the Convention will be published in the Treaty Series, and a certain number of copies of the correspondence will be delivered to both Houses of Parliament, as was done in 1881, for the use of Members who may wish to refer to it.

  Price of Sugar in Great Britain and on the Continent.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he will state, in supplement of Return No. 174, lately issued, what was the price per pound retail of the kind of sugar most largely consumed by the working classes, whether refined or unrefined, on or about the 1st day of March, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, and 1905, in the capital cities of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France, Holland, Russia, Denmark, and Great Britain respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) There are no official records of retail prices of this kind of sugar in foreign countries, but inquiry shall be made whether it is possible to obtain the desired figures for the years referred to.

  Alien Immigrants.
  MR. BRIGHT: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade what was the number of alien immigrants brought into the port of London and other United Kingdom ports respectively, in British and foreign ships respectively, during the year 1904.
  752
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The following statement gives the number of alien passengers shown in the alien lists obtained under Act 6 Will. IV., c. 11, s. 2, to have arrived in 1904 at the port of London and at other ports of the United Kingdom, including aliens in transit from ports on the Continent of Europe, distinguishing those brought by British and foreign vessels:—

  Port of London.

  Other Ports of the United Kingdom.

  Brought by British vessels

  2,180

  93,283

  Brought by foreign vessels

  49,376

  50,147

  51,556

  143,430

  Tuberculosis in Fowls.
  MR. MORRELL: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has information to what extent this season tuberculosis is found in fowls; and will he cause inquiry to be made and information laid before the Commission on Tuberculosis with a view to ascertaining whether that disease bears relation, to that found in man, and may be communicated to man in foods.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) We have no information to show that the disease in question is specially prevalent amongst poultry this season, but I will bring the suggestion of my hon. friend under the notice of the Royal Commission. I may add that we have prepared and issued a leaflet on the subject, with copies of which I shall be glad to supply him.

  Superannuation Allowance of Mr. L. J. Hall, of Barnsley.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the causes of the delay in dealing with the question of the superannuation allowance of Mr. L. J. Hall, late school attendance officer of the Barnsley Union; and whether he will cause such inquiries to be made and such

  753
  orders to be issued or directions given as will enable the guardians or the county council to pay the regulation superannuation to which Mr. Hall is entitled, and the increase which the guardians have recommended he should receive.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The question of the superannuation allowance to Mr. Hall has stood over pending the issue of the General Order which the Local Government Board propose to make under paragraph 19 of the Second Schedule to the Education Act, 1902. Having regard, however, to the special circumstances of Mr. Hall's case, I am communicating with the West Riding County Council with a view to payment of the allowance being made at once.

  Superannuation Allowances of Poor Law Officers.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Board propose to issue an Order under paragraph 19 of the Second Schedule to the Education Act, 1902, to deal with the question of the superannuation allowance payable to Poor Law officers under the Poor Law Officers Superannuation Act, 1896, who are transferred by the Education Act to any council; and, if so, when such Order will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) An Order is in preparation dealing with this matter, and I hope it will shortly be issued.

  Date of Introduction of Naval Works Bill.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when the Naval Works Bill will be introduced.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Lee.) No date has yet been fixed for the introduction of the Bill referred to in the hon. Member's Question.

  By-laws under Employment of Children Act.
  MR. TENNANT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can grant a Return of the negotiations between the London County Council, the Corporation of the City of London, the borough of Eastbourne, and the borough of Croydon with his Department upon the subject of by-laws under the Employment of Children Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) In none of these cases have the by-laws yet been finally settled. I regret that I cannot undertake to grant the Return desired by the hon. Member.

  Violation of Conscience Clause at a School in Broadway, Worcestershire.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to a violation of the conscience clause at a school in Broadway, in Worcestershire, in connection with a child named Johnston; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board have received a communication as to an alleged breach of the conscience clause from the managers of the school; but no complaint has reached the Board from the parents of the child in question. The Worcestershire Education Committee are at present making a thorough investigation of the case. At present there seems to be nothing to call for action on the part of the Board.

  Allowances to Postmen Performing Station Duties not under Supervision and Mail-Apparatus Duty,
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General when he intends to grant the 3s. allowance to all postmen performing station duties not under supervision and mail-apparatus duty.

  755
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Particulars are being obtained of the duties affected, and the various cases will be dealt with in due course.

  Delay in Paying Rebate on Coal Duty at Cardiff.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that inconvenience is caused to coal exporters carrying on business at Swansea by the undue delay of the Customs authorities in paying the rebate on the coal duty on coal exported at a price not exceeding 6s. per ton f. o. b.; have complaints as to such delay been made to him; and will he take steps to secure the repayment of the rebate within a reasonable time.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The only allegation of delay in repayment of coal duty which has reached the Board of Customs from Swansea was addressed to them from the firm whose representative was the only witness before the Coal Commission, out of the large number of persons examined, who raised this point. The dissatisfaction at the procedure of the Customs is therefore apparently not general, and, indeed, there seems to be no cause for it, as I am assured that the rebate claims, when in order, are invariably passed for payment within a few days of receipt. But, if the hon. Member will give any instances where delay has occurred, I will have careful inquiry made.

  Amount of Carriage and Motor Car-Duty.
  MR. BROOKE ROBINSON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amount paid to the Exchequer during the past financial year in respect of carriage licences for horse-drawn carriages and for motor-propelled carriages respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) No, Sir. No distinction is drawn in the books of the Inland Revenue Department between horse-drawn and motor-propelled carriages of under one ton or over five Ions in weight, no additional duty being
  756
  chargeable on motor-cars outside those limits.

  Veterinary Inspection in Ireland.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland (1) what was the total amount paid in Ireland to local veterinary inspectors for salaries, fees, and expenses for each of the years 1903 and 1904; (2) how much of the total was paid out of local funds, and how much otherwise; (3) how much has the Department of Agriculture in Ireland at its disposal annually for veterinary inspection; (4) what was the total cost of the Veterinary Department, which has its offices at Dublin Castle, in each of the years 1903 and 1904 over and above the cost of the system of local veterinary inspection mentioned in the first paragraph; how much of the cost of Veterinary Department directed from Dublin Castle was paid in the years mentioned in respect of salaries, travelling expenses, and subsistence allowances, compensation for animals ordered to be destroyed, and other fees and expenses respectively
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) (1) The amounts paid to the veterinary inspectors employed by the local authorities, as distinct from those employed by the Department, were:—Year ended 31st December, 1903, £8,671 15s. 1d; year ended 31st December, 1904, £8,931 10s. 0d. (2) The whole of these amounts was paid by the various county and county borough councils out of local funds. One-half is eventually recouped to local authorities out of the General Cattle Diseases Fund, which fund, however, is derived from local assessments. (3)—(a) The salaries and expenses of veterinary inspectors employed by the Department at the various ports are provided in the Annual Parliamentary Vote. The expenditure in the year ended 31st March last was £8,273 19s. 11d. (b) The cost of veterinary inspectors employed by the Department in connection with the administration of the Disseaes of Animals Acts is paid out of the Parliamentary Grant in Aid. The cost in the year ended 31st March last

  757
  amounted to £12,722 9s. (4) The total cost of the veterinary branch, and the

  Out of Parliamentary Vote.

  Out of Parliamentary Grant in aid for Swine Fever, etc.

  Total.

  1903–4.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Salaries, Wages, and Fees

  12,563

  3

  8

  7,100

  9

  3

  19,663

  12

  11

  Travelling and subsistence allowances

  2,299

  11

  2

  3,707

  19

  5

  6,007

  10

  7

  Compensation for animals destroyed, less salvage on carcases

  —

  6,155

  9

  7

  6,155

  9

  7

  Other Expenses

  128

  5

  7

  1,013

  18

  1

  1,142

  3

  8

  14,991

  0

  5

  17,977

  16

  4

  32,968

  16

  9

  1904–5.

  Salaries, etc.

  12,685

  13

  1

  7,313

  12

  4

  19,999

  5

  5

  Travelling, etc.

  2,072

  13

  9

  4,089

  10

  4

  6,162

  4

  1

  Compensation, etc.

  —

  5,854

  14

  10

  5,854

  14

  10

  Other Expenses

  135

  8

  9

  1,319

  6

  4

  1,454

  15

  1

  14,893

  15

  7

  18,577

  3

  10

  33,470

  19

  5

  Anketell Jones Estate, Newport, County Mayo.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Congested Districts Board have purchased the Anketell Jones Estate, at Burrisboole, Newport, county Mayo; and, if so, will lie say at what number of years purchase of first and second-term rents; what is the average Poor Law valuation of each tenant on this estate; how many acres are offered for redistribution amongst the congested tenantry; and whether some 3,600 acres have been reserved by Mr. Jones.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Board have purchased a portion, namely, 3,123 acres of this estate, of which 2,542
  expenses under the various heads enumerated, were as follows:—
  acres are tenanted and 581 acres untenanted. The number of years' purchase was nineteen in the case of first-term rents, and twenty-two in the case of second-term rents. The average Poor Law valuation of the seventy tenants on the estate is £5 2s. per annum. The 581 acres of untenanted land on the estate, and probably other untenanted land, will be used to enlarge the holdings. The Board understand that the vendor has retained about 2,700 acres of land.

  Extra Police at Dualla, County Tipperary.
  MR. CONDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland at whose instance and with what object a force of extra police, mostly armed with rifles, including

  759
  a corps of cyclists, together with a Government note-taker, were drafted into the village of Dualla, county Tipperary, on Sunday, 11th June, in view of the peaceful condition of Dualla and the district; and will he say who will have to bear the cost.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The police, of whom only six out of thirty-six were armed with rifles, attended at the instance of the Government, with the object of preserving the public peace on the occasion of a public meeting, at which there was reason to apprehend that intimidation would be used towards individuals in the locality. The cost of the police so employed will be borne by the Constabulary Vote.

  Salary of Mr. Thomas Larkin, of Roscommon National School.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why it is that Mr. Thomas Larkin, of Roscommon National School, whose character as a teacher is excellent, has got no increment since the new rules came into operation.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) This teacher is in the first division of the first grade, and a very high standard of efficiency is required to warrant an increment of good service salary in this grade. Mr. Larking school has not maintained the necessary standard of efficiency for the past three years, and hence no increment has been granted.

  Salaries of Irish Teachers.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state (a) how many teachers in Ireland are at present receiving the maximum salary of 1 (1) grade; (b) how many teachers classed 1 (1) grade under the new rules have since got increments.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) (a) 115; (b) 209.

  Grazing Farms on the King-Harman Estate.
  MR. TULLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of. Ireland whether the Estates
  760
  Commissioners can state in how many cases they have purchased from the vendor of the King-Harman Estate large grazing farms for distribution amongst the owners of small holdings; and what is the total difference in the amount of the bonus payable in these cases, first, for these farms if sold as tenanted lands, and, secondly, for the same farms if sold as untenanted lands.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Commissioners have not yet purchased any of the grazing farms referred to.

  Claims for Commandeered Property during South African War.
  MR. MARKS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the final Report of the Central Judicial Commission appointed to investigate the claims based on receipts or vouchers given by British officers to Dutch burghers in respect of cattle or other property taken for Army purposes during the South African War; and whether he can state the number of such receipts or vouchers issued, the number of them now for any reason remaining unpaid, and the amount of money which such unpaid receipts or vouchers represent.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have not yet received the final Report of the Central Judicial Commission, and am not yet in a position to give the figures.

  Patrick M'Mahon, late Royal Irish Regiment.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Patrick M'Mahon, now residing in William Street, Wexford, joined the permanent staff of the Royal Irish Regiment, 3rd Battalion, on the 16th June, 1870, and continued in the service for fourteen years and ten months, and at the end of that time joined the Line service of the Irish Regiment for seven years, and on the 16th June, 1897, joined again for a further period of four years, and war having broken out in South Africa he was called to the colours on the 20th June, 1900; whether he is aware that M'Mahon was discharged on the 16th June, 1902, after twenty-four

  761
  years service, without a pension; and whether, seeing that this man is now in failing health and unable to support his wife and family, he will order an inquiry into this case with a view to granting a pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The case is being investigated, and a reply as to the man's eligibility for pension will be forwarded to the hon. Member.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Submarines—Utility in Naval Warfare— Japanese Experiences.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the Board of Admiralty is in possession of information that submarine boats corresponding to thoie built and equipped in this country have been employed by the Japanese in their recent naval warfare; whether the evidence at the inquiries into the three fatal casualties to Submarines 1, 5, and 8, of their limited buoyancy, and numerous mechanical and chemical complications, has satisfied the Board that, as instruments of warfare, such submarines must be more dangerous to their users than to the vessels they are intended to assail; and whether the Board will give directions that the building of such vessels shall cease until their utility and safety is more satisfactorily demonstrated.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PKETYMAN,): The Admiralty are not prepared to give any information concerning the war vessels of either of the belligerent Powers. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, there is nothing in the accidents that have occurred to suggest that these boats cannot be safely handled on any service on which they may be employed. The Admiralty consider that their utility has been amply demonstrated during the extensive work carried out by them during the last three years, and they intend to continue the construction of such vessels.

    Boom Defence Experiments.
    MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the event of farther experiments in boom defence being made at Portland or elsewhere, precautions; will in future be taken to prevent newspaper correspondents and photographers from obtaining and publishing particulars.
    MR. PRETYMAN: Any necessary precautions will be taken, but in some cases local conditions make prevention difficult.

    Outfit Allowances for Naval Volunteer Officers.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that an outfit allowance of £20 is granted to Volunteer land officers under certain specified conditions, and that the wear and tear of a naval officer's uniform is greater than that of a Volunteer land officer, the same assistance will be afforded to officers of the Naval Volunteers as to officers of the land Volunteers.
    MR. PRETYMAN: Representations on the subject referred to by the hon. Member have been made, and it is now under consideration.

    Admiralty Buildings Flag.
    CAPTAIN JESSEL:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why the flag on the Admiralty buildings is not hauled down at sunset.
    MR. PRETYMAN: It is the custom in the naval service to haul down the colours at sunset, but the flag of the Admiralty, like the flag of an admiral or the pendant of a commodore or captain, is a symbol of authority, and it has therefore been ordered to be kept flying.

    War Stores Wastage Inquiry.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the amount that has been paid or incurred for stores of all descriptions delivered in South Africa between July 1st, 1902, and March 31st, 1905; the value of such stores as were consumed during that period; the amount received for stores which were sold; the

    763
    estimated value of the stores which had not been consumed or sold on March 31st, 1905; and what amounts have been included in the accounts of 1903–4 and 1904–5 as appropriations-in-aid.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): For the purposes of such a Return the information to be found in the accounts at home requires to be supplemented by facts contained in documents in South Africa. I have called for the fullest Report from South Africa, and as soon as it is possible to do so a Return giving all the information available will be laid.

    Lord Milner and the South African War Stores.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the statement of Colonel Morgan before the Butler Commission that, in the presence of General Lyttelton and another, Lord Milner refused to make any further purchases of supplies from the Army for repatriation; whether he is aware that this refusal of Lord Milner was based on the ground that the making of these purchases would not be fair to the local merchants; whether General Lyttelton communicated to the War Office authorities this refusal of Lord Milner, whereby the main source of custom for the Army stores, to the loss of the taxpayer, was shut off; and, if so, what was the reply of the War Office; and whether he will lay this correspondence upon the Table.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: My attention has been drawn to the statement mentioned. No communication from General Lyttelton on this matter can be traced at the War Office, but General Lyttelton informs me that he and Brigadier-General. Lawson were present at a meeting which is presumably the one referred to. Their recollection is to the effect that the discussion was on the allotment of trucks between the civil and the military, and they do not remember that anything was said by Lord Milner in the sense referred to.

    Officers' Costs before the Stores Commission.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the circumstances of the officers referred to in the Report of the Butler Committee, provision will be made, according to the general rule prevailing in the Civil Service, for the recovery of their costs before the Royal Commission if they are declared blameless.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: This question is receiving the careful consideration of the Government.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that no injustice is done to these officers?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir.

    The War Stores Inquiry—Destruction of War Office Documents.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when did he receive the Report of the Butler Committee in which the destruction of documents relating to the contracts and refunds in South Africa was a matter of comment; and what explanation has he, if any, for the fact that no immediate steps were taken by him to impound all documents connected with the subject of the inquiries of the Butler Committee.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Report was submitted on the 22nd May and was considered by the Army Council on the 25th of that month. Orders were given on that day to impound all office papers and documents which had been under the consideration of the Butler Committee. It was subsequently decided to extend this impounding also to all the documents in South Africa bearing on the cases to be brought before the Royal Commission.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the date of the impounding was June 19th, the day before Parliament met after the Whitsuntide Recess. Were not the documents left all that time to the free will of gentlemen who might be disposed to destroy them?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: All the documents were in the custody of the Department.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the Tight hon. Gentleman means of knowing if any of them were destroyed for the purpose of suppressing evidence?
    SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: The Report says so.

    Lord Kitchener's Stores Estimate.
    MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can furnish, an account of the surplus animals and articles handed over to the Sales Department in South Africa, as reported by Lord Kitchener in his telegram of June 18th, 1902, and estimated by him to involve six or seven millions of money; and whether he can state the amount realised by the sale of these surplus stores, as distinguished from any other stores then in South Africa but not included by Lord Kitchener in his estimate, or which arrived there after the date of the estimate.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The information required will be included as far as possible in the Return which will be furnished to the House.
    In answer to a further Question,
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he did not know if the investigation would enable them to distinguish in all cases between the stores referred to by Lord Kitchener and those provided afterwards, but he hoped it would.

    South African War Stores—War Office Employee's Transactions.
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War at what date did the War Office become aware of the fact that on October 26th, 1902, the Sales Department in South Africa accepted a tender for surplus stores from a person named Saunders employed in that Department; and what action was taken with regard to the officer who ordered or permitted this irregularity.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: This is one of the questions which will come within the purview of the Royal Commission.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid the first part of his Question had simply reference to the date.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid this, with the other questions in reference to the subject, would be a matter of inquiry.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Do the War Office not know whether they are guilty or innocent until they are tried?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Is all information to be withheld from the House simply because these matters are to form the subject of inquiry?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I imagine that all matters which will be at issue before the Commissioners should be left to them.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid he could not understand why the House should not have a plain Answer to a simple Question.

    Defective Ammunition.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether ammunition has been supplied by Messrs. Kynochs which has proved to be of a defective character; whether it has been bought back by them at a reduced rate; if so, what was the price paid and received by the Government.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Some supplies of ammunition made by Kynoch deteriorated in the service and were found to be defective. No such ammunition was, however, bought back by the firm.

    War Stores Commission.
    MR: BLAKE: Will the Government lay on the Table of the House a copy of the Royal Commission giving the King's sanction and the statutory powers conferred on the Commission for the purpose of conducting their investigations.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): I am informed that the Commission was published in the Gazette last Friday, but if it will be for the convenience of the House I am quite prepared to lay it on the Table.

    Enlistment Standards for Regulars and Volunteers.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can inform the House what is the standard height, weight, and chest measurement of recruits for infantry of the Line and of the Volunteer force at the present time; what allowances are made in respect of those standards in the case of lads likely to come up thereto after twelve months physical exercises; and if the medical officers now making inspection of the recruits in the London Volunteer Force will be so instructed, and the reports of their examinations published.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The standards are fully given in the Recruiting Regulations and Volunteer Begulations as amended by Army Orders from time to time. As regards the Begulars, the chest measurement is strictly adhered to, departures from the limits as regards height and age are only permitted in special cases on the authority of the Adjutant-General. There is no standard weight, the figures being given only as a guide. As regards Volunteers the standard is fixed at a scale from which it is not desirable to authorise any departure.
    MR. McCRAE: Is it the case, as stated in the Press, that the War Office is declaring that all Volunteers under nineteen years of age are unfit for service? I know that is not true, but it is well the report should be officially contradicted.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is not rue.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is not usual to quote statements in the Press and found a Question on them.
    MR. MCCRAE: Will the right hon-Gentleman publish the new regulations on the subject?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There are none.

    Volunteer Statistics.
    MR. SEELY: I beg to-ask the Secretary of State for War what is the number of battalions of infantry Volunteers not in the field army; what were the number of efficients in the years ending 31st October, 1903, and 1904; and what is the annual cost of those; battalions, including grant, camp, and other allowances.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There are 198 Volunteer infantry battalions not included in the field army. On 1st November, 1903, and 1st November, 1904, the number of efficients in the battalions which were not in the field army on those dates were 153,653 and 154,950 respectively. The total cost for the year 1904–5 of the above numbers was approximately £900,000.

    Army Commissions.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many candidates for commissions in the Army have been rejected since 1st January, 1905, owing to their obtaining an insufficient number of marks in competitive examination; how many have been admitted without obtaining any marks at ail in this examination; and on what grounds distinction has been made between the candidates.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Since the 1st January, 1905, thirty-four candidates have failed at the competitive examination for admission to the Army. In view of the shortage of officers in the Household Cavalry and Guards twenty-three gentlemen have been nominated on probation without passing the competitive examination, but subject to passing a professional examination after two years probationary service, their commissions as second lieutenant to bear date from passing this examination. Of these twenty-three two were included in the thirty-four mentioned above.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not explained on what ground distinction was made between candidates.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid no distinction was made. Officers were nominated by the officer commanding the regiment according to his idea of the fitness of the officer in question.
    MAJOR SEELY: Why were none of the commissions given to rejected candidates who were anxious to obtain nominations?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The War Office had no control over the nomination.
    MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: Were these candidates educated at public schools?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I cannot say.

    Military Courts-Martial—Revision of Proceedings.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will say in how many cases of Courts-martial were the proceedings submitted last year to the office of the Judge Advocate-General, in how many of them were the convictions affirmed, in how many were they found to be irregular or illegal, and in how many had the sentences been wholly or partly served before such irregularity or illegality was ascertained by the Judge Advocate-General.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: During 1904 the proceedings of 8,820 Courts-martial were received in the Judge Advocate-General's office. In forty-five cases the convictions were wholly upset, in seventy-five partly upset, and in 184 cases there were irregularities which did not necessitate interference with the conviction. There were also sixty-nine cases in which the convictions were not confirmed or were quashed by the military authorities. In all cases in which a sentence of imprisonment had been confirmed and ultimately quashed by the Judge Advocate-General a portion at least of this sentence had necessarily been served.

    Deputy Judge Advocate-General.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the appointment of Deputy Judge Advocate-General held by the late Sir John Scott has been filled up by the appointment of a salaried legal official obliged to give his whole time to the duties; if so, who is this gentleman; when, by whom, and for what period was he appointed, whether the acting official is under any such obligation, or is at liberty to practise as a junior barrister; on what terms and for what period is he employed; and whether he is the only paid legal adviser in the Department, or whether the services of any additional lawyer to assist in the Department have been obtained during the illness or since the death of the Judge Advocate-General.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The post of Deputy Judge Advocate-General has been filled up by the temporary appointment of Mr. E. Bonus. He is not at present obliged to give his whole time, owing to the fact that when he was appointed changes were in contemplation and it was considered that under these circumstances he should not be deprived of his practice. He was temporarily appointed by the late Sir F. Jeune, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for War, in March, 1904. He is allowed to practise as a junior, subject to doing the work of his office. His salary is £1,000 a year. He is the only paid legal adviser in the Department. The arrangement was a temporary one.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether Courts-martial were left to the revision of a junior barrister practising in the Courts every day, and were not subject to the revision of the House.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: They are not subject to the revision of this House and never have been.
    SIR HENRY FOWLERasked whether the work of revision did not require that the official should give his whole time.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I think it does. We intend to appoint at an early date an official who will give his whole time.

    Purchase of Requirements by Officers.
    MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if any instructions are given to officers in the Army to procure, where possible, their requirements locally, so that the towns in which they are quartered may not be deprived of their outlay; and, if no such instructions at present exist, will he consider the advisability of giving them.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Officers are at liberty to make their purchases wherever they please; no instructions have been given for them to obtain their supplies locally, nor is it considered advisable to issue such instructions.

    Indian Army Organisation Scheme.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the modifications in the Army organisation scheme, proposed by the Viceroy, have been accepted by the Government; and what is the nature and extent of these modifications.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BBODRICK,): I have nothing to add to what I said on this subject on Thursday† last.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I shall put the Question again another day.
    MR. CHURCHILL: When do the Government propose to give an opportunity to discuss these very grave matters?
    MR. BRODRICK: I do not know what opportunity the hon. Member refers to. I have no power to arrange the business of the House.

    The Viceroy and Indian Army Reform.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received from the Viceroy of India a communication that unless certain modifications in the proposed new scheme of Indian Army administration are agreed to by the Cabinet his resignation will take place; and, if so, when was such a communica-
    † See page 545.
    772
    tion received, and what are its precise terms and what are the precise modifications in the scheme desired by the Viceroy and Government of India.
    MR. BRODRICK: I have nothing to add to what I said on this subject on Thursday ‡ last.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I shall repeat this Question.

    Macedonian Reforms.
    MR. NOEL BUXTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the scheme agreed upon by the Great Powers for the control of the finances of Macedonia embodies the proposal of Lord Lansdowne that the province of Adrianople should be included in the area to be controlled.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,: The collective note of the Powers to the Porte only refers to the three vilayets of Salonica, Kessovo, and Monastir.
    MR. NOEL BUXTONasked if the Government still adhered to the suggestion that the vilayet of Adrianople ought to be included in the scheme.
    EARL PERCYsaid the Government certainly did adhere very strongly to the opinion that it was desirable to include Adrianople in the scheme, but they did not press it in view of the opinion of the other Powers that to do so would postpone the introduction of other reforms it was desirable to introduce.
    In answer to Mr. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.),
    EARL PERCYsaid the Government certainly desired the inclusion.
    MR. CHURCHILLcomplained that it was quite impossible to hear the Answer on the other side of the House.
    EARL PERCYrepeated that the Government still attached great importance to the inclusion of the vilayet of Adrianople in the scheme, but did not
    ‡ See page 545.

    773
    press for it, as the other Powers feared it might delay still more necessary reforms.

    The Odessa Troubles.
    MR. BROTHERTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if friendly representations can be made to the Russian Government by which the treaty exclusion of foreign warships from the Black Sea may be temporarily suspended in order to safeguard British subjects from danger.
    EARL PERCY: The present circumstances at Odessa do not afford sufficient grounds for claiming a departure from the rule under which foreign warships are excluded from the Straits. There is nothing to show that the Russian Government have not adequate means for protecting British subjects in common with the rest of the population, nor that the arrival of British ships of war would improve the situation.

    Departmental Committee on Income-Tax
    MAJOR EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the Report of the Departmental Committee on Income-Tax; and what steps he proposes to take in regard to the recommendations made.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I have not yet had time to consider this important Report, but I shall not in any case propose legislation on the subject this session. The state of public business would make it impossible to deal with so difficult and complicated a question this year.

    Foreign Banks and Income-Tax.
    MAJOR EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether foreign banking firms with branches established in this country pay income-tax; and, if so, how and on what part of the profits the amount is assessed.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Foreign banking firms having branches established in this country pay income-tax. Assuming that the head office and chief seat of control are out of the United
    774
    Kingdom, income-tax is assessed, in accordance with the rules of Schedule D, on the profits arising from the business carried on within the United Kingdom.
    MAJOR EVANS GORDONasked if balance-sheets were published by these firms.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot undertake to say what balance-sheets are published by foreign firms trading in this country.
    MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid the object of his Question was to ascertain if there were any means of checking the assessments and returns made by these firms.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid there were the same means of checking the returns as there were in reference to other firms Primarily the Commissioners were dependent on the declaration of individuals, but this prima facie evidence did not prevent the Commissioners from pursuing inquiries of their own, nor did it necessitate their acceptance of the statements made.

    British-Born Aliens.
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce words into the Aliens Bill to prevent a person who was born in the United Kingdom from being treated as an alien immigrant if he desires to return to the United Kingdom after having been naturalised in another country.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I am considering with the Attorney-General the form of an Amendment, to be inserted in Clause 8, which will prevent a person of British parentage from being treated as an alien immigrant in the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers.
    MR. WHITLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman put the Amendment down in his own name?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Yes, if as a result of consideration one is drafted.

    Cruelty to Animals Act.
    MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has observed that the Hurlingham Club has decided to abolish pigeon shooting; and whether, in view of that fact, he will propose legislation next session in order to extend the Cruelty to Animals Act to wild creatures kept in confinement and released for the immediate purpose of being hunted or shot.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have seen the announcement about the Hurlingham Club to which the hon. Member refers, and I was glad to see it; but I am not prepared to undertake legislation on the subject.

    Proposal to Impound Offending Motorcars.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board if, in view of breaches of the Motor-Car Act, he will consider the expediency of giving magistrates power to impound offending cars for a period varying from six days to six months.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Government propose that there should be an inquiry as to the working of the Motor-Car Acts and as to any Amendments which should be made in them. The suggestion of the hon. Member would come within the scope of the inquiry.
    MR. SOARES: Will the inquiry be by way of Royal Commission or by a Departmental Committee'
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not prepared to say at present,
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will it be this year?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.

    Boarding out of Pauper Children.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he can
    776
    state when the new Boarding-out Order promised some time back will be issued.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The new Order has now been settled, and will be issued shortly.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: In view of the great inconvenience caused by the delay, will the right hon. Gentleman issue the Order as soon as possible?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes; no time shall be lost.

    The "Kew Bulletin."
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Kew Bulletin has not been issued for some four or five years; and can he stat e why its publication has ceased.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. AILWYN FELLOWES,: Owing to the increasing demands upon the scientific staff at Kew in recent years it has not been found possible, since 1899, to issue any further numbers of the Kew Bulletin. The information formerly given in the appendices is, however, still published year by year, and the articles which appeared from time to time with regard to the diseases of trees and crops are now printed in the journal and leaflets issued by the Board of Agriculture. The Bulletin served a useful purpose, as is evidenced by the fact that its published numbers are still in continuous demand; but I am doubtful whether the issue of further numbers would justify the additional expenditnre which would be entailed. I shall be glad, however, to look more closely into the matter.

    Committee on the Companies Act.
    MAJOR EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the Committee on the Companies Act has completed its inquiry, and when the Report may be expected.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): The Committee has not yet completed its inquiry but is still holding

    777
    regular sittings; it is impossible to give Any date by which the Report of the Committee may be expected.

    Preferential Railway Rates for Foreigners.
    MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Great Eastern Railway Company will convey a piano weighing 7 cwts. 7 lbs. from Germany to Cardiff for 43s. 4d., whereas the London and North-Western Railway Company charge 57s. 9d. for carrying a piano weighing 5 cwts. 2 qrs. from London to Cardiff; and also that the through freight rate for butter from Rotterdam to Cardiff is 43s. 4d. per ton, while the railway rate from Parkeston to Cardiff is 46s. 8d. per ton, and whether he will grant an inquiry into the whole question of railway rates as operating to the advantage of the foreign trader.
    MR. BONAR LAW: The Board of Trade have communicated with the Great Eastern Railway Company as to the rates referred to, and are informed that the company have no through rate for pianos from Germany to Cardiff, and that, whilst the rate for butter from Rotterdam to Cardiff is 43s. 4d. per ton as stated, the rate from Parkeston to Cardiff is 35s. per ton, and not 46s. 8d. A Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture is already making inquiry whether preferential treatment is accorded by railway companies to foreign farm, dairy, and market-garden produce as compared with home produce.

    Parks Regulation Act—Parliament and Rules and Regulations.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the fact that Section 9 of the Parks Regulation Act, 1872, provides for the laying before both Houses of Parliament of any rules made by the Office of Works under Schedule I. of the Act, he will explain why the recent rule regarding motor-cars was not laid before Parliament for the statutory time.
    LORD BALCARRES: I have to refer my hon. friend to the reply given to the hon. Baronet
    778
    the Member for Barrow-in-Furness on June 27th† also to the judgment in the recent case of Musgrave v. Kennison in the High Court (June 8th).
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: Do I understand the noble Lord to say that no notice is required for these regulations?
    LORD BALCARRES: The hon. Member must be aware that in the case to which I have referred judgment was given in favour of the course which the Office of Works has always pursued.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the noble Lord actually rely on the judgment of the Court for bis interpretation of the Act of Parliament?
    LORD BALCARRES: Not at all. The judgment was in favour of the course which the Office of Works has pursued since 1872. There is a distinction between rules and regulations, and the Lord Chief Justice upheld the practice of the Office of Works.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand rules must be laid but not regulations, or vice versa?
    LORD BALCARRES: The matter is perfectly clear. Rules made under the Act have to be laid. Regulations may be made under the rules, and that is what we have done in this case, and indeed in all other cases during the last thirty years.

    The Exclusion of Private Carriages from Hyde Park
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the fact that by Section 11 of the Parks Regulation Act, 1872, no interference with rights of way is allowed in any of the Royal parks, he will say under what Act or regulation private carriages are now being excluded by the authority of the Commissioner of Works without intimation or notice being given to Parliament.
    LORD BALCARRES: Motor vehicles are being excluded under the Parks
    † See page 257.

    779
    Regulation Act, 1872. See Rule I. for Hyde Park in connection with the regulations prescribed by that Act. There are no rights of way over the roads in Hyde Park.

    Board of Education—Instructions to Inspectors.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether any instructions to inspectors will be issued with the Education Code for 1905–6.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,: The Board do not propose to re-issue the "Revised Instructions" applicable to the Code; they are, however, proposing to issue very shortly a volume of suggestions for the consideration of teachers; containing mainly material similar to that in the "Revised Instructions."

    Derby Municipal Secondary School.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board has granted recognition to the municipal secondary school at Derby, accepting the higher education sub-committee of the Derby Education Committee as the board of governors for the school; and, if so, whether the Board now considers that such a scheme of management satisfies Article 16 of the Secondary School Regulations, 1905.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: In the case referred to the Board were satisfied that the arrangement proposed made adequate provision for the government of the school. It is not considered desirable at the present time to lay down any general rule on the subject; each case will be considered on its merits, having regard to the relations which the sub-committee will have with the local education authority on the one hand and the school staff on the other.

    Belfast Weekly Tenancies—Magisterial Decision.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a decision given by Mr.
    780
    Garret Nagle, resident magistrate in the Belfast Custody Court, on 7th June, 1905, in the case of J. H. Burke Murphy, plaintiff, and Robert Turner, defendant, in regard to weekly tenancies in Belfast and whether, seeing that the decision has upset the practice that has prevailed in that city for many years, and is the cause of inconvenience both to landlords and tenants, he will say what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,: I cannot admit that this decision of Mr. Nagle has upset a prevailing practice, inasmuch as the same question was decided in the same way by Mr. Hodder, the senior resident magistrate in Belfast, some time ago, and is in effect, Mr. Nagle contends, governed by the judgment delivered in the Queen's Bench Division thirteen years ago, in the case of Harvey v. Copeland. The soundness of Mr. Nagle's decision can be tested by a case stated. I see no reason to introduce any legislation on the subject.

    Edgeworthstown Loan Fund Society.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, with a view to affording relief to debenture-holders in the Edgeworthstown Loan Fund Society who lost their lives' savings Owing to the fraudulent conduct of the clerk, he intends passing a Loans Fund Bill this year.
    MR. ATKINSON: I am most anxious that this Bill should be passed, and cannot understand why it should be opposed. I have every hope that it will be passed, and would ask the hon. Member to endeavour to help the Government to that end.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Party considered this Bill most carefully last year and this year and formulated certain Amendments which in their opinion were necessary; is not the delay in passing due to the fact that the Government will not grant time for its discussion, and are we expected to allow it to pass sub silentio?
    MR. ATKINSONreplied that soma Amendments were submitted but he was

    781
    unable to approve them. He had since understood that other Amendments in a modified form were to be submitted.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Since we submitted our Amendments no communication whatever has been received from the Government.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid that was not his fault.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he submitted the Amendments on behalf of the Irish Party to the present Chief Secretary, and got in reply a very curt refusal to accept them.
    MR. ATKINSON: The original Amendments were unacceptable and we expeeted further Amendments would be submitted.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: But no further communication passed with us at all.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I take it the hon. Gentleman refers to a communication made to me shortly after I accepted my present offiee.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Yes.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I do not think it is correct to say I curtly refused the Amendments. What I did was to suggest that they went somewhat beyond the scope of the Bill.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: There have been no further communications between the Government and myself.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill as now drafted does not cover the case I have called attention to in the Question at all—a case in which people lost everything through the default of the Board in Dublin in absolutely winking at the falsification of returns.
    MR. ATKINSON: That point is not raised by the Question.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I have over and over again put the case before the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. ATKINSON: If the hon. Member wishes to make the Exchequer pay debts for people who will not or cannot pay themselves I refuse to support him.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I wish to get the right hon. Gentleman to admit the-responsibility of the Government in this, case, as I believe it to exist.

    Granard (County Longford) Estate Bog.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Land Purchase Act, 1903, regarding the powers of the Estates Commissioners to make regulations for the management and subdivision of bog in the case of estates which had been previously sold under other Purchase Acts, and on which a large area of bog: existed, he will advise an inquiry into the management of the Granard (county Longford) Estate bog with a view to-having agreements entered into by the vendors at time of sale, guaranteeing certain turbary lights to tenants, given effect to.
    MR. ATKINSON: I am not acquainted with the facts of the case, and have no power whatever to direct such an inquiry as is suggested. If the estate should come for sale before the Estates Commissioners, I have no doubt they will exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon them by the 21st Section if the circumstances require it.

    Boat Slip at Roads, County Kerry.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the-Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Congested Districts Board will increase the height of the wall on the slip at Roads, county Kerry, in order to make it available for the fishermen in stormy weather.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Board at their last meeting decided that this wall should be raised, and the work will shortly be commenced.

    Boat Slip at Glen, County Kerry.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the next meeting of the Congested

    783
    Districts Board will be held within the next fortnight, he will secure that an inspection of the boat slip at Glen, county Kerry, will be made immediately, as the question of carrying out of additional works on the slip is to be considered at that meeting.
    MR. WALTER LONG: It is hoped that it may be possible to have an inspection made early in the present month.

    Cooscroum Improvements.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board, at its next meeting, will consider the question of carrying out improvements at Cooscroum, to which their attention has been repeatedly directed.
    MR. WALTER LONG: This project came before the Board in April, when they postponed its consideration owing to the state of their funds.

    Bog Plots in County Cavan.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet ascertained that two acres of land are now about to be taken from Patrick Patterson Raffney, Virginia, county Cavan, by his landlord, which composes the area on which his rent was fixed, and which have always been in his possession, to be given as bog plots to other tenants to enhance the price of the pending land sale; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
    MR. WALTER LONG.The estate has not yet been inspected, and until an inspection has been made the Commissioners are unable to say whether the facts are as alleged.

    Gun Licences in County Kerry—Mr. Thomas Keary's Application.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas Keary, D. C., of Kileland, county Galway, has purchased his holding under the Act of 1903; and, if so, what is the extent of the holding; whether Mr. Keary has applied to Mr.
    784
    White, R. M., for a licence for a gun to protect his crops; and, if so, has it been granted; if not, can he state the reason of its refusal.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Proceedings for the purchase by Mr. Keary of his holding, comprising sixty-three acres, are pending before the Estates Commissioners. The resident magistrate has, in the exercise of the discretion vested in him, refused to grant to Mr. Keary a licence to carry a gun. I am not prepared to answer the last inquiry. The matter is not one which calls for my interference.

    Leslie Estate, County Cavan.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Robert Harvey, an inspector from the Estates Commissioners, has threatened to raise prices, previously arranged by all the parties interested, in the case of sixteen tenants on the Leslie Estate, county Cavan; and whether, having regard to the fact that the terms of sale were sanctioned by Judge Ross and are within the zones, he will state what authority the inspector had to do this; and whether the Estates Commissioners have received a communication from the tenants' solicitor objecting on their behalf to the inspector's proposals.
    MR. WALTER LONG: This is the case of a proposed sale to the Land Commission, under Section 7, of property in the Land Judge's Court. Under Subsection 2 of that section, the Land Commission have had the estate inspected, and will in due course consider the inspector's report with the view of deciding the terms of the offer which they will make to the Land Judge. It will then be for the Land Judge to decide on the sufficiency of the offer. It is a mistake to assume, as the Question suggests, that inspectors have the power to raise or lower prices. Their duty is to report to the Commissioners.

    Public Record Office, Dublin—Bookbinders' Wages.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to

    785
    the Treasury whether, in view of the employment of a searcher in the Public Record Office, Dublin, to do bookbinders' work at a wage of 27s. per. week, while the standard rate of pay for competent bookbinders in the city is 32s., he will take such steps as will secure compliance with the Fair Wages Resolution of this House in the Public Record Office, Dublin.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,: I do not consider that the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution are applicable to the circumstances of the case referred to by the hon. Member.

    Virginia (Cavan) Postal Deliveries.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in the four townlands in the Virginia, county Cavan, postal district, viz., Crohan, Lurganboy, Carrack, and part of Eighter, letters are delivered only on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays to their great inconvenience; and whether, seeing that all the othertown-lands in the parish have daily deiveries, he will see the desirability of treating the inhabitants of the townlands herein mentioned in the same way.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I have already considered the question of affording a more frequent de very of letters in the townlands mentioned by the hon. Member, but I regret that, owing to the comparatively high cost of the existing service, the additional, expenditure in providing a delivery every weekday would not be warranted.

    Lisnagoon and Drumrade (Cavan) Postal Deliveries.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has ascertained that, for the delivery of letters daily to Lisnagoon and Drumrade districts, which are now served from Maudabawn, county Cavan, the postmen in the neighbouring district would include the delivery of these for 3s. 6d. or 4s. a week additional pay; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take.
    LORD STANLEY: The cost of a daily delivery of letters in the Lisnagoon and Drumbrade districts would probably not
    786
    exceed 3s. 6d. or 4s. a week as stated by the hon. Member; but as the number of letters, postcards, etc., for those districts does not in the aggregate exceed about twelve weekly, I should not be justified in incurring an expense of even 3s. 6d. a week for delivering them.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: But will the noble Lord bear in mind that it can be done for 3s. 6d. weekly?
    LORD STANLEY: Yes, I am aware of that.

    Public Accounts Committee's Report.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now say what arrangement he proposes to make in order to carry out the undertaking given on 17th April to give either one of the days allotted to Supply, if the House agrees or otherwise a Friday or an evening sitting, for the consideration by the House of the Public Accounts Committee's Report, and its decision thereon.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I would suggest to my hon. friend to defer this Question till later in the week.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I will put it down for Thursday.

    Motor-Car Inquiry.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he proposes to set up a Royal Commission, Statutory Committee, Departmental Committee, or Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the working of the Motor-Car Act, 1903.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government has determined upon an inquiry into this matter. The exact form of the inquiry has not yet been settled, but in a few days either I or my right bon, friend the President of the Local Government Board will be in a position to give fuller information.

    Home Defence.
    MK. SEELY: I beg to ask the first Lord of the Treasury whether e can state the numbers of cavalry,

    787
    infantry, and guns included in the force of 70,000 men for which he estimated that 250,000 tons of shipping would be required for transport across the Channel.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not estimate 250,000 tons as the amount of shipping that would be required for a force of 70,000 men. I said that was the Admiralty's estimate, but my arguments were based on a much smaller amount. I only mention that in order that the hon. Member may not fall into any mistake. The number of guns allowed was twenty-five six-gun batteries, and the number of horses about 14,000.

    Scottish Churches Bill.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, under reference to Clause 1, Sub-section 2, of the Churches (Scotland) Bill, whether it is the meaning and intention of the Government that the term adherent occurring in that sub-section shall only apply to the families of bona fide communicants, and to those persons who prior to the union were by themselves or their parents bona fide and permanently connected with the Free Church as adherents; and, if so, whether he is willing that words be introduced to make this clear.
    The hon. Member also had the following Questions on the Paper:—
    MR. BLACK: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, under reference to Clause 1, Sub-section 3, of the Churches (Scotland) Bill, whether it is the meaning and intention of the Government that the direction to the Executive Commission as to appropriating funds for the support of ministers of the legal Free Church and for the general purposes of that Church should apply only to funds originally contributed for the support of ministers or for general purposes, or whether it is the meaning and intention of the Government that funds given by the original contributors for other specific purposes such as the christianising of the natives of India or Africa should be permanently taken away from these beneficiaries and distributed amongst ministers of the legal Free Church working in Scotland.
    MR. BLACK: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, under reference to Clause 4, Sub-section 1, of the Churches (Scotland) Bill, whether it is designed that the definition of property in question contained in that sub-section should be extended so as to include about £300,000 of bequests to the Free Church by persons dying since the date of the union not adhering to the legal Free church; and whether any clause will be added to the Bill making provision for dealing with such questions arising after the Executive Commission is dissolved.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Member had better defer until tomorrow the Questions dealing with these very important matters. I have been considering the question of public business in connection with this Bill, and I have come to the conclusion, somewhat reluctantly, that we must interrupt for a day our proceedings upon the Aliens Bill in order to take the Second Reading of this Bill, so that we may be able to ga on with it on the first available opportunity. I therefore give notice that I shall take this Bill first to-morrow, and my learned friend the Lord-Advooate-will open the debate and deal with all the points raised by the Questions.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: When will the Aliens Bill be resumed?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said I should interrupt the proceedings for a day.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: One day.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A day is one day.
    MR. BLACKasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the General Assembly of the United Free Church would meet on Wednesday next, and whether he had considered the propriety of the discussion in that House preceding the discussion of the General Assembly.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think all those who are specially interested in the Commission would have raised no objection to the proceeding that suggest. On.

    789
    the contrary, I think it would be extremely convenient that my learned friend should have an opportunity of stating the general policy of the Government on this question so that the Churches specially interested may be able to consider the subject between the Second Reading and the Committee stage of the Bill.

    The Education Code.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any opportunity will be given for a discussion of the Education Code for 1905–6 before it becomes operative on August 1st.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not at present in a position to fix a day.

    Government Redistribution Proposals.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is his intention to bring forward the question of electoral redistribution during this session; and, if so, seeing that the opportunities of adequate discussion are rapidly dwindling, whether fie will now communicate his intention to the House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, as I think I have more than once signified to the House, the Government do intend to proceed with the Resolution.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In view of the advanced period of the session, will the right hon. Gentleman at once place the terms of the Resolution on the Paper in order that the House may have plenty of time to consider it?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will endeavour to give adequate time for considering the terms of the Govemment's Resolution, but I cannot promise to place them at once upon the Table of the House.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If they are not placed on the Table at once the time will not be ample.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that when the right hon. Gentleman comes to consider them he will not deny that
    790
    there is adequate time to deal with the question. I do not know how long he desires to consider this Resolution. It is of an extremely simple character.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in a matter of this tremendous importance, in regard to which we have no idea of the general scope and extent of the proposals of the Government, whether it would not be right and only due to the House that they should have, certainly with no more delay than a few days from this, the terms which it is intended to ask them to agree to.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the Question, in the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman has now put it, is at all unreasonable. In a few days I hope to be able to put the resolution before the House.

    Under-Sheriffs (Ireland) Bill.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will give facilities for passing into law this session the Under-Sheriffs (Ireland) Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This Bill can be no exception to the general rule which, much to my regret, I have to apply to private Members' Bills.

    The Aliens Bill.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the resolutions relating to the Aliens Bill passed on the 28th June at a meeting of citizens held in the Midland Hotel, Manchester, presided over by the Conservative candidate for North-West Manchester and supported by many gentlemen of both political Parties; whether he is aware that these resolutions urged upon His Majesty's Government the need to amend the Bill (1) to secure the same express exemption to victims of religious persecution as is accorded to victims of political persecution; (2) to give the right of appeal to the ordinary Courts of law to persons refused permission to land, or who, having been allowed to land, are threatened with expulsion from the country, or to shipping companies to be burdened with the

    791
    expenses of their maintenance and reshipment; (3) to prevent an expulsion order being made on grounds so trivial as "living under insanitary conditions due to overcrowding"; and (4) to relieve the shipping companies of the cost of maintaining and returning aliens who, having been permitted to land, are subsequently expelled for reasons over which the shipping companies have no control; whether, having regard to the fact that these resolutions were passed at a nonparty meeting not opposed to the general principle of excluding undesirable aliens by law, His Majesty's Government will endeavour to introduce the desired modifications into the Bill during its passage through the Committee stage.
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the Question comes within the rule relating to Questions which can be asked after five minutes to three o'clock, which must be urgent and relate to the business of the House.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Some of the matters touched upon will be discussed this afternoon.
    MR. SPEAKER: If that is so it will be open to the hon. Member to put the Questions then.
    MR. CHURCHILL: My reason for putting them now is that it will probably be the only time when the Prime Minister will be accessible.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked as to the arrangements for business, and especially as to the Unemployed and Workmen's Compensation Bills.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is clear that we can take neither the Workmen's Compensation Bill nor the Unemployed Bill until we have disposed of the Committee stage of the Aliens Bill, and until we have made much further progress with the Scotch Bill I can enter into no pledge with regard to either of these Bills except the negative statement which I have just made. I think it is too early to ask about Mondav. I do not know precisely what
792
progress the House will be able to make with the Aliens Bill.
MR. CROOKS: Are we to understand that the Unemployed Bill is absolutely dead? We might have an Answer; we shall be out of our misery sooner.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the hon. Gentleman should be in too great haste to deliver a funeral oration. No doubt the time of Parliament is running short, but the amount of business that can be done in the time that remains depends mainly, indeed, almost entirely, upon the good will of Members on both sides of the House, and I am not in a position to measure the degree of that good will at present.

THE ANSWERING OF QUESTIONS.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLcomplained that the Answers to twenty-five Questions put down last Thursday by Irish Members, but not actually asked through the absence of the hon. Members, had not been circulated with the Votes. He asked what the rule of the House was in that matter.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that if, owing to the efflux of time, a Question which appeared on the Paper was not asked, it was the business of the Minister to whom it was addressed to hand the reply he would have given in to the proper quarter, when it would appear, in due course, in the Votes circulated to Members.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What remedy have we if that is not done?
MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid I cannot say what the remedy is. The rule is clear and it certainly should be followed.
MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether the rule applied to Questions not answered for any reason—whether the efflux of time, the absence of the Minister, or the absence of the hon. Member in whose name the Question stood.
MR. SPEAKERreplied that he could not say, on the spur of the moment, whether the rule applied in all those

793
cases, but obviously that would be the better course to follow, because an hon. Member might be absent through no fault of his own. It would be for the general convenience of the House if the rule were made generally applicable.
SIR HENRY FOWLERpointed out that the rule clearly laid it down that in the case of any Question distinguished by an asterisk which had not been answered by five minutes to three, the Minister should cause the Answer to be printed and circulated with the Votes.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthought there was no doubt whatever that the meaning of the rule was as had been indicated by the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford, and that, if the Question was not asked for any reason, it should be answered by a printed reply in the Votes. He believed that so far as last Thursday was concerned the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary scrupulously followed the rule, as all the Nationalist Members who had Questions down were absent. He much regretted it was not done by some other Minister. He did not think he himself was guilty.
MR. MACVEAGH: Oh, yes, your Answers were not circulated.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that is the case.
MR. MACVEAGH: Oh, yes, a Question about motoring on Sundays.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Member is mistaken.
MR. MACVEAGH: Oh, no.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then if it be the case I greatly regret it, and I will take care that the lapse shall be remedied.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that in the case of every Question that had been addressed to him and had not been asked across the floor of the House, for whatever reason except that of postponement by an hon. Member, the Answer had been handed in at the Table for circulation with the Votes, and, so far as he knew, there had never been a single case of omission.

NEW MEMBER.
New Member made the Affirmation required by Law—Joseph Allen Baker, esquire, for the Parliamentary Borough of Finsbury (East Division).
MR. SPEAKER'S RETIREMENT BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.

ALIENS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N. R. Thirsk) in the Chair.]
Clause 1.
The CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN moved the first four Amendments on the Paper out of order and called upon the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool] to move an Amendment to line 20.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid it was merely a drafting Amendment.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESon a point of order, said he had an earlier Amendment to propose.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Liverpool is in possession. If he chooses he can give way.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it was not a question of giving way. He rose immediately he was in a position to know that his Amendment came first, and he had a right, therefore, to be heard.
THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member for Liverpool is not claiming to proceed.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESthen moved to insert, after the word "are," the word "not," in that part of Sub-section (2) which says that the immigration board "shall, if they are satisfied that the immigrant is not an undesirable person"; the consequential Amendment being to omit the word "not" before the words "an undesirable person." He said that one of the defects of the Bill was that it

795
threw the onus of proof on the wrong person—on the immigrant instead of on the authority who wished to exclude him. The immigrant under the clause as it stood would have to prove that he was not an undesirable alien, whereas the immigration officer ought to be required to prove that he was an undesirable alien. If this provision had existed in the past this country would have lost the services of the Walloons, who gave us the woollen industry; of the French, who gave us the silk industry; and of such men as Brunei, Labouchere, and Disraeli. The Bill was a reversal of the traditional policy of this country, and he submitted that such a reversal should be carried out by the ordinary rules. If a penalty was sought to be imposed on a man it was the duty of the person seeking to impose it to prove the man was in the wrong. It was a rule of logic, if not of law, that it was not possible to prove a negative, yet they were proposing to call on these aliens to prove all kinds of negatives. A very serious disability was sought to be imposed by this Bill, and surely those seeking to impose it ought to be called upon to prove that the person on whom it was to be imposed came within one of the prohibited categories of immigrants.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 18, after the word 'are,' to insert the word 'not.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'not' be there inserted."
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)was sorry he could not agree with his hon. friend either in his law or logic. He had told them it was not possible to prove a negative, but his hon. friend forgot it was a daily occurrence to do that in connection with the covenant of leases. The case contemplated by the sub-section was that of an appeal from the immigration officer who had decided against an immigrant to the board. Did the hon. Gentleman contend that it was for the respondent in an appeal to prove that the judgment of the Court below was right? The hon. Member would throw on those who were in possession of judgment the burden of proving the
796
soundness of the judgment, instead of leaving it to the party that appealed to prove the judgment wrong. The hon. Member seemed to think that every alien had a right to land in this country. No such light existed. It rested with every country to say whom it would receive.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESpointed out that cases were often appealed by way of rehearing, and then the onus was thrown on the person who first initiated proceedings. It certainly did seem to him that the proposal of the Bill was in conflict with the general principles of our criminal procedure. This Bill cast the responsibility upon the immigrant, who had no means of proving his innocence. Surely his accusers ought to establish the case against him. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would brush aside these legal subtleties and concede what had been asked for.
MR. COHENthought his right hon. and learned friend would acknowledge that, whatever the principles of law were, the constitutional practice of this country had been to admit aliens unsuspected of any criminal offence. Surely if they were now going to depart from that practice the onus of proof should be cast not upon the immigrant but upon the immigration board. For these reasons he should vote for the Amendment.
MR. BRIGHTsaid that according to their constitutional custom it had always been held in this country that a man was innocent until he was proved guilty. This Bill was proposing a reversal of that practice, for they were laying down that a man was guilty until he had proved himself innocent. He should support the Amendment.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to accept the Amendment, which was a reasonable and moderate one put forward in no factious spirit. He did not think the Attorney-General's great legal knowledge had impressed the House very much. It might be perfectly

797
true that in appealing from one Court to another the burden of proof would rest upon the appellant, but in this case the appeal was from an executive official to a Court, and when the appeal went to the Immigration Board that was the very first time the alien came in touch with the methods of procedure which were usually adopted in a Court of justice. When a sanitary inspector made a charge under the Public Health Act he had to prove that charge.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: He is making the charge.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid they were charging under this Bill an alien with being an idiot or a lunatic, or being an undesirable from being diseased, in fact, they were charging an alien with a whole page of offences any one of which would afford ground for an action at law. If they insisted upon aliens coming before the immigration board surely they ought to have a fair chance, and the same chance which was not denied to all persons in other Courts. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid there was no wish on the Opposition side of the House in any way to unduly take up the time of the Committee [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh"]! He assured hon. Members opposite that the point under consideration was one of the utmost importance, and he was sure the Attorney-General would not contradict him when he said it was a matter of universal experience that in the early clauses of
a Bill it very often happened that very important points came up which had to be discussed at far greater length than the later stages of the Bill. By rejecting Amendments upon this subject the right hon. Gentleman was not advancing the object he had in view—namely, that of passing this Bill as quickly as possible. It was a general proposition in law that he who asserted must prove. He agreed that it occasionally happened that the burden of proof was shifted, but they were not now concerned with the exceptions but with the general proposition, and he contended that the burden of proof should be upon the officer and not upon the unfortunate alien. If the Home Secretary could hold out some hope of modifying this objectionable section it would tell considerably upon the whole discussion. They were not now simply proposing to exclude undesirable aliens in the ordinary sense, but this Bill proposed to exclude a man merely upon grounds of poverty. That was the main objection they had to this Bill. If an alien could not show that he had a substantial balance at his bankers he was liable to be put back on board ship and in some cases would not be allowed to land at all. He should have thought that this consideration alone would have led the Government to have received this Amendment in a friendly spirit. If the Government rejected every suggestion of this kind, they must not he astonished if Members sitting on this side offered a strenuous opposition.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 161; Noes, 210. (Division List No. 225.)

AYES.

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

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

Crean, Eugene

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Cremer, William Randal

Asher, Alexander

Burke, E. Haviland

Crombie, John William

Atherley-Jones, L.

Buxton, NE(York, NR, Whitby

Crooks, William

Baker, Joseph Allen

Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)

Cullinan, J.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Caldwell, James

Dalziel, James Henry

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Cameron, Robert

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Delany, William

Benn, John Williams

Cawley, Frederick

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

Black, Alexander William

Channing, Francis Allston

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Blake, Edward

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Boland, John

Cogan, Denis J.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Bright, Allan Heywood

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Donelan, Captain A.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Craig, Robt, Hunter (Lanark)

Doogan, P. C.

Duffy, William J.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rickett, J. Compton

Duncan, J. Hastings

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Robson, William Snowdon

Eibank, Master of

Leng, Sir John

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Ellice, Capt EC (SAndrw's Bghs

Levy, Maurice

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Lough, Thomas

Runciman, Walter

Emmott, Alfred

Lundon, W.

Russell, T. W.

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

Farrell, James Patrick

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)?

Ffrench, Peter

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Schwann, Charles E.

Findlay, Alex. (Lanark N. E.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

M'Crae, George

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Kean, John

Sheehy, David

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Fuller, J. M. F.

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Soares, Ernest J.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Mooney, John J.

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

Grant, Corrie,

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

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

Muldoon, John

Stevenson, Francis S.

Hammond, John

Murphy, John

Strachey, Sir Edward

Harcourt, Lewis

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sullivan, Donal

Harwood, George

Nolan, Joseph Louth, South)

Tennant, Harold John

Hayden, John Patrick

Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Toulmin, George

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Ure, Alexander

Higham, John Sharp

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Wallace, Robert

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O'Dowd, John

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan.

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Joicey, Sir James

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Partington, Oswald

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Wills, Arthur Walters(N Dorset

Joyce, Michael

Perks, Robert William

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W.

Philipps, John Wynford

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Kilbride, Denis

Power, Patrick Joseph

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Kitson, Sir James

Price, Robert John

Young, Samuel

Lamont, Norman

Priestley, Arthur

Langley, Batty

Rea, Russell

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Gibson Bowles and Mr. Cohen.

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W

Reddy, M.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

NOES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Brassey, Albert

Fellowes, Rt. Hn Ailwyn Edw.

Allsopp, Hon. George

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

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

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Brymer, William Ernest

Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow

Finlay, Sir R B (Inv'rn'ssB'gha

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.

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

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Fisher, William Hayes

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernom)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Cayzer, Sir Chas. William

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. Wore

Flower, Sir Ernest

Baird, John George Alexander

Chapman, Edward

Forster, Henry William

Balcarres, Lord

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Galloway, William Johnson

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

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

Gardner, Ernest

Balfour, Capt C. B. (Hornsey)

Coddington, Sir William

Garfit, William

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gordon, Hn. J E (Elgin&Nairn)

Balfour, Kenneth R (Christch.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cross, Herb Shepherd (Bolton)

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon,

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Goschen, Hn. George J.

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Davenport, William Bromley

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Doughty, Sir George

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Bigwood, James

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Hain, Edward

Bill, Charles

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

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

Bingham, Lord

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Bond, Edward

Egerton Hon. A. de Tatton

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Boulnois, Edmund

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hay, Hon. Claude George

800

801

Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. N W

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

Heaton, John Henniker

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew

Helder, Augustus

Milvain, Thomas

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Mitchell, Wm. (Burnley)

Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks

Hogg, Lindsay

Morgan, D. J. Walthamstow)

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Hope, J. F. (SheffieldBrightside

Morpeth, Viscount

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Morrison, James Archibald

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Mount, William Arthur

Stroyan, John

Hunt, Rowland

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Kimber, Sir Henry

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Tollemache, Henry James

Knowles, Sir Lees

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

Tuff, Charles

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Percy, Earl

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

Pierpoint, Robert

Turnour, Viscount

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H (Sheffield

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

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Welby, Sir Charles G. E (Notts.)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Purvis, Robert

Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Pym, C. Guy

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Rankin, Sir James

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lowe, Francis William

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Renshaw, Sir Chares Bine

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Ridley, S. Forde

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Macdona, John Cumming

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Wylie, Alexander

Maconoche, A. W.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Malcolm, Ian

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Younger, William

Manners, Lord Cecil

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Marks, Harry Hananel

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that his object in moving the Amendment standing in his name was that the immigrants should know the facts so that they might appeal to the immigration board, because it was upon the latter to finally decide whether the immigrants were to be allowed to land. Of course, it was obviously necessary that the immigrants, poor, uneducated persons, who were not allowed to land, should know the grounds for that decision of the immigration officer, and the procedure they should take to appeal against that decision. It probably would be said that that was a matter that could be dealt with by rules to be authorised under this Bill. He had the strongest objections to what he could not help regarding as a very slovenly method of procedure. A very eminent
draftsman told him the other day that he attributed in no small degree the failure of certain. Acts to the fact that important matters were left to rules, made by Departments, for which the draftsmen was not responsible. Why should matters of capital importance be left to the Home Secretary's discretion, and to what rules regarding them he might sanction? That was a derogation of the powers of the House. He could not find any precedent for a matter of this kind being left to rules to be made by a Department. He had always found the principle embodied in the Act itself. He was sure that the Home Secretary would assent to the principle of his Amendment. He could not think that the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to allowing it to be put into the Bill rather

803
than relegating it to his Department over which the House had no control. Again, there was no provision in the Bill that the rules should be laid on the Table of the House. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 20, at the end, to insert the words—(3) It shall be the duty of the immigration officer, when he has withheld leave to land as aforesaid, to notify to the master of the ship and to any immigrant to whom he has so withheld leave the ground or grounds upon which he has so withheld leave and that such master or immigrant may appeal therefrom to the immigration authority of the port.'"—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,)said he had no objection in principle to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. There was no doubt that instructions would be given to the immigration officer to tell the immigrant and the master of the ship the ground or grounds of the rejection of the former, and that they might appeal. But that was purely a matter of procedure, and could be better dealt with by rules and general instructions to the immigration officer than by statute. It was hardly worth while to encumber the Bill with a sub-section when what was desired could be accomplished by instructions or rules. He could not accept the words here, but words to the same effect might be added on the second clause.
MR. BRYCEsaid he was glad to hear the Home Secretary adopt such a conciliatory spirit. As the right hon. Gentleman seemed to invite the expression of the wishes of the House on the subject, he should like to say that there ought to be, on the face of the Bill, some direction of the kind suggested in the Amendment. It would be much more prudent to put a direction in the Bill which anyone could understand that anyone empowered to exclude an alien should assign the reason for which his exclusion was ordered, not only with a view to give information to the immigrant and the master of the ship, but because the Bill was going to
804
be the declaration of the policy of the Government. It would be satisfactory to have, on the face of the Act itself, a declaration, to be read in the sight of all men, that it was the right of the immigrant and the master of the ship to know the ground on which the former was refused leave to land. He quite appreciated what the Home Secretary said, that it might be possible to effect the purpose by fewer words and in another place; only let it be understood that in some way or other it would be on the face of the Act.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it would be a convenient and a right thing that there should be in the Bill an indication of the grounds of exclusion of the immigrant. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated that in Clause 2 words would be introduced which would provide that the immigration officer should specify the ground or grounds on which the immigrant was rejected. That would, he thought, meet every purpose. The extremely unsatisfactory condition of the Statute-book was often due to the fact that they went into too great details in their Acts of Parliament.
MR. LOUGHcongratulated the Home Secretary on the conciliatory disposition the right hon. Gentleman had manifested in his desire to accelerate the passage of the Bill. He wished to know if the document to be delivered by the immigration officer to the immigrant, giving his reasons for exclusion, would also contain a statement that the immigrant had a right of appeal to the immigration board? They ought to remember that these transactions were being carried on with people who were ignorant of our language and our forms of procedure, and who laboured under every disadvantage.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the statute could not be cumbered with all these details. It was quite enough to state the grounds of exclusion.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that under these circumstances he would withdraw his Amendment, reserving his right

805
of criticism of the Home Secretary's Amendment when introduced.
MR. RUNCIMANasked if the right hon. Gentleman was going to exclude any reference to the master of the ship? He appealed to the Home Secretary that, in bringing in his Amendment to Clause 2, he should let the master of the ship know in writing the grounds for excluding the immigrants.
MR. CHURCHILLasked if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, would insert words in his Amendment which would embody the substantial meaning of the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYwas understood to say that there was no necessity for encumbering the statute with all these details.
MR. LOUGHsaid that the Home Secretary's concession did undoubtedly cover the essence of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham: which was that the document to be handed to the immigrant should contain two things—a statement of the reasons why he was not to be allowed to land, and, secondly, that he had a right of appeal. Now the Attorney-General appeared to be inclined to withdraw that concession.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he would never dream of withdrawing any concession made by his right hon. friend the Home Secretary.
MR. CHURCHILLasked if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee clearly what was to be inserted in the document? Were the substance of the reasons for exclusion and the knowledge of the right of appeal to be made clearly known to the immigrant?
MR. AKERS- DOUGLASsaid that he might point out that every concession he had made—and he had made three or four—had always led to a further expansion of demands and to a lengthened debate.
MR. CHURCHILLasked if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to insert words to provide that the alien should know the ground on which he was refused admission, and also that he had the right of appeal.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I said notification and nothing else.
MR. DALZIELsaid the Bill was before the Committee to he discussed, and it was the duty of Ministers to take advantage of the suggest ons of hon. Members for the improvement of the Bill. They did not accept any concession of the right hon. Gentleman as a favour. The Amendment asked for two things which ought to be granted. An immigrant who might not know the English language might be objected to by the immigration officer. By the way, they did not know what the qualifications of that gentleman were to be; yet he was to sit in judgment on thousands of people. An immigrant might be rejected without any adequate cause, and he should be informed what the reasons for rejection were and that he had the right of appeal. What was the objection? Was he to be smuggled back without any knowledge that he had the right to appeal? That was unfair to the immigrant, unfair to the shipowner and the master of the ship, and unfair to the House of Commons. The Amendment was a very modest one and ought to be accepted without a moment's delay. Did the Government seriously contend that their object was to keep the information suggested from the immigrant? He did not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman would be a party to any such unjust proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman had inserted the right of appeal in the Bill, and why should not the immigrant be informed he had such a right? It could not interfere with the object of the Bill, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to provide some machinery whereby an immigrant who was rejected should be informed he had the right to appeal.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESasked if the Home Secretary had not stated that the immigrant should be informed of the grounds on which he was rejected, and also that he had the right to appeal.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the immigrant would be informed of the grounds on which he was refused admission; but it was his own strong impression that as regarded the appeal it would be better to have notices in different parts of the ship, in language which the immigrant could understand. He must respectfully protest when the Government made a concession against all sorts of details, which could be better discussed later, being dragged in.
MR. WALLACEasked if the grounds on which an immigrant were rejected were to be given to him in English, which he might not understand.
SIE ROBERT FINLAYsaid that every effort would be made to have the reasons properly interpreted to the immigrant.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESasked if the Attorney-General knew of any substantial objection to informing the immigrant that he had the right to appeal.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he would certainly consider the matter. His impression was that the right of appeal should be stated to exist by some form of notice throughout the ship.
MAJOR SEELYsaid that the Home Secretary gave his hon. friend to understand that he agreed to the principle of the Amendment and merely suggested that it should be moved on Clause 2. Now the Attorney-General stated he did not agree that an immigrant should be told that he had the right to appeal. There was a direct conflict of opinion between the two right hon. Gentlemen.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he must beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He was distinctly confirmed by what the Attorney-General had said. He accepted the principle and said it would be considered when it was brought up again. They were very anxious to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they would not be impelled to make further concessions if this were the spirit in which they were to be received.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. TENNANTsaid the Amendment he desired to move was a corollary to that which had just been discussed. They did not as yet know the composition of the board to be set up, and it was conceivable that a decision might be given which was unfair and unjust to the immigrant and to the master of the ship. It was because he wished to give the shipowners some sort of appeal that he moved his Amendment. If they knew exactly what the constitution of the board was to be, perhaps the Amendment might not be necessary. It was very difficult to make the Bill a good Bill, but he and his hon. friends were endeavouring to do what they could in that direction, although the process was not easy. It might be said that the Amendment, if adopted, would entail too great delay. There might be something in that; but some sort of appeal should be provided, and no better tribunal could be proposed than a Divisional Court. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 20, at the end, to insert the words 'and' where leave to land is also withheld by the Immigration Board, the master of the ship may appeal to a Divisional Court of the Kind's Bench Division or, where such Court cannot Le formed within seven days of the notice of such appeal to a Judge of the said division, and such Court or Judge shall, if satisfied that the immigrant is not an undesirable immigrant within the meaning of this section, give leave to land, and leave so given shall operate as the leave of the immigration officer.'"—(Mr. Tennant.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment for the very reason indicated by the hon. Gentleman himself. If leave to appeal were given in all cases, as the Amendment advocated, it might lead to very great delay. A more serious question would arise as to the liability of the shipowner to maintain the immigrant pending the appeal. If there was to be an appeal there should be a stay of execution; then the immigrant should be kept in the country. But who was to maintain him? Was it the shipowner? Or was the general taxpayer to find board

809
and lodging for every immigrant who chose to exercise the right this Amendment would confer? He respectfully submitted that the Amendment was an impossible one, and would seriously hamper the working of the Act. The very essence of the matter was despatch. Under all these circumstances he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
MR. NUSSEYsaid he quite appreciated the objections that the Attorney-General had taken, but, on the other hand, Parliament would be giving under this Bill a power to the immigration boards unknown to English law. He therefore thought there should be some appeal.
MR. PEELsaid his only objection was that the Amendment did not go far enough. He could not see, if there was an appeal to the Court of King's Bench, why they should not go higher, to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords.
MR. DALZIELexpressed the opinion that the arguments of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General were directed to a matter which was not germane to the Amendment. The Amendment asked that the master of the ship should have a right to appeal, and if he liked to provide food and lodging for the immigrant while the appeal was pending that was a matter which concerned himself alone. The point of the Amendment was that there might be an immigration officer who did not understand the language of the immigrants, and that if he told a certain number to stand aside they ought to have a right to appeal. There was no guarantee of the capacity of the immigration board, and therefore there should be an appeal. He suggested that an appeal to the local police Court would answer every point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and he put it to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether the Amendment was not a reasonable one.
MR. SEELYsaid he quite agreed with the Attorney-General that there were objections to this Amendment, but he thought it would be convenient if
810
the hon. and learned Gentleman told the Committee how he proposed to arrange the matter unless there was going to be a system of appeal. Under this Bill they were going to set up immigration boards all over the country, which would have to deal with difficult and complicated questions as to the character of the immigrants and the general principles upon which they were to be received and registered. He submitted that there must be some appeal—some regulations by which the decision of these boards must be supervised, controlled, and assimilated one with another. If the Attorney-General objected to this proposal perhaps he would explain how an immigrant or a master of a ship who considered the decision of the Immigration Board was not just, could get it supervised.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid there was no reason why the judgment of the local Recorder should not be regarded as a sufficient Court of Appeal. The Attorney-General did not seem to appreciate the fact that immense numbers of men were brought, say, to the Port of Hull, and that there must arise doubtful cases in which it was difficult to say whether a man was a lunatic or an idiot, whether he had sufficient means of subsistence, or whether he was a person who could he properly dealt with under the extradition laws. Suppose a rule were laid down by the immigration board it might be followed for all time, and prove absolutely ruinous to the trade of the port. If that should be the case, was it fair that the trade of the whole district should be jeopardised by the rule of the immigration board, merely because the right of appeal was refused. He suggested that there was one great safeguard against frivolous appeals, which was that the master of a ship would not bring up any case unnecessarily, because the costs of the appeal would in most cases amount to more than the £100 fine under the Bill. It would therefore be only very serious cases which would be taken up. The Government ought to consider these possibilities, because the judgment of the three business men, administrative gentlemen or magistrates, whichever they might be, might be so serious that not only the

811
master of the ship but the immigrant himself ought to have the right of appeal.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought there ought to be something in the nature of an appeal if the immigration board was to be the official I authority set up to decide these matters, because the board might be efficient or inefficient. But whether it was efficient or not, it was not a judicial body, and therefore there ought to be some appeal from its decisions. He asked the Government to consider this point, and, before the Bill passed through Committee, to see that some power of appeal was incorporated in it. He trusted the Government would take notice of the general feeling on both sides of the House and give a promise to that effect. As the matter at present stood he should vote for the Amendment.
MR. EMMOTTpointed out that there might be great laxity at one port and great stringency at another, and that in such an event the immigration traffic would be turned to the port at which the laxity existed. He thought, therefore, some Court of Appeal was necessary.
MR. CHURCHILLdesired to add one word, which was that they were not seeking to safeguard the rights of immigrants, because they knew in some quarters, at least, they were regarded as sewage. This was an appeal not on behalf of the immigrants, but on behalf of the shipping companies, and the shipping companies, if they chose, could exercise it at their own expense. By rejecting this Amendment the Government were simply refusing to their own countrymen the right of appeal to the Courts of justice of this country as to the interpretation of an Act of Parliament.
MR. LOUGHsubmitted that as the Home Secretary had power under Subsection 4 to exempt certain ships from the operation of the clause other ships might have some reason to complain of the way in which they were treated, and there ought to be some right of appeal. He agreed that the exact wording of the Amendment was not the best possible, but he thought the Com-
812
mittee were practically unanimous in the view that something in the way of an appeal ought to be provided for hard cases. The question of expense would have to be dealt with. In America a right of appeal was given to both shipping companies and immigrants. In the-interests of the immigrant boards themselves a right of appeal should be given. It would be treating the boards with, absolute contempt if some authority were not placed over them to guide them when they made mistakes, and they would become objects of contempt and go out of use because of their inherent weakness and rottenness.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said there appeared to be a consensus of opinion in the Committee that the Amendment would not work. Even its strongest supporters admitted that it would not be of any use in the Bill. But the strangest argument that had been put forward was that of the hon. Member for West Islington, who said that it would be an insult to these boards if some authority were not placed over their heads to guide them in the right way.
MR. LOUGH: I said it would be a weakness, not an insult.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthought it was the strangest form of insult of which he had ever heard.
MR. LOUGH: What I said was that these boards, like all other boards in the country, would want guidance, and that there was a danger of their becoming objects of contempt if they were refused it.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was almost as much at variance with that version of the argument as with the other. Hon. Members had rested almost the whole of their case on the fact that the process would be so costly that it would never be used.
MR. TENNANTsaid that it would be only occasionally used.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was the first time he had ever heard it suggested that

813
the costliness of the law was an advantage. Hon. Members now said that the process would be so expensive—and he was not sure they were not correct—that the right of appeal would be largely illusory, because only the rich would be able to avail themselves of it, and they would use it only on special occasions. He did not think that that was a good argument in favour of the Amendment. He thought hon. Members opposite regarded the Bill too much as a Bill for dealing with legal rights rather than as one dealing in a very expeditious manner with a matter of administration. When they were dealing with matters of administration and not with matters of civil rights convenience and rapidity were far more important than that nice uniformity which hon. Members opposite seemed so greatly to favour. They appeared to regard it as a terrible calamity that a slightly different procedure should be adopted in Hull than that which was adopted, say, in the Port of London. He thought it would be unfortunate, hut he had two observations to make upon it. The first was that there was a machinery under the Bill by which the Home Office could see that such divergence of practice should not take place, and the second was that by common consent we had submitted to the greatest divergence in the administration of the criminal law as between Judges without any attempt to produce uniformity by a Court of Criminal Appeal. The one argument against the Bill that had been hammered in day after day by hon. Gentlemen opposite was that the Bill was unworkable, and the Amendments they sought to introduce were intended to make it unworkable. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh!"] If hon. Gentlemen opposite regarded that expression of opinion as offensive he would withdraw it and restate the proposition by saying that their Amendments were intended to make the Bill so theoretically perfect a piece of mechanism that in this rough world, where rapidity of procedure was the greatest desideratum, the machinery would not carry out the object for which it was intended. He earnestly pressed on the Committee not unduly to complicate this measure by a system of appeal which was very costly in our ordinary legal system, where it was,
814
unfortunately, necessary, and which-would be both cumbrous and costly in this Bill where, in his judgment, it was not necessary.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that although the Amendment might possibly be improved in form, and be better introduced in another place, yet there was a general feeling that this was a matter in which some right of appeal ought to be provided. He did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the questions which would have to be submitted to these immigration boards would be substantially administrative questions. He thought they would be called upon to deal with serious and difficult questions of evidence, and even with questions of law, and the Government had themselves so far acknowledged that that would be the case that, in the course of the debate on the Second Reading, they agreed that one of the members of the board should in all cases be a lawyer, so that there should be at least one person competent to deal with the questions of evidence that must arise. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the matter was sufficiently safeguarded by the powers of the Home Secretary Where in the Bill were they to find those powers
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I said was that uniformity was safeguarded by the Bill.
MR. ASQUITH: By what provision? [After a pause.] I am waitirg for an answer.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I think my right hon. friend was referring to the provisions in Section 8, Sub-section 4. The right hon. Gentleman opposite will agree with me that the Home Office, if there was any reason to suppose that the immigration boards were going wrong, could send round a circular pointing out that they were taking an erroneous view of the law with regard to these matters, and it would be the duty of the boards to conform to the intimation from the Home Secretary.
MR. ASQUITHsaid it was quite true that Section 8, Sub-section 4, did give a

815
right of appeal to the Home Secretary in certain cases, but it was quite clear that the very thing they were discussing was left out, viz., whether the board had come to a right decision as to the desirability of a person.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said that the Home Secretary had powers under the Bill to act as a Court of Appeal upon all the questions that might arise. What I said was that the Home Office had power to produce that general uniformity of procedure, the absence of which was regarded by hon. Gentlemen opposite as a serious blot on the Bill.
MR. ASQUITHsaid they were getting at it by degrees. Section 8, Sub section 4, at any rate, was out of the question. The right hon. Gentleman fell back on what he assumed to be some general, undefined, latent constitutional power in the Home Office to keep the tribunals of the country in proper order. He knew of no such power. The circulars sent from the Home Office were merely pieces of advice, and there was no obligation on the part of those receiving them to follow them. He remembered one particular case, viz., the circular as to the expediency of allowing people ou on bail. The majority of the Courts of petty session studiously disregarded the circular, and he saw no reason to think that these immigration boards, which would be clothed, unless some right of appeal was given, with plenary and indisputable authority in all these matters, would any more feel bound by a circular from the Home Office. In view of the complexity of the questions that might be submitted to these boards he thought the Government ought to consider the desirability of a right of appeal being given, and he suggested that his hon. friend might withdraw his Amendment if the Government would undertake on Clause 2, which defined the constitution of the immigration board, to consider whether there should not be a right of appeal.
MR. TENNANTsaid he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to accept that suggestion.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the
816
Member for East Fife was that the Government should find a plan for doing what, in the opinion of the Government, was very questionable, and which would introduce dangers and difficulties which would make the Bill more complex.
MR. TENNANTsaid he was very anxious not to take a division if the result would be that his proposal would be ruled out of order on Clause 2. That would be the effect of taking a division now and he would rather withdraw his Amendment. [Cries of "No, no!"] He disclaimed the innuendo thrown out by the Prime Minister that the object of his Amendment was to devise machinery which would make the working of the Bill so difficult that it would break down. That was not his desire, because he wished to make the Bill as good as it could be made. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that in the United States there were more immigrants dealt with by many thousands than were ever likely to have to be dealt with by the immigration officers in this country. When an alien was rejected in the United States he had a right of appeal from the officer to a board, and if he wished for a further appeal he could go to the Superintendent of Immigration, and after that the Secretary of State was able to review the decision. He wished to point out that in the United States all these examinations were private matters, and it was especially provided that in the instances of inquiry into the case of a man suspected of being a convict or of a woman of being a prostitute, they should not be taken in open Court. This was a matter for the country itself to decide, and in the interests of everybody it was done privately and could be reviewed by the Secretary of State. This Bill, if passed into law, would give exactly the same protection in this country. He trusted that this Amendment would be negatived upon its merits and the point got rid of.
MR. SEELYhoped the Attorney-General would consider how this immigration board could be brought into a similar position to a Court of petty sessions. It seemed to him that

817
there ought to be some arrangement by which, if a board in Hull gave a certain decision and another board in Grimsby gave a totally different decision upon exactly the same facts, the question could be raised, and in a Court of petty sessions that could be done. He understood that these immigration boards would be absolutely independent bodies.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: No, no!
MR. SEELYsaid that what the hon. Member for Liverpool had stated might be a very suitable arrangement for the United States, but he was not very keen about introducing American principles into this country. He would like the Attorney-General to tell them whether there was any means of supervising the decisions of these boards. When a man was unjustly treated by one of these boards he should have a right of appeal.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he did not think the hon. Member was correct in saying that there was no check whatever upon the proceedings of these boards, because there was a provision in Clause 8 for securing uniformity. The Prime Minister had said that there seemed to be a general consent that the Amendment was impossible, and he had nothing to add to what the right hon. Gentleman had said. If any satisfactory proposal could be made upon a subsequent clause the Government would, of course, take it into consideration.
MR. LEVYsaid they did not know whether the boards suggested under the Bill would be removable or not, and yet they would have great powers, possibly enabling them to seize a vessel under certain circumstances. Supposing one of these boards ordered certain immigrants to be taken back on board and the shipowner refused to take them back again to the country from which they embarked. Would these boards have power to seize that vessel? Were they going to give these boards, wrhich were being set up at the dictates of individuals who represented certain constituencies which were affected, the power to seize British ships. It would be very dangerous to allow such drastic powers to such boards.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid upon this occasion he agreed with the Attorney-General's attitude towards the Amendment, although the reasons he had given for taking this course were not altogether satisfactory. The last subsection of Clause 8 gave absolutely despotic power to the Home Secretary, who might be succeeded by some one less capable than the present Home Secretary, in whom he had the greatest confidence. He thought this was a very dangerous power to put into the hands of a Secretary of State.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes, 239. (Division List No. 226.)

AYES.

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

Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Caldwell, James

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, K.

Asher, Alexander

Cameron, Robert

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Atherley-Jones, L.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H

Donelan, Captain A.

Barlow, John Emmott

Cawley, Frederick

Doogan, P. C.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Charming, Francis Allston

Duffy, William J.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Duncan, J. Hastings

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Cogan, Denis J.

Edwards, Frank

Black, Alexander William

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Elibank, Master of

Blake, Edward

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

Ellice, Capt E C. (SAndrw's Bghs

Boland, John

Crean, Eugene

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Cremer, William Randal

Emmott, Alfred

Bright, Allan Heywood

Crombie, John William

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlmson

Crooks, William

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

Cullinan, J.

Farrell, James Patrick

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Dalziel, James Henry

Ffrench, Peter

Burke, E. Haviland

Davies, M. Vaughan(Cardigan)

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

Buxton, N E (York, N R, Whitty

Delany, William

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Flynn, James Christopher

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Russell, T. W.

Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

M'Crae, George

Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

M'Kean, John

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Schwann, Charles E.

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln).

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Sheehy, David

Grant, Corrie

Mooney, John J.

Shipman, Dr. John B.

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

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire

Hammond, John

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Soares, Ernest J.

Harcourt, Lewis

Muldoon, John

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R (Northants).

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Murphy John

Stanhope, Hon. Phi James

Harwood, George

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Stevenson, Francis S.

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Col John P. (Galway. N.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Sullivan, Donal

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr

Higham, John Sharp

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Ure, Alexander

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Wallace, Robert

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Joicey, Sir James

O'Dowd, John

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

White, George (Norfolk)

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Malley, William

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Joyce, Michael

O'Mara, James

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Whitley, J. H. Halifax)

Kilbride, Denis

Partington, Oswald

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Kitson, Sir James

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Wills, Arthur Walters(N Dorset

Lambert, George

Perks, Robert William

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

Lamont, Norman

Philipps, John Wynford

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.).

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Price, Robert John

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Priestley, Arthur

Young, Samuel

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Rea, Russell

Younger, William

Leng, Sir John

Reddy, M.

Yoxall, James Henry

Levy, Maurice

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Lough, Thomas

Rickett, J. Compton

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Tennant and Major Seely.

Lundon, W.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robson, William Snowdon

NOES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Bousfield, William Robert

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.

Brassey Albert

Davenport, William Bromley

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dickson, Charles Scott

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Brown, Sir Alex H. (Shropsh.)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Brymer, William Ernest

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Butcher, John George

Doughty, Sir George

Baird, John George Alexander

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Balcarres, Lord

Campbell, J. HM. (Dublin Univ.

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

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

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw-

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. Birm.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.

Finlay, Sir R B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs).

Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

Chapman, Edward

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Hartley, Sir George C. T.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Fisher, William Hayes

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

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

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Coddington, Sir William

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Flower, Sir Ernest

Bigwood, James

Colston, Chas Edw. H. Athole

Forster, Henry William

Bill, Charles

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Galloway, William Johnson

Bingham, Lord

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Gardner, Ernest

Blandell, Colonel Henry

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Garfit, William

Bond, Edward

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

820

821

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

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

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

Lowe, Francis William

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowesoft

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Macdona, John Gumming

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col Edw. J.

Grenfell, William Henry

Maconochie, A. W.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

M'lver, Sir Lews (Edinburgh, W

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Macolm, Ian

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)

Hain, Edward

Manners, Lord Cecil

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Marks, Harry Hananel

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Hambro, Charles Eric

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

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

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

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

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredk. G.

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Heaton, John Henniker

Milvain, Thomas

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Helder, Augustus

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Taylor, Austin (East Toxtetb)

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Morgan, D. J. (Waltbamstow)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hogg, Lindsay

Morpeth, Viscount

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside

Morrison, James Archibald

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Tuff, Charles

Houston, Robert Paterson

Mount, William Arthur

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Turnour, Viscount

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield)

Hunt, Rowland

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Parker, Sir Gilbert

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

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

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

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

Percy, Earl

Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

Pierpoint, Robert

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Kerr, John

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Knowles, Sir Lees

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E R (Bath)

Laurie, Lieut-General

Purvis, Robert

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Rankin, Sir James

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wylie, Alexander

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

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Renwick, George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Ridley, S. Forde

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Long, Col Chas. W (Evesham)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that the next Amendment standing in his name was to leave out Sub-section 3 of Clause 1. His objection to it was that it was incoherent, unintelligible, and unworkable. Sub-Section (a) of Sib-clause 3 proposed that an immigrant should be excluded from this country as undesirable who had not in his possession, or was not in a position to obtain, the means of decently supporting himself a id his dependents, if any. That was a provision unknown to the law of any other country. It was quite true
that there was some sort of approach to it in one or two of our Colonies, and some more approximate provision in the law of the United States; but even the latter did not go nearly as far as this subsection. The law of the United States required that a man or a woman who landed on their shores should not be a person who was likely to become a charge on the public funds of the country, or on the locality in which he or she landed. That threw upon the immigrant the onus of establishing to the satisfaction of the immigration officer

823
that he had got in his pocket the amount of money to support himself and his dependents, if any. But there was no stipulation a3 to the length of time for which it was necessary to support himself. Of course it would be possible for a man to show that though he was not in possession of a certain amount of money at the moment, he was in possession of a skilled trade, and that he might be able to obtain employment almost immediately.
This was an Amendment which raised a sharp line of contradistinction between the attitude of the Prime Minister and that of the ex-Colonial Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The Prime Minister, in answer to a Question put to him lately, emphatically declared that this Bill was not of a protective character, and that it was in no sense intended to shut out honest and diligent working foreigners who might find, their way to our shores. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, on the contrary, said he hailed the advent of this measure as a step in the direction of protecting industrial labour in this country. He was disposed to think that the view entertained by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was the true one. The clause proposed to shut out a man from landing on those shores simply because he was poor.
Let him ask what was the data which had been laid before the Committee from extraneous sources or from the evidence of the Royal Commission. The ex-Colonial Secretary proposed that poverty should be the ground of exclusion of foreigners. The evidence laid before the Royal Commission distinctly established that the general body of foreigners who came to this country were industrious, sober people, who seldom differed from the wage-earning classes in this country. They, in fact, compared favourably with the British wage-earning classes in these respects. It was also shown that so far as moral character was concerned they compared favourably with the British artisans. Of course, that did not arise in this subsection, because other sub-sections dealt with criminals and those who became criminals after arriving here. This sub-
824
section only dealt with people on the ground of poverty alone. He could conceive of cases in which a large number of people from foreign countries might come here, flooding the labour market, and displacing British labour; and that in those cases the Government might be justified in excluding those large numbers, or imposing some reasonable test on them. But there was no evidence to that effect. Paragraphs 129 and 131 of the Report of the Royal Commission said that there was no real competition, on the part of these foreign immigrants with British labour. On the contrary, the foreign labourers, who came here carried on new industries, such as slop-tailoring, certain classes of cabinet-making, and extensions of the cheap boot-making trade which did not exist before. The Royal Commission said on the whole they had arrived at the conclusion, after weighing the evidence on both sides, that it had not been proved that there was any serious displacement of direct skilled English labour. On the contrary, these three industries in which the aliens were engaged had been beneficial in various ways, because they had increased the demand for the consumption of goods manufactured in this country which had formerly been imported from abroad.
MAJOR EVANS GORDONasked what did the hon. and learned Gentleman say as to the displacement of unskilled labour?
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that the Report of the Royal Commission said that it was impossible to say how much, unskilled labour had been displaced.
MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid there was another paragraph which went much beyond that.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that the Royal Commission gave elaborate tables in which they showed the various occupations of aliens arriving in this country from Russia and neighbouring provinces in other countries—the great bulk of whom were Jews, These Jew aliens were almost entirely eDgaged in the cabinet-ma king trade, slop-tailoring—largely exported from this country—and the cheap boot-making

825
trade. So that it was perfectly clear that they did not interfere with British labour. What conclusion did he draw? Shut out unhealthy and criminal aliens in proper form and by proper machinery; but why shut out those decent, honest, industrial labourers unless they displaced English labour. The only answer was that the country supposed, as the right hon. Member for West Birmingham suggested, that these aliens were competitors with English labourers. Therefore, he contended that this measure was intended to delude the country into the belief that the Conservative Government was the champion and defender of British labour as against foreign labour. What he wished to show was that one portion of the clause as it stood, ought to be obliterated and another portion of the clause ought to be modified in certain directions at which he had hinted.
He passed on to other sub-sections of Sub-clause 3. Unless the right hon. Gentleman could state some grievance which the sub-section would deal with, he was entitled to ask the Committee to eliminate it. With regard to overcrowding, it had been established by the evidence of the Medical Officer of Health for London that it did not exist in the alien-inhabited districts to anything like the extent it did in the non-alien-inhabited districts. There was another very serious objection. The subsection would prohibit the landing of an immigrant on the ground that he had been convicted of a criminal offence. He quite agreed that if satisfactory evidence was produced that a man had been convicted of an indictable offence, it would be a proper subject for consideration as to whether he should not be excluded; but a man might have committed some trivial offence involving no moral obliquity, and that was another matter. The Bill, however, proposed that a man sentenced in any foreign country for an offence should be excluded. The Committee was entitled to know what evidence would be submitted that a person had been convicted of a criminal offence. The only two classes of evidence were a record, or the very loose evidence that might be given by one executive officer to another. He could conceive nothing more dangerous than a system
826
which depended on the statement of a Russian police officer to the officer to be appointed by the Home Secretary which did not involve any judicial responsibility. It was a violation of the elementary principles of justice; and he was amazed that right hon. Gentlemen, cherishing the same traditions as they did about the inviolability of English liberty, should propose to put it in the power of a police officer in Russia, Germany, or France, with the sanction of an official in this country, to deny the right to land.
The gravity of the proposal was even greater than that; because the sub-section stated that a man might enter if he could prove he was entering solely to avoid prosecution for a political offence. But how could he prove it? There would only be his ipse dixit that he was a political refugee, and that the Russian Government desired to capture him. He had not to satisfy any English Court only the immigration officer appointed by the Home Secretary. Then if he wished to appeal if he were rejected, the immigration officer would point to the notice in Yiddish on the ship. Who was to judge whether the offence was political or not? It was a very nice question indeed as to what was a political offence and what was not. It formed the subject of a great deal of controversy from time to time; and the deciding factor was whether it had or had not a political tinge. But that was not of general acceptance; and the legal pundit that might be appointed might be only the local attorney. He would decide whether the offence was political or not; and on his judgment the political refugee might be sent back. He had, it was true, a kind of appeal to a non-judicial board; a more extraordinary solecism in English law he had never heard of. The right of asylum in this country had always been most jealously guarded, not by our statesmen but by our Courts. According to the idea of the Attorney-General, the King's writ was not to run as regarded the immigration officer or the immigration board. He ventured to assert that the section ought to be excluded from the Bill; that a fresh section should be drawn; and that a clause should be drawn devoted entirely to the

827
question whether or not there should be exclusion on these grounds. He quite recognised how unworkable it all was, and how utterly the United states had failed to prevent the immigration of criminals into that country; but he would not object to some provision of that character. He objected, however, to the rejection of a man because he was poor. The test should be the possession of the will to work, and the physical power to work. The Bill would prevent such a man from bringing in his dependents. He asked the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to consider whether it was not an unkindly proposal to exclude an honest and industrious alien at a time of great suffering in Eastern Europe. It was a proposal entirely contrary to all the traditions of this country, and a violation of the freedom which this country had always afforded to people of other nationalities.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 21, to leave out Subsection 3."—(Mr. Atherley Jones.)
SIR CHARLES DILKEasked what course the Chairman proposed to adopt in connection with the Amendment. It proposed to leave out a large portion of the measure, and would give rise to a Second Reading debate.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member handed me an Amendment which I thought he intended to move. It was desirable, however, that the debate should take place in detail; and the only course, therefore, is to put the first two lines of the section proposed to be omitted.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'immigrant' in line 22, stand part of the clause."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he fully recognised that this was one of the most important parts of the Bill, and suggested that for convenience of discussion it would be better to first consider the various proposals for dealing with the Sub-sections (a) and (b).
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESagreed to the suggestion and begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. EMMOTTsaid the Amendment he now moved opened up one of the most crucial and controversial parts of the Bill. The real question was whether poverty was to be by itself a test of an alien's coming into this country or not. Sub-section (a), the deletion of which he moved, provided that an alien should be excluded unless he could show he had the means of decently supporting himself. In his opinion the wording of the clause called for a good deal of explanation. What was, for instance, to be the test as to whether an alien had the means of decently supporting himself? These matters, however, he left to others. The question he wished to deal with was whether real harm was being done at this moment by the influx of aliens such as they had seen up to the present. He admitted that in places like Stepney there was some inconvenience. But the real question was whether evil was being done as a whole by the present influx.
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that that was a question which could be more properly dealt with on Second Reading, or upon the Question that that clause stand part.
MR. EMMOTTsubmitted that that amount of grievance rested upon a number of the aliens who came in to this country and settled here. He said he had waited to bring up this point on this particular Amendment because it was of the greatest importance that the country should know the facts. The point was what was the number of these aliens as compared with the aliens of other countries. If they took the figures of the last census they found there was a less population of aliens per thousand here than elsewhere. Compared with Germany they were only half as many, and with France only one-third. He further pointed out that in some cases these aliens, if they did not introduce new trades, at any rate developed

829
new trades; that their effect upon the question of wages, therefore, could not have been very detrimental, and that there were a fewer number of paupers among them proportionately. The Home Secretary had said this state of things was getting worse, and had put alarming figures before the Committee as to the increase of the alien population of this country. Last year the right hon. Gentleman put before the House figures as to 1903 and finally apologised for them and withdrew them. This year he had given the figures for 1904 and had stated quite accurately that 194,986 aliens came into this country from Europe. Of those 99,278 were known to be transmigrants, and 7,697 were found later to be transmigrants. In addition he deducted 21,863 seamen and that left him with a figure of 75,148, the greater proportion of whom, he said, remained and settled in this country. The figures which the Home Secretary gave were official figures and he did not object to them; but he did object to the statement that the greater proportion of the 75,000 remained and settled in this country. That was merely a pious opinion of the Home Secretary. He could not prove it. He (Mr. Emmott) would submit figures which he believed would go far to show that the argument on which the Home Secretary had rested his plea could not be relied upon.
The only means they had of knowing anything about this matter was by the census figures of 1901 as compared with previous periods. In 1901 there were in this country, according to the census returns, 67,401 more aliens than there were in 1891. What he thought the Home Secretary might have done before putting those figures before the House and deducing that argument from them, was to have compared similar figures taken in the ten years from 1891 to 1900 with the actual census returns. That he (Mr. Emmott) had done. In those ten years the total number of aliens who were not stated to be transmigrants, who came into this country—less the seamen—were 369,772 or thereabouts. The number was actually larger, because in the first two years the number who came to Newhaven were not taken into account.
830
That figure of 369,772 corresponded with the figure of 82,845 for 1904, which was the number of aliens coming into this country less the known transmigrants, and less the seamen, quoted by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary reduced the figure of 82,000 to the figure of about 72,000 by deducting those who were afterwards found to be transmigrants, and also some two or three thousand who returned to the Continent by the help of the Jewish Board of Guardians and other bodies of that kind. Therefore, in order to make his (Mr. Emmott's figures compare with those of the Home Secretary, he reduced the 369,000 to 300,000, and he would take off 30,000 more on account of deaths, bringing it down to 270,000. According to the Home Secretary there should have been 270,000 more aliens in the country in 1901 than in 1891. The actual figures of the census were 67,401. He claimed to have shown that the Home Secretary had exaggerated at least four-fold the number of aliens who remained in this country. That was the only means of testing the reliability of such figures, and he believed it showed that the Home Secretary's argument was unreliable. The Home Secretary had treated the House with such courtesy and good temper that he was anxious not to say anything discourteous or offensive, but he was sorry that he had misled—no doubt unintentionally—so many people by quoting the figures to which he had called attention.
He believed there was no means of ascertaining what the balance of aliens who came into this country and settled there was, because there was no record of the number of aliens who went to or drifted back to the Continent. The number of those was very large. The Board of Trade, however, made a comparison of the balance inwards from Europe of all passengers, with the balance of aliens outwards to the countries out of Europe. It was assumed by the Board of Trade that the balance of passengers inward from Europe represented the net balance of aliens who came into this country from Europe. They knew positively the number of aliens on balance who left this country for countries out of Europe, and the Board of Trade regularly made the comparison. In the ten years to which he

831
had already referred the excess in from Europe was 508,000, and the excess out to non-European countries was 329,000, leaving 179,000, from which had to be deducted the whole or the greater portion of the seamen. Here, however, was a difficulty. He could not even guess at the number of seamen who came into this country as passengers and left as seamen. But it was a curious coincidence that by deducting the whole of the seamen—111,000—there were left 68,000, which were very near the figures in the census returns. He could not, however, rely on those figures, and he would found on them only two arguments. First, that they were much safer figures than the Home Secretary's, and, secondly, that so far from the number of alien immigrants intending to settle here being unusually large in 1904 it was unusually small. In fact, there was the strongest reason to suppose that the number of aliens in this country at the end of 1904 was considerably smaller than at the beginning of the year. The balance in from Europe 84,389, and the balance out to places out of Europe, 83,000, left a difference of about 1,000, as compared with an average of 18,000, or 20,000 during the last ten or twelve years, from which had to be deducted the number of seamen who came here as passengers and went out as members of ships crews. Therefore, seeing that they must deduct from the balance of 1,000 a proportion of the 12,000 odd seamen who came 'into this country and got engagements as members of ships' crews, he thought it was perfectly certain that, as the right hon. paronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had said, in 1904 the number of aliens in this country did not increase, but diminished. And to anybody who had followed the matter there was a perfectly good reason why that should be the case. Last year was the year of the great rate war of the shipping companies. Passages could be got from this country to America as low as £2 per person. From Germany they were all the time about £6. Therefore, a great many people who came to England, and aliens who were already here, took advantage of that low price in order to get out to America, and the probabilities were that the alien population was reduced in 1904 owing to that rate war.
832
He apologised for detaining the Committee so long with these details, but he wanted to put before them the conclusions to which he, after a good deal of study of the question, had come. The Committee knew that the evil in the past had not been a great evil. He thought he had shown conclusively that it did not grow worse in 1904, and if they were going to interfere with that traffic they would interfere with the shipping interest, they would stop or hinder the transmigrant trade, and diminish the returns of shippers and railways, and a great many other people who made money out of those transmigrants in this country. Under those circumstances he submitted that no case had been made out for introducing this new and novel principle of the poverty test. What might come in the future he could not tell. He quite admitted that the moment might arrive when we should have to protect ourselves against alien immigration. All he was pleading for was that at present no case-had been made out for the poverty test, and until it was made out he protested against the crippling of our shipping. He wanted the Committee to think seriously of what those men were. Most of them were the victims of political or religious disabilities, or had been subject to conditions of a tyrannical kind in their own country. They saw before them a new home for their future in distant lands. They did not come to England, for the most part, meaning to stop here. They did not covet our workers' bread. He asked the Committee to think of this long, patient, unending stream of men—their faces worn with the labours and trials and hardships of the past, but with one little gleam of hope in their hearts as they looked across the ocean which separated them from the free lands of the West to which they desired to go, and he begged the Committee not to put obstacles in the way of these men, but rather to bid them God-speed on their long journey.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 23, to leave out subparagraph (a)."—(Mr Emmott.)
Question proposed, "That the word. 'if' stand part of the clause."
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,desired to say a word with regard to the figures compiled by the Board of Trade. The hon. Member for Oldham had endeavoured to prove that there were no alien immigrants coming into this country at all.
MR. EMMOTTsaid his figures related to 1904, and referred to immigrants coming and settling.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid that the argument of the hon. Member really meant that the whole alien question was a myth and ought to be treated as such.
MR. EMMOTTsaid he did not contend that it was entirely a myth. He had dealt with the figures of the past, and particularly with 1904. It was just possible that some aliens left in 1904 who had settled here previously, but he did not think that number would be large.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid he was quarrelling, not with the hon. Member's words, but with his conclusion. If the conclusion of the hon. Member was that practically no aliens came into the country in 1904, his argument was rightly described as being that the whole question was a myth and ought to be treated as such. On the face of it that was a difficult position to hold, and it required some courage for a member of the Opposition to express such a view after the unusual, he believed unprecedented, action of certain Liberal Members and candidates in, if not dictating, at any rate suggesting to the Leader of the Opposition the course he should take on the Second Reading. They, at any rate, took a different view from that of the hon. Member, but they came from London, and perhaps were better able to judge, or, as was more likely, they knew that the men whom they expected to return them at the next election looked upon the question not as a myth, but as a reality, and that unless they showed some sympathy they would have little chance of being elected.
Several HON. MEMBERS: What about East Finsbury?
MR. DALZIEL,asked on a point of order, whether it would be possible for other hon. Members to traverse the same ground as the Parliamentary Secretary in dealing with this Amendment.
THE CHAIRMANunderstood that the hon. Gentleman was dealing with the argument of the hon. Member for Oldham that there was no such thing as a serious immigration of aliens.
MR. DALZIEL: Then we will be able to follow the same line and have another Second Reading debate.
MR. BONAR LAWasked the Committee to consider how the hon. Member attempted to prove his peculiar proposition. He had taken two sets of figures prepared by the Board of Trade and mixed them. One of those sets was relevant to the subject and was specially prepared for the purpose, while the other was not only admittedly unreliable, but absolutely irrelevant. There was little difference of opinion as to the figures prepared by the Board of Trade specially to deal with this subject. They had been prepared year after year since 1888 for the sole purpose of giving the country a means of judging the question dealt with by the Bill, and they showed that last year, after making every possible deduction, there came into this country 75,000 people of this class with the intention, so far as the Board had means of judging, of settling here. Taking those figures by themselves there was not much room for difference of opinion. It had been said that a great many who were not returned as such were really en route to other countries. He did not deny it, but after the Board had used every means at their disposal for finding them out there remained these 75,000. But if it was, probable that a certain number of those who were returned as coming to this country for the purpose of settling did find their way to other countries, what grounds were there for not supposing that a considerable number who coming in at one port said they were transmigrants yet remained here instead of transmigrating? He thought it was not unfair to set off one class against the other; in any case he confidently asserted that so far as figures

835
were available at all they showed that 75,000 of these people came into the country in 1904, and came, as far as the Board could judge, for the purpose of remaining.
MR. STUART SAMUEL: Do you make that statement?
MR. BONAR LAW: I say the Board of Trade statistics show that.
MR. STUART SAMUEL: Do you make that statement?
MR. BONAR LAW: I do; I repeat the statement.
MR. STUART SAMUEL: I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he states that 75,000 came last year to settle.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid he did so far as his information went. [Cries of "Oh!"] What more did hon. Gentlemen want? So far as these statistics were of any value they showed that last year 75,000 of these aliens came into this country and came to settle here. The hon. Member asked him what his private opinion was. It would not be worth anything.
MR. EMMOTTasked whether the hon. Gentleman had tested these figures by the census. That was the real point.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid he had not. He asked the Committee to observe this. The hon. Member began by drawing certain inference from the Board of Trade figures. He showed that those inferences were altogether wrong [Cries of "No"], and the hon. Member then turned round and asked him what was his private opinion and whether he had fortified it in some other way than by the Board of Trade figures. The curious process by which the hon. Gentleman arrived at this result was to leave out of account those figures which admittedly were prepared for this purpose, and to deal with figures which related not to alien immigration at all but to the general inflow and outflow of passengers between this country and Europe. Would it be believed that that set of
836
figures on which the hon. Member relied was based on no actual knowledge of the number of foreigners who came to and went from this country, and that in the very book in which the figures were found it was pointed out that all that was done was to assume that the balance struck between those who came in and those who did not go out was composed of alien transmigrants? The book from which the hon. Gentleman quoted specially pointed out that figures obtained in that way could not be relied upon.
MR. EMMOTT: I said that they were not reliable, but I said that they were much better than the other figures.
MR. BONAR LAWpointed out that the alien figures were obtained by the exercise of statutory powers, whereas the figures in the other Return were entirely voluntary. They were returns furnished by the shipping companies and railway companies, and, as was pointed out in the book, some of them made returns in one way and some in another; some included children, others did not. But, even if the second set of figures were reliable, they would be altogether irrelevant. The object of the Bill was not to prevent aliens from coming into the country; it was to prevent undesirable aliens from coming in. The assumption of the hon. Member for Oldham and of anyone who had based his argument on those figures was that because a certain number of aliens went out always to America there was no need for special legislation; but they did not pretend that they went out in the same year that they came in. What happened, on the hon. Member's own assumption, was that we made this country a training ground in which we received all the undesirables and trained them until they were able to go out. The fact that these aliens could and did go from this country to America and settled there, where the regulations were much more stringent than the Government desired in this country, showed that they were not undesirable and were not the class of aliens who would be dealt with in this Bill. The argument he had listened to from the hon. Gentleman with so much surprise amounted simply to this: a

837
certain amount of impure water came into his supply every week, but the plumber told him that exactly the same amount of impure water went out as that which came in, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman concluded that there was no need to alter his system.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the temptation to repeat the arguments used on the Second Reading of this Bill was very great, because already they had had; a repetition of the figure portion of the Second Reading discussion. The Secretary to the Board of Trade had left out of his speech a fact which was absolutely material to a study of this question. For the last fifteen years the Board of Trade had been reporting on the immigration figures and explaining them, and many years ago the same gentleman who was still reporting annually, Mr. Llewellyn Smith, explained in a Yellow Paper laid before the House the whole principle on which these figures should be dealt with and understood. In that Paper he prophesied before the census of 1891 what the result of the census would be in regard to alien immigration, and he made the same prophecy before last census, and on each occasion the census wholly confirmed his prophecy. The whole of the argument of the Opposition both this year and last was based on these census figures, but they were wholly left out of consideration in the speech of the Secretary to the Board of Trade. Mr. Llewellyn Smith showed in the Yellow Paper, and again in his evidence before Lord James, that if they added together each year's figures for the last ten years the result would give an enormous increase in the alien immigration. But Mr. Llewellyn Smith explained in his evidence that they must not assume anything of the kind. In the Yellow Paper he prophesied before the census of 1891 what the result of that census would be in regard to alien immigration, and he made the same prophecy before last census, and on each occasion the census wholly confirmed his prophecy. Last year the real figures were far less than anything Mr. Llewellyn Smith himself indicated. He himself stated in the Second Reading debate that the probability was that there was a very small increase in the alien population in
838
1903, and that there must have been a decrease in 1904. Therefore, the statement in regard to the 75,000 was a mere delusion, and it was one which the Secretary to the Board of Trade ought not really to have put before the Committee without, at all events, attempting to accompany it with an explanation of the census figures. Last year the rate war gave an exceptional state of things, and they knew that possibly this year there might be some small increase in the alien population of this country; but it was false to pretend to the people of this country that this Bill was needed owing to an increase in the alien population such as had been suggested by Government speakers. That argument was absolutely negatived by the figures showing that there was a smaller alien population in this country than in that of any other great Power.
They wanted to know more than mere figures. They asked what the position of the Government was in regard to the three lines which it was proposed to omit. The Secretary to the Board of Trade, who was a protectionist, had used a free-trade argument in regard to this Bill. There were two parties in the Government with regard to the Bill, and, although the sympathies of the Secretary of the Board of Trade must lean to the one, his language leant to the other. The hon. Gentleman had adopted the view of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Prime Minister, but a wholly different view of the Bill had been given by the late President of the Local Government Board who was now Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted to the full the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who in the Second Reading debate on 2nd May used these words—
". … we have not heard anything of what, to my mind, is very much more important—of the principle which underlies the Bill and makes the Bill only a step towards much greater things. This Bill is defended partly because, as we are told, these aliens are undesirable, because they are frequently diseased and of ten criminal. I am not inclined to lay the slightest stress on these points, though I do not doubt that there is evidence to show, and that facts do show, that they bring a larger proportion of diseased and vicious, persons into our midst than would be, the case

839
with ordinary immigrants. But the principal reason why this Bill is brought on, and why it is supported by all of us, is because it is an effort to protect the working classes of this country against the labour, the underpaid labour, of a class of immigrants sent here."
Before the Committee passed from these words they ought to know which was the view taken by the Government. In the case of the United States it had been held in the Supreme Court that the words, not of this year's Bill, but of last year's Bill, which were taken from the American Act, did not exclude men who had no money and who had willing hands. The Home Secretary, who was in charge of last year's Bill, stated that the Government did not desire to exclude men with willing hands, but that was wholly different from the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. Surely the Committee ought to know the sense in which the words were interpreted by the Prime Minister. Would they not be used to exclude competition? The words were dangerously vague, and the Committee must be assured that they were so framed that they would not be interpreted by those who had the working of the Bill in such a way as to make this a mere measure of protection.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the problem before the Committee was whether we should or should not exclude from this country persons who from their circumstances were likely to be a burden to the public. As to the assertion that the question of free trade or protection was raised, the introduction of these strictly economic doctrines as applied to inanimate goods led to many fallacies when those doctrines were applied to human beings. Not much was gained by bandying across the floor such terms as free trade and protection when the influx and efflux of human beings was concerned. An hon. Gentleman had said that he could easily conceive circumstances in which the influx of aliens from abroad would cause such a great dislocation of industry that means would have to be taken to deal with it. Such circumstances might be conceived, but this Bill would not deal with a crisis of that kind. The very wording of the clause and the definition given of "undesirable alien" were sufficient to prove
840
that the Bill was not intended to deal with such a crisis. The Bill was limited to the exclusion of undesirable aliens. The alien who came into this country without pecuniary means and without the prospect of remunerative employment was undesirable because he constituted a possible public burden. It was quite true, and nobody could deny it, that there might be occasions in which the alien came to this country without means and without any assured prospect of employment, and yet by his capacity and energy he might be able to support himself and become an addition to the wealth-producing power of the country. But because the existence of such cases was not denied, was Parliament to be precluded from dealing with the generality of cases coming under the description of the Bill? Was Parliament to be prevented from dealing with a large class of persons who presumably might become a burden on the rates or on the community by way of charity because a certain number of them proved able to support themselves? That was a very irrational attitude. We had to deal with broad facts and general descriptions, even though exceptions would always occur.
The only question which the Committee had to determine at that moment was whether or not, in the interests, first, of the community at large, and secondly and more particularly of the special districts in the Metropolis and elsewhere on which the burden of dealing with these persons chiefly fell—whether or not we were bound as a nation by our traditions or by common considerations of humanity to allow these strangers to become a portion of our own community, and, if they chose to naturalise themselves, to claim all the rights and privileges of British birth and citizenship. Were we not justified in saying that we had a right to exclude such persons until they could show, not necessarily by the production of a large sum of money, but in some way or other that they had an expectation of earning their livelihood, seeing that we by our own legislation were bound to support those who could not support themselves, and to carry out those sanitary regulations the enforcement of which threw such a heavy

841
burden on any community which had more than a certain number of these poor immigrants to deal with? Unless hon. Gentlemen opposite were prepared to meet directly the particular state of things which he had ventured to describe, they were bound to support the Government in this, what they believed to be, the cardinal principle of the Bill.
MR. WILLSsaid he had promised his constituents to support a just and reasonable measure for the expulsion of aliens; but it was just because he desired a just and reasonable measure that he objected to the clause under consideration. This clause of the Bill was directed against the poor as the poor.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, the poor as a burden.
MR. WILLSsaid the expulsion clauses later in the Bill dealt with the alien who became a burden on the rates. The clause under consideration was not necessary for that purpose. No definition was really possible as to what was actual poverty. It was impossible to say what immigrant would or would not add to the wealth of the community. The United States found such a clause unworkable, and admitted an alien who was physically able to work. He knew of at least one man who was at the head of a large and important business which was being carried on to the great advantage of this country, who would have been excluded from entering this country if this Bill had been law when he came here. The numbers of aliens who actually came on the rates showed a smaller percentage than in the case of our own countrymen. The case against the poor alien as a burden, therefore, broke down as regards the past. But the Secretary to the Board of Trade declared there were 75,000 aliens who came to reside here last year. The Opposition, with the same figures available, came to the conclusion that scarcely any did so. Would the hon. Gentleman say that the figures published by the Board of Trade proved the Opposition to be wrong in their conclusion?
MR. BONAR LAWsaid that most certainly he maintained those figures bore only one interpretation, and that was the interpretation he had given to them.
MR. WILLSsaid he had no wish to pursue the matter further then; but the hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that those figures did not even pretend to deal with the whole outflow of aliens. He did not think they need enter into any nice questions of international ethics in regard to this matter. It could be tested by the ordinary rules of conduct. They had never objected to the expulsion of the profligate, or the criminal—the really undesirable alien; but they did object to the exclusion of the poor because they were poor. He challenged. hon. Members opposite to state to their constituents that that would be the line of conduct they would adopt in their private lives He believed that the English working classes would show a great deal of sympathy for the men and women from other lands ruined, in many cases, by the iniquitous laws which hid been enforced against them by their own Governments. The English people certainly did not believe in the right of the oppressor to oppress the people in any country, and this was the basis of the right of asylum so long enjoyed. The Government had given their case away by admitting the poor alien who was rendered poor by political persecution. What about the religious refugee? He, too, might be reduced to a condition of abject poverty; and surely he, in the estimation of this country, was not less worthy of sympathy? What right had any Government to go behind the poverty in the one case if not in the other? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University was very anxious that the reflux of undesirables from America to this country should be stopped; but this part of the Bill only dealt (as the Attorney-General said) with aliens "in bulk." Undesirables were not sent back from America in bulk, but in twos and threes. He thought the country would look with broader sympathy on this clause than hon. Gentlemen opposite, I and he should vote for the Amendment.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid that he could not assent to the proposition of the hon. Member that this clause excluded the poor aliens because they were poor. The hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension. The section not only related to the pecuniary position of the immigrant but also to his prospects.
MR. WILLSsaid his view was that prospective poverty was best dealt with by the clause which expelled an alien when he came on the rates.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid his point was that a man was not excluded because he was poor, but because he would remain poor. He did not agree that they should exclude aliens whenever they liked. That was not a noble doctrine; but in his opinion it was a reasonable proposition that we should exclude undesirable aliens and require each nation to deal with its own social failures. They should have the right to force other nations to consume their own smoke. He had, therefore, no hesitation in voting with the Government in respect to this Amendment, though he was not quite certain that the wording of the subsection as it stood carried out the object indicated by the Prime Minister. If it was understood that their object was to exclude paupers and vagrants and other persons of no value to the community, then it would be desirable to express a little more distinctly what was the intention of the rather vague words at present embodied in the clause. The words were vague words, and, having regard to their ambiguity, it was desirable to press the Government more directly for an explanation of what they meant.
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he had listened to the Prime Minister's speech with considerable interest, but he did not see any words in the Bill to give his views effect. He did not think there was anyone who objected to those people who were really undesirable being kept out, but what he feared was that as the Bill was drawn it would keep out and inflict a great injustice on many who would be of great advantage to this country. He per-
844
sonally knew some gentlemen who had arrived in this country as alien poor to whom this country owed very much. Those gentlemen had become wealthy and respected citizens. If such a Bill as this had been in operation, however, those gentlemen would have been prohibited from coming to this country at all. As to the alien statistics he was quite content to accept the authority of Mr. Llewellyn Smith on this question, for his views carried very much greater weight than those of the Secretary to the Board of Trade. He had been somewhat surprised that shipowners had not taken stronger action against the proposals of the Bill. He remembered very well the prophecies made by hon. Gentlemen opposite of the great benefit of the Merchandise Marks Act. The effect of that measure had been to take a great deal of trade away from the country which used to be done here. He was very much afraid that the Aliens Bill would have the same effect. A large number of aliens passed through this country, and our ships were employed to take them away. If the Bill remained as it stood much of that trade would be lost to us. He could not see what advantage would be got if they accepted the Bill. He hoped a much more satisfactory reply would be made with regard to the figures than the Committee had heard from the Secretary of, the Board of Trade.
MR. R E Asaid the general considerations for this measure-advanced by the noble Lord and the Prime Minister depended for their force entirely on the statistical argument. If the figures of the Board of Trade were correct there was a case for this Bill. If the figures given by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, and confirmed by the census but denied by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade, were found to be accurate, there was no case for the Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade said his figures were correct; that they were official and carefully prepared; but there was one test that could be applied to them which he had not had regard to. When a ship left, these shores for America, the Board

845
of Trade made a Return that there were so many emigrants, of whom so many were British and so many foreign, but in America a far more strict investigation was made. There was a general declaration made here, and general figures were given, but when a ship arrived at New York the immigrants were taken in hand and carefully examined, and if they had foreign names and a foreign accent they were put down as foreign. They had to declare the places of their birth on oath. He had the figures from New York, and they proved that the figures of the Board of Trade were absolutely worthless. He had the particulars of the third-class passengers who went out in the Cunard steamers and who landed at New York during the first four months of this year, and what did they show? According to the manifest supplied to the Board of Trade the number of passengers for that period was 13,018, of whom 8,519 were foreign and 4,529 were British, but when they took the American figures they found that 9,940 were foreign, showing an error in the Board of Trade figures, as checked by the more severe examination at New York, of no less than 1,000 for the sailings of one steamship company for a period of one third of the year. He could show almost the same figures and the same proportion in the sailings of another steamship company. The White Star Line in the same period landed at New York 19,244 steerage passengers, of whom, according to the Board of Trade figures, 10,539 were foreign and 8,705 were British. But when these passengers were carefully and individually examined by the American authorities they found that 7,711 were British and 11,720 belonged to other countries. There, again, was an error shown with regard to the numbers carried by another company of over 1,000. He did not know why they preferred to call themselves British when at a British port, but when they got to New York their statements were tested, and the results showed that the Board of Trade figures, though authoritative and official, were not accurate. The whole case for the Bill rested on the statistical argument which, he submitted, had completely broken down. He should, therefore, without hesitation vote for the Amendment.
MR. HARWOODsaid there was no ground for the contention that the class of people who came here were paupers. It was not as though the European States dumped their paupers on our shores and bore the expenses; and people who were able to pay their own expenses could not be said to belong to the pauper class. Moreover, the bulk of these people had a means of making a living, though they might not be able to prove it to the satisfaction of a Government officer. The great majority worked as tailors. They were not tailors in the ordinary sense of the term, but they had a special gift in that direction, and, so far from taking work from our own people, they created fresh trades which gave to our own people occupations they would never have had but for these aliens. In Manchester they had created a cheap-clothing trade, which had given rise to a demand for trimmings and other things, with the result that if the aliens were abolished from Manchester at least 10,000 Englishmen would be deprived of their occupation. The same was true of the East End of London. There had been an enormous development of the cheap-furniture trade, and London had become the capital of that industry. But the whole trade rested on a basis of alien labour and gave occupation to thousands of our own countrymen. By abolishing aliens from England the Government would not give work to, but take work from, Englishmen. These men were not paupers. Would it be said that an Englishman who could pay to take his family to Russia was a pauper or likely ever to become one? There were fewer paupers amongst these people than in any other class of the community. And why? For the simple reason that they had been strained through the filter of self-denial. They were a superior class, I and to talk of them as paupers was monstrous. He came from a community that had learnt its business from alien immigrants, the people of Lancashire having got their industry from the Huguenots. He, therefore, warned the country against committing a suicidal I act.
MR. LEVYconsidered that the clause under discussion was one of the most-

847
important in the Bill and ought to have due consideration by the Committee. In its present form it would not protect the British workman from an influx of aliens. If an employer wanted what the supporters of the Bill called pauper labour, it appeared to him all he would need to do was to go or send an agent to the port of embarkation on the other side of the water and give the men a contract to work for him for six or twelve months or less at wages of say 1s. or 2s. a day. Under this clause they could not then be excluded unless the boards were to be invested with such extraordinary powers as would bring the greatest danger and discredit upon this country. The Question he would put to the Home Secretary, and to which he felt justified in pressing for a reply, was this, if a man came with a definite engagement to work for Is. or 2s. a day or any other sum, would the Government exclude him? There was no Answer, and the Committee would draw its own conclusion.
And, it being half-past Seven of the olock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  ALIENS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N. R. Thirsk) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 23, to leave out Subparagraph (a).—(Mr. Emmott.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'if' stand part of the clause."
  MR. LEVY (continuing his speech), said he appreciated the fact that the Question he put to the Home Secretary
  848
  before the adjournment was one which the right hon. Gentleman was probably not prepared to reply to on the spur of the moment. He would repeat it now. Would a man be considered to be able decently to support himself if he came to this country under a contract to work for 1s. or 2s. a day.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid if a man could support himself decently and knew that he could get employment in this country at fair wages he would undoubtedly pass.
  MR. LEVYsaid that clearly meant that the Bill was not going to protect the British workman as stated by the promoters, but on the contrary would be the means of reducing wages and setting up a system of sweating. He denied that the alien immigrant displaced the British workman, and pointed out that in the year 1881 the number of men employed in coal-mining, the boot trade, furniture trade, and tailoring trade was 852,000. In the year 1901 the number of workers employed in these four industries in which aliens were supposed to be largely employed had increased by 428,000; yet only 37,000 aliens were employed in them, which showed that it was not true that these people were taking bread out of the mouths of the British workmen. The clause in its present form would exclude a large number of the very poorest who were transmigrants, and there by affect the shipping companies bringing them to this country and the railway companies carrying them in this country to the extent of not less than £1,030,000 every year. He hoped, therefore, that the clause would be altered in a humane spirit. Let it not be said that they slammed the door against anyone simply because he was poor.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down concluded his remarks by an appeal to the Committee not to shut the door against aliens coming to this country simply because they were poor. But, surely, if a man arrived absolutely destitute in this country, rather than starve he would be prepared to take work at a wage far below the standard wage

  849
  of this country, and therefore would not he an influence to keep the standard of wages up to the point which our own people through their trades unions had fixed as fair. If the hon. Gentleman had been acquainted with the actual conditions in those parts of London where the alien was almost paramount he would have known that the trades-union workman was undercut and driven out of the district by those people. The position taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite was a singular one. They first of all objected to the Bill and accused its supporters of evil intentions merely because they desired to keep up the standard of wages in this country, and then they appealed to the Committee not to shut the door in the face of an alien on the ground of poverty. It was somewhat remarkable to find hon. Gentlemen opposite opposing this Bill, and to find them at the same time saying that if it was not carried it would inflict a great injury on the people of this country, for that was the meaning of the piteous appeal of Radical East End Members and candidates to the Leader of the Opposition. They had apparently quite forgotten the resolution passed by the Trades Union Congress at Leeds, last September, which called upon the Government to pass restrictive legislation in order that the mines of this country should not be worked by foreigners at a rate of wages which was under the tradesunion standard.
  The strongest reason for believing that alien immigration would destroy the value of new legislation against sweating, was that it had, as far as East London went, practically destroyed the value of such legislation as now existed. In the alienriddon districts of London the Factory Acts were practically a dead letter. The case need not be stated by him. He was prepared to submit to the Committee—first, the evidence of Mr. Thomas O'Grady, secretary of the London Branch of the Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives, who told the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration that "no notice at all was taken of the Factory Acts" by the East End aliens; and secondly, that of Mr. Herbert Evans, Assistant Factory Inspector for East London, who declared before the same Commission that
  850
  evasions of the law in regard to the hours of employment for children and young women had become "almost systematic." He described how the small alien master shifted his workshop from place to place and pleaded ignorance of the law when prosecuted. That gentleman also remarked that the number of native (British) employers proceeded against in East London for breaches of the Factory Acts was insignificant. As evidence of the temper of the alien population in industrial matters Mr. O'Grady's testimony and that of his colleague, Mr. Armstell, was very striking. They told the Commission how the strike of 1890 (in the boot trade) had resulted in a fair settlement accepted by both masters and men. But the value of that settlement had been destroyed by the alien invasion. Once there was a Jewish branch of the union, but the members dropped off and took to sweating on their own account, employing "greeners" brought over and bought "at cattle price" (as Mr. O'Grady expressed it) working at 50 per cent, less than the rate agreed upon between the masters' federation and the men's union. How could we possibly work a factory code or an anti-sweating law with a population such as this?
  The Opposition, he thought, had, at last, that night, grasped the nettle. They had acknowledged that it was an economic question. If hon. Members opposite contended that the true solution of this problem was not a Bill of this sort, but a stiffening of our factory and health legislation, he would ask them to consider the effect that these aliens in large numbers had on great masses of our population. This was not a matter which affected one or two constituencies. At the present moment it affected over a million working-class people in London, and day by day would affect more and more the industrial population of the great towns throughout the kingdom. One hon. Member had pointed out that had we not allowed aliens to come here seeking refuge from political or religious tyranny, certain industries would never have grown up in this country, and he pointed to the great linen industry introduced by the Huguenots. But the

  851
  hon. Gentleman forgot that the Huguenots brought their wealth and skill and were competent men. They formed no Ghettos and they sweated no labour. The majority of the Alien immigrants of to-day were physically inefficient and were glad to come here to work and to live under conditions which no British workman would tolerate and which the law forbade. When the Huguenots came here they came to a sparsely-populated country, but now it was over-populated and more than two-thirds of the population lived in the towns. Both sides of the House should, in dealing with this problem, endeavour to take a broad-minded and non-Party view, and should remember that if they did not adopt some measure which would exclude the undesirable alien they would create in this country a most deplorable situation, which must result in a strong anti-Semitic movement. It was all very well to talk about its being the traditional policy of this country to give to political refugees a domicile, but if that policy was to be carried to its logical conclusion nowadays, it meant that we were inviting 5,000,000 oppressed Russian Jews to come to this country, and it was idle to say that because a wrong had been inflicted upon these people in their own country, we were entitled to inflict a further wrong upon our own people by allowing them to come here. He sincerely hoped that this part of the Bill would be carried, and that express conditions would be inserted for the exclusion from this country of contract labour which had been refused admission into the United States or elsewhere.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEremarked that during the debate hon. Members opposite had treated the Committee to a good deal of bad law, bad political economy, and bad history. The hon. Gentleman had given the Committee his view of the history of the arrival in this country of the Huguenots, and had described them, as it were, as persons who were fairly well-off, and who came here with well-packed portmanteaux, hat boxes, and Gladstone bags. His own view of the historic movement into this country was that it was not a movement that took place at one particular date—any one year—
  852
  as the hon. Member seemed to think, but was spread over a considerable period of time. Whether this Bill were a wise one or not, it was impossible in principle to-draw any distinction between the earlier-migrations and the migrations of to-day. The great body of the Huguenot refugees, for instance, who arrived in this country did so under circumstances of great poverty, and their competition was strongly objected to by the workmen of those days. Not long ago he saw some very interesting extracts upon the point in the St. James's Gazette, which he believed was a Conservative newspaper. [Cries of "No."] Then, never mind what the name of the paper was, but he knew it was a Unionist organ, and it published a very interesting account of large meetings, held at that time in the neighbourhood of London, of working-men who protested and memorialised the House against the unfair competition of the Huguenot refugees. After hearing, the Prime Minister's speech, and comparing it with the speeches of some of the Government's supporters, not to mention the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, they could not on that side understand on what ground the Bill was defended. Was it defended on the ground that it would keep out the illegitimate competition of competent and able workmen, or on the ground that it would merely keep out the incompetent workmen? They had a right to ask the Government which horse they were riding, for they could not ride both.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid hon. Members opposite kept casting flies over the Ministerial Benches to see whether the fish would rise. The other day they tried to catch the shipowners—[An HON. MEMBER: And they rose.] On the contrary, the shipowners were generally satisfied with the Amendments which were put down to meet their views. He ventured to think that those whom the noble Lord had now endeavoured to attract would be equally shy of his inducements. They defended the Bill because they wished to keep out the incompetent aliens, who might become a charge on the country. That policy was clearly laid down, as the noble Lord opposite had admitted, by the Prime Minister. The noble Lord was quite justified in asking him

  853
  what his views were, and he thought that he had given a distinct Answer to his challenge. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who had taken part in this discussion, had constantly thrown it in their teeth that by this Bill the Government were endeavouring to make a new crime, and that crime was poverty, and that they were endeavouring to keep out of this country all these poor aliens. This sub-section provided that an alien who came to settle here must show that he was able to live as a decent citizen. The Bill proceeded upon the principle that there was no reason why this country should put itself under an obligation to maintain the destitute of foreign countries. He thought not only that aliens who were likely to become a charge upon the rates ought to be kept out, but that those who were likely to become a charge upon charity should be admitted with great caution.
  He had been asked whether an alien would be refused admission who had an agreement to work in this country. Of course, if a man could produce evidence to show that he was coming here to enter into an employment at a fair wage, the immigration officer would pass him. There was no desire to keep out any alien who would be able to maintain himself and live up to the public-health requirements simply because he might compete with the labourers of this country. The Huguenots had been referred to, but many of them were people of means, and those who were poor were by no means undesirable aliens in the sense of the Bill, because they had a knowledge of trades by which they were able to maintain themselves independently in this country. Not only so, but they introduced all sorts of new trades, and that showed that they were not undesirable aliens as described in this sub-section.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid a large number of figures had been given and there had been a lot of talk about the. Huguenot refugees, but he did not think these things had anything at all to do with the question. It had been said by the other side that the working men of this country were in favour of this Bill. He admitted that the working men were not against excluding undesirables if
  854
  they could get at the exact meaning of that term. That was to him the gist of the whole thing. What they wanted to know was what was an undesirable so far as the welfare of the country was concerned. It was possible that a man with plenty of money might be more undesirable than a man without a shilling in his pocket. The Home Secretary had let loose in that discussion a very important consideration—that a man might be brought here under contract to work. If a man came here and could show that he had work to do he was, regardless of his character, a desirable.
  MR. AKEKS-DOUGLAS: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. My point was this—that if a man coming in here brought a letter showing he could get employment, the immigration officer would not be likely to reject him on the ground that he would not be able to support himself.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that was just what he was trying to say. If there was a dispute in this country an employer could go to the Continent and engage men, no matter how undesirable they were. [Loud MINISTERIAL cries of "No, No!"] Would hon. Gentlemen opposite allow the Home Secretary to conduct his own case? Were hon. Members opposite in confabulation with the Home Secretary when he drew up the Bill? Did they hold a Cabinet meeting? The Home Secretary gave them one Answer and Caliban gave another. There was one hon. Gentleman in that House who had come over here in a tramp steamer with no work to go to and he was supporting this Bill through thick and thin. That Gentleman had been honoured by the Government and they all honoured him, for he bore his title honourably, but, nevertheless, he came over to this country a friendless boy to take the first employment he could get, and yet he was in favour of the Bill, which would exclude men who were in the same category as himself. The Home Secretary had said that all a man had to do was to show the immigration officer that he could maintain himself and his dependents in this country. It was like the old lady's advice that they should never go into the

  855
  water until they had learned to swim. How could an alien show that he could maintain himself until he had found employment? Did the Home Secretary know why the immigration laws were passed in America? It was because of the contract labour that was being imported. If a man went to New York or any other port and stated that he had got work he would not be allowed to land. He hoped the same principle would not be insisted upon here. The Bill stated that an alien was undesirable if he could not show that he had in his possession, or was in a position to obtain, the means of "decently supporting himself and his dependents (if any)." What was the meaning of "decently?" Who was to be the judge of decency? There were some men whose judgment might be affected by an attack of indigestion after dinner. He had often said that the sentence passed on a prisoner depended on the Judge's stomach. It was quite possible under the Bill for honest, trustworthy, desirable men to be shut out and men whose every action and intention would entirely contravene all dictates of morality to be admitted. The working men of East Finsbury were entirely against the Bill. Scotch miners did not object to alien immigrants if they came of their own accord to seek work.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that a resolution was passed by the Trades Union Congress last year, in the following terms—
  "That we urge on the Government to take such steps as shall prevent foreign and unskilled labour from entering mines."
  MR. JOHN WILSONasked whether the hon. Member was aware that a man had to serve two years before he could work as a skilled miner. In the mines of Scotland these unskilled men were sent with Davy-lamps in their hands into the mines to the jeopardy of the other workers. All that the resolution required was that the men should be properly trained. We were the greatest emigrating nation under the sun. Our sons went everywhere. But they would be turned back as aliens if measures like this were in operation. What the working men of
  856
  this country demanded was a fair field and no favour for all classes, whether they reached these shores as steerage or as cabin passengers.
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid he wished to correct a statement made by an hon. Member for a Division of Lancashire before dinner, to the effect that if the Bill were placed on the Statute-book and aliens were thereby kept out they would deprive the East End of London of the cheap-furniture trade. He rented a factory not long ago to people who made this furniture. They were not aliens at all, though they were of Semitic origin. There was no harm in that. They were financed from the other side, they paid their rent, and that was all he had to bother his head about. It was absurd to say that if the Bill were passed the cheap-furniture trade would leave the East End of London. Statements were frequently made with reference to individual trades, with a view to prejudicing this Bill with the public, which left much to be desired on the score of correctness.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the Committee had had a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Mid-Durham. He thought that was a very encouraging thing in these days when organised labour was asserting for itself in the country a position apart from either of the great Parties. The language of the hon. Member for Mid-Durham showed that he was on the side of what was generous and large-minded, and not on the side of what was narrow, selfish, sordid, and harsh. It was quite true, as the hon. Member had pointed out, that there was the very greatest difference between an individual who sought this country as a refuge, and labourers who were brought here or to the Colonies in batches for the purpose of artificially lowering wages in the labour market. He hoped that difference was thoroughly realised by the representatives of labour and capital on the benches opposite. As had been pointed out, by the hon. Gentleman before dinner, any man who could show that he had a contract in this country, or any number of men who were brought over and could show that they had a

  857
  prospect of immediate employment, would not be within the scope of the terms of this sub-section in any way.
  The Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Oldham raised a vital issue—namely, whether poverty as such, and unaccompanied by any other disadvantage or disagreeable circumstance, should be a sufficient ground for excluding aliens from our shores. It had been pointed out that a healthy man was not destitute. If he had the intention and desire to work he was not a burden to the community, but an asset. This clause had three or four sub-sections, but the subsection they were dealing with was the only one that could be operative. All the others were shams. Everyone knew that if a man chose to pay a few shillings to secure a cabin passage he would be able to come into this country without let or hindrance at all. Every other disqualification which could attach to an immigrant was provided for in the other sub-sections. Poverty, and poverty alone, was the disqualification provided for in this sub-section. His hon. friend the Member for Greenwich had said quite reasonably that if a man was likely to loaf about the country sleeping under hedges, and not able to maintain himself properly, it was very proper that the country should exclude such a man. But he submitted that such a case would be almost always excluded under other sub-sections.
  Let them take the question whether a person should be excluded from the country on the ground of poverty alone. The question of alien immigration divided itself absolutely into two sections—the exclusion of immigrants in volume and the improvement in the quality of immigration. It was as easy to reduce the quantity as it was hard to improve the quality. The Government had been asked tonight to which of these two courses they adhered. Did they want reduction in the body of alien immigration, or was it an improvement in the quality they were seeking? In regard to quality, the attitude which many on his side of the House had adopted was well known to the Committee. They wished to exclude the undesirable alien. If there was a practical plan, produce it
  858
  by all means, and there would not be any great objection. Nothing, on the other hand, would be more easy than to reduce the number of alien immigrants. But the necessity must be shown by statistics. Did right hon. Gentlemen opposite deny that there were fewer aliens in this country in proportion to the population than in any other country? It had been denied to-night by one of the most able Members on the Treasury Bench—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. The hon. Member stated that 75,000 aliens settled in this country last year. Did the Attorney-General make himself responsible for that figure? Was the right hon. and learned Member a party to that assertion? He paused for a reply. He was sorry the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was not in his place. There were very great disadvantages in the course of debate when members of the Government who occupied positions of importance came down to the House and made highly controversial speeches, and did not remain to hear the criticism, or to answer inquiries which might arise. If 75,000 immigrants came to this country last year, and if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was right that in the last ten years the increase in the alien population of this country had been 750,000, that was a very serious number. An increase of 7,000 a year would not be a serious question, because the population was increasing at the rate of 400,000, but 750,000 in ten years would indeed be a serious question and would justify some of the enthusiasm of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. If that number had landed in this country in the last ten years, where had they all been accommodated? It was only in particular districts in the country—in Stepney and in the East End of London, in parts of Glasgow and Leeds, that the alien question had produced a problem of a grave and complex character, bat those were only particular districts, and so far as he knew they were the only localities in this country where the question could be said to be real. He admitted that it might be an acute question in these cases, but it was in no sense a national,

  859
  a racial, or an economic question. Except in these particular places it was a Party question pure and simple, which had been raised to a position of fictitious importance because it was believed to have in it the makings of a Party cry when an election, which was apprehended with some anxiety, was approaching. Even the Prime Minister was careful not to associate himself with the figures his subordinate had quoted, and the Attorney-General wrapped himself up in gloomy silence. The Royal Commission said the nearest approach to accurate information about the number of alien immigrants who settled annually was to be found in the Census Returns, and these Returns stated that the number was between 6,000 and 7,000 and not between 70,000 and 80,000. If those figures were wrong the statement they had heard from the Treasury Bench was most misleading. If the Secretary to the Board of Trade believed that they were correct he could not have made himself thoroughly acquainted with the details of the question on which he professed to advise the House; and if the hon. Gentleman believed that they were not correct, then he would be drawn to a conclusion which the Chairman would not allow him to express in Parliamentary language. He wished to direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that when these grossly inaccurate figures were quoted, no one on the Treasury Bench got up and supported them; but, nevertheless, the Prime Minister, the Minister in charge of the Bill, the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, and the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, instead of putting the Committee right on the matter, all sat there and took full advantage of allowing the House to believe the statements which they at least knew to be misleading.
  He should regret to have to put an undue strain on the indulgence of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He would support in the division the Amendment of his hon. friend, because it embodied the simple proposition, on the merits of which the country would have to decide, that in the present state of alien immigration, and in the present state of labour and trsde in this country,
  860
  mere poverty, as such, should not be a sufficient reason for excluding aliens from our shores. That was a substantive proposition which would induce him to support the hon. Gentleman in the lobby. But he could not resist a passing expression of contempt at the spectacle of a great Party trying to retrieve its shattered reputation by exploiting and aggravating the miseries of some of the weakest and poorest of mankind.
  MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid he should like to thank the hon. Member for Oldham for the kind manner in which the hon. Gentleman had referred to him and his action in regard to this matter. However, when the hon. Gentleman said that this was a Party question, got up and exploited for Party ends by hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, including himself, then he asked the hon. Member for Oldham how he reconciled that with the attitude of Liberal Members of Parliament, and all candidates for Parliamentary honours on the Liberal side in the East End of London, who had joined in this so called spurious agitation, who had endorsed it on every platform, and had finally begged their leaders in the House of Commons to support the Bill as it stood. Let the hon. Member for Oldham thresh that out with the hon. Member for Poplar. He referred the hon. Member for Oldham to the many speeches made by the hon. Member for Poplar in which the latter had said far stronger things in regard to alien immigration than he had ever ventured to utter in this House or on the platform. He said now, as he had said on the Second Reading, that if they were to be accused of organising this agitation for Party ends, then hon. Members on the opposite side of the House were tarred with the same brush.
  As to the question of the figures, he had dealt with that very fully in his speech on the Second Reading. The matter was gone into thoroughly by the Royal Commission, of which he was a member, and they came to the conclusion, after the most exhaustive inquiry, that there were really no satisfactory statistics at all on the subject, and that the census on which hon. Gentlemen opposite now

  861
  relied, gave in itself no accurate indication of the amount of alien immigration and its effects on the country. The hon. Member for Oldham had very truly said that, as regarded the whole population of the country, this was a very small matter. But it was a very large matter in certain areas. The Daily Chronicle, a paper which represented the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, said it was no relief to a man who was starving to tell him that the average consumption of food of the 41,000,000 inhabitants of this country was satisfactory; nor was it any relief to tell a district, where the aliens were counted by tens of thousands, that if these were spread over the whole country they would hardly be visible at all. That was precisely the point. It was no consolation to tell the people of Stepney and other districts, that this was a very insignificant matter, and that, therefore, they had no cause of complaint. He maintained that if they had, as they did have, in the East End of London an enormous stream of these people coming from Heaven knows where—if they had got a pressure of fully 80,000 of these people in the East End, then a point had been reached when some restrictions should be made to this invasion.
  MR. CHURCHILLasked if the hon. and gallant Gentleman, from his own information, could say what had been the increase of the alien population for the last ten years?
  MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid he had the evidence of his own sense, and the enormously increased and increasing area occupied by foreigners, and he maintained that the census figures, as submitted by the Registrar-General, were inaccurate, although they showed that there were 54,310 alien residents in the borough of Stepney, that all the neighbouring districts were being increasingly affected, and that these great and alarming figures did not take into consideration the children born here of foreign parents. When estimating the total effect, they must take into consideration all the people who were here now who would not have been here but for this immigration. He held
  862
  that the pressure arising from this immigration was enormous. If hon. Members could see, as he had seen, street after street absolutely depopulated of their English inhabitants and replaced by aliens, then they would agree with him, and all those, irrespective of Party, acquainted with the facts, that the evil had passed all bounds, and that the time had come when they must endeavour to reduce it, and see that only those who were in a position to maintain themselves and their dependents in circumstances of decency were permitted to come here in the future.
  Let him refer to the economic aspect of the question. It was said that these aliens did not compete adversely with our own people, but were a benefit both to themselves and to the native community. For the benefit of hon. Members opposite who held that view he would quote a. paper which represented their opinions. The Daily News of June 19th, referring to a district in the West of London, said—
  "Hitherto the presence of Swedes, Austrians, Germans, and the rest, had only augmented the labour army without any serious effect on prices, but recent influxes of aliens had produced a totally opposite result. The price paid for a coat in Soho to British tailors averaged about 25s., and this price has been maintained to the satisfaction of masters and men. Now a decline is apparent, for the alien thinks that less than half that sum is sufficient pay, and in one of the largest establishments an all-round price of 5s. for every kind of coat has just been arranged. Thus the tailoring industry was being undermined by the indiscriminating undercutting of workmen who had no real knowledge of their handicraft—a process which, if it was not stopped, would bring disaster on the country."
  He contended that that disclosed a state of things which it was the duty of Parliament to consider and take every measure to stop.
  They were told that they were going to exclude these people on the ground of poverty alone. He denied that statement. Poverty in itself should be no bar; a man might be very poor and yet make an excellent citizen. On the other hand, a man might be very poor and very bad. They could not generalise on this question. A man might be rich and yet be a bad citizen. What they had to do was to discriminate

  863
  between the good and the bad. The board set up by the Bill was a tribunal admirably calculated to discover which of the people who came here were likely to be suitable settlers and good citizens of this country. He had seen similar authorities at work at Hamburg, Bukarest, and other towns on the Continent, performing precisely this function of selecting emigrants for America and other countries. Although hon. Members opposite said that it was impossible to make this discrimination they would be surprised with what facility the work of these authorities was performed. There were vast numbers of people here who would not have been allowed to land had they been first examined. The Jewish Board of Guardians were repatriating many of these people because they found that they were absolutely unfit for anything. He held that the machinery which the Bill proposed to set up would be of real and tangible benefit to the people of this country, and to the foreign population also.
  DR. HUTCHINSONsaid that the position which they, on that side of the House, had taken up had always been the same. They were perfectly willing to consider any Bill to keep out criminals, diseased, idiotic, or otherwise helpless and hopeless people. This Bill, however, was not a practical measure from that point of view. All over the country Tory candidates said that the Liberals misrepresented all questions introduced and carried out by this Tory Government—questions of education, licensing, Chinese labour, and the like. Time would prove that the Liberals had been perfectly right on all these questions. The other day he was down at the Chichester election and there was a huge placard, eight feet by four, with a line drawn down the middle. On one side there was the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition beckoning with a very pleasant smile to a long perspective of aliens to come here; and on the other side of the line there was the right hon. Member for East Fife and an array of British working men with their tools on their shoulders. The legend was, "We have no room for these
  864
  British working men; we want the men on the other side of the picture."
  The Home Secretary said that they did not want to keep out aliens on social grounds, but that they were likely to compete with British workmen. Could misrepresentation go further than that Hon. Members knew well that this Bill would not keep out a single man with health and strength, who was able to compete with British workmen, although it might keep out lunatics, diseased persons, paupers, and criminals. One would imagine from what was said on the Ministerial Benches that there was not a single alien in London except in the East End. There were aliens in the West End as well as in the East End. Take the case of a man who came up to London for a night's pleasure. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, Bishops sometimes did that. He went to a West End hotel, where he was received by a cashier who was a Frenchman, shown to the lift by a German, and a Swiss took him to his room and carried his luggage. He ordered his dinner from a French mailre d'hotel, he was served by a German waiter, and the food was cooked by a French chef. Afterwards he went outside, got into a motor-car driven by a French chauffeur, and visited the Italian Opera. The overture at the Opera was played by a foreign band, and the only man who looked at all like an Englishman was he who played the triangle. He heard the whole opera sung by Italian or other foreign artistes. After the Opera his supper was served in an Italian restaurant, and, lighting a Turkish cigarette, he proceeded to walk home. On his way there, he was accosted in one street by a French courtesan, in another by an Austrian demi-mondaine, and in a third by a German prostitute. There was not a single one of these classes which would be kept out by this Bill, with the exception perhaps of the last, which would displace British labour. He wanted to call attention to the difference between the aliens in the East End and those in the West End. The East End alien served the poor by making cheaper clothes and boots; the West End alien catered for the pleasures of the rich; therefore they heard nothing in these debates about the West End aliens. He

  865
  maintained that this Bill would not effect the object it proposed to accomplish. It was a mere "shop-window Bill." Although he was entirely in favour of shutting out criminal aliens, this Bill would not effect that purpose.
  MR. CROOKSsaid that hon. Members opposite claimed that the whole East End supported themselves and this Bill. He really did know a little about the East End, so much so that on the night of the Second Reading four supporters of the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney, who had been dining in the House, too well, but not wisely, had cried to intimidate him on the railway platform of Westminster Bridge Station, under the impression that the Bill was introduced for the express purpose of preventing overcrowding, abolishing sweating, reducing rents, and expelling the alien out of the East End. But for a belief of that kind this Bill would not be looked at in the East End of London, and to say that it would accomplish that object was not only wrong, but it made the measure a sham. If the hon. and gallant Member's speech was in the Bill, then he thought that they might all agree to it. It was a magnificent speech from their standpoint; but that the Bill would carry out the views of the hon. and gallant Member was another story. It was a Bill for the convenience of the rich, and provided another law for the inconvenience of the poor. They were led to believe that this Government was going to lessen sweating and overcrowding, and that it was going to send the people out into the country. Had they never heard of "greeners," who supplied capital to bring over aliens, 500 at a time, who shortly found their way to Colney Hatch, there to be maintained at the expense of the English ratepayers? He did not believe that this Bill was going to send one of these people back to their own country. Of course, he insisted that the sacred right of asylum for political and religious refugees should be maintained. When this Bill had been in operation two years and no alien had been turned out he did not think he would care to change places with hon. Gentlemen opposite. The nation was hungry for genuine legislation for the amelioration
  866
  of the lot of the people, and to waste time on a measure like this was positively abominable. He knew quite well what were the needs of these people, and to take any notice of leading articles published in the local papers imploring them not to offer any opposition to this Bill would make them as criminal as the promoters. The whole thing was a sham, and he protested against it.
  COLONEL WILLIAMSsaid that scarcely any of the speeches which had been delivered by hon. Gentlemen opposite dealt with the Amendment now before the Committee. [OPPOSITION cries of "Order" and "Withdraw."]
  THE CHAIRMAN: If I thought that any of those speeches had not been in order I should have called the speakers to order.
  COLONEL WILLIAMSsaid that he had no intention whatever in what he had said of casting any reflection upon the conduct of the Chairman. With regard to the argument put forward that this was a very small Bill the reason for that was to be found in the fact that hon. Gentleman opposite defeated a Bill last year which was a much more drastic measure than this. He hoped the Government would soon treat the Bill as it ought to be treated, and would not allow the vexatious opposition which was being offered to it to continue.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the Member for Durham had given utterance to the view which was generally shared by the leaders of labour on the imposture which the Committee were now discussing. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who represented Stepney said that there were no satisfactory statistics on the alien question. The statistics were sufficient to prove that between 7,000 and 10,000 per annum was the maximum number of arrivals in the United Kingdom from abroad; the census, indeed, put the number at from 6,000 to 7,000. The hon. Member for Stepney stretched figures one way and manipulated statistics the other. The only parallel to the misrepresentations of the real facts

  867
  of the case put forward on this Bill was supplied by the Prison-Made Goods Bill, which was twin brother to this measure in imposture and deceit. He appealed to the hon. Member to say whether, if this Bill were carried, there would be a single alien excluded from Stepney who could settle there how. Whilst the war continued between Russia and Japan there might be 1,000 or 2,000 Russian refugees driven by political persecution to accept the hospitality of the East End of London. Were hon. Gentlemen opposite in favour of excluding political refugees from Russia and religious refugees from the East who were flying from a tyranny which we ought to approve of them escaping from. The hon. and gallant Member for Stepney talked as if this was a burning question in London as a whole, but it was only a burning question when the object of this Bill was misrepresented. The electors of the East End were told at a recent election that this Bill would remove the pauper aliens who were now depriving them of their work and their liberty, and that it would put an end to sweating. It was not true that the Bill would stop sweating. It was not true that the poverty-stricken people who found refuge here deprived us of our liberty. The people who deprived us of our liberty were the wealthy foreign aliens consorting with the sons of those who came over with William the Norman. To talk of this Bill stopping sweating was to repeat only a vulgar, low election cry pandering to the ignorant.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is now going too much into general terms.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that the effect of this sub-section would be to raise up racial feeling such as they had not experienced for two or three centuries. Sub-section (a) would not keep out the souteneur, the foreign criminal, the men who, in the main, were found in the neighbourhood of Soho, Regent Street, and Piccadilly, and who, presuming on our hospitality, plied a dangerous calling for an immoral end. That kind of scoundrel did not come in the steerage. He stole an English countess's jewels at Berlin,
  868
  or a first-class passenger's ticket at Calais or Dieppe, looked like a German count, and talked like a foreign waiter. There was no need to pass Sub-section (a) for such people, even if it would exclude them. Let the Bill of Lord Alverstone a few years ago be pat into force for them. The hon. and gallant Member for Stepney would exclude, not such persons, but the poorer people who came prepared to work for their living. The poor German nurse girl lured to London by an advertisement was to be refused admittance, but Mrs. Bradley Martin was to be admitted. The Swedish stevedore, poor, strong, and healthy, was not to be allowed to work among his fellows if he did not hold a certificate, but the Bill would allow such an alien to come in as he who came, wealthy with other people's money, and on Thursday gave a dinner at the Savoy Hotel at a cost of £3,000, and at the rate of £125 a head. Such a man the Bill would not touch, though he did more to damage the moral fibre of rich and poor than 100 honest stevedores competing for work at the docks. The Bill was not needed. The best intellects among the Conservative Party were opposed to it. It would drive the Jewish people from one of their last sanctuaries.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to keep nearer to the Amendment, and not make a Second Reading speech.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he wished to point out that Sub-section (a) would only exclude the poor Jews who sought refuge in this country, and as a labour leader he protested against this denial of the right of asylum. Let every man come who was prepared to work on fair conditions. The Factory Acts and the trade unions would ensure fair competition. Let rich Jews among the Party opposite remember that what was their lot forty years ago was the lot of others of their nation to-day. Let the Conservative Party beware of stimulating a race feud that must have effect against the rich Jews, too many of whom were, for political and mercenary motives, endeavouring to catch British votes. If the race feud came, it would be against the Jews, not of Stepney, but of the central district and the west. He appealed to,

  869
  the Conservative Party not to adopt a doctrine that was adverse to the best interests of the British people and foreign to their instincts as a free community. The men who were voting for this Bill employed Poles in Scottish mines, Lascars in British ships, and Chinese in South Africa.
  SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESSsaid it had been said that the voice of the shipowner had not been heard against this particular proposal in the Bill. He wished to say that he supported the Amendment because he felt that if Sub-section (a) was passed as it appeared in the Bill it would be a very serious matter for the country. He had known men of the class that would be excluded under the sub-section who had become respectable citizens and who, so far from displacing labour, had extended the area of employment and had created new industries which had been of great benefit to the country at large. There was another view which they might take of this matter. It was only a session or two ago that the House was informed that the Government had guaranteed a subsidy of £2,000,000 to the Cunard Steamship Company.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it would be in order to discuss the Cunard Agreement now.
  SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESSsaid his only object in mentioning that question was to show how deeply the country was interested in maintaining the large emigration trade between this country and the United States of America, and
  had he been permitted to proceed with his argument he could have shown that a direct disadvantage would accrue to the country at large in regard to any interference with this immigration. He regretted that the Secretary to the Board of Trade had encouraged the statement which had been made throughout the country that these immigrants had seriously affected labour in this country. He had stated that 75,000 immigrants arrived in this country in 1901 and had remained here. He wished to state most emphatically that no such number as 75,000 immigrants remained in this country during the year 1901. He was anxious to see every good honest workman employed, but he ventured to say that this country could never have afforded the employment it gave to-day had it not been for these very foreigners who, in the first instance, displaced British labour for a short time, but who, after living in this country some time, had become respectable citizens and had revived old industries and created new ones. It was for these reasons that he desired to say how strongly he felt with regard to this sub-section. He was as anxious as any Member in the House to exclude undesirables from our shores, but in attempting to achieve that object the Committee should take care that they did not deprive the country of the benefit which these people conferred by aiding and encouraging trade and manufacture.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 215; Noes, 158. (Division List No 227)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar

  Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Campbell, J. H M. (Dublin Univ.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Arnold-Forster, Bt. Hn. H. O.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Big-wood, James

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Bill, Charles

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Bingham, Lord

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A (Worc.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chapman, Edward

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bond, Edward

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Coates, Edward Feetham

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

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Brodrick, Bt. Hn. St. John

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bull, William James

  Cross, Herb, Shepherd (Bolton)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lamont, Norman

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir J. C.

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Legge, Col. Hn. Heneage

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Doughty, Sir George

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Long, Col. Chas W. (Evesham)

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manc'r

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Forster, Henry William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stock, James Henry

  Gardner, Ernest

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'm'ts

  Milvain, Thomas

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Tomkinson, James

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Tuff, Charles

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tumour, Viscount

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. N. W

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

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

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Percy, Earl

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T (Denbigh)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Purvis, Robert

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Kerr, John

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wylie, Alexander

  Keswick, William

  Randies, John S.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rankin, Sir James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  NOES.

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

  Boland, John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brigg, John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Asher, Alexander

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Byce, Rt. Hon. James

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Burns, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.

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

  Cremer, William Randal

  Bell, Richard

  Caldwell, James

  Crombie, John William

  Benn, John Williams

  Cameron, Robert

  Crooks, William

  Black, Alexander William

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Cullinan, J.

  872

  873

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lambert, George

  Reddy, M.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roche, John (Galway, East

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Runciman, Walter

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Russell, T. W.

  Duffy, Wm. J.

  Lundon, W.

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Edwards, Frank

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Ellice, Capt E C (SAndrew'sB'ghs

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Seely, Clias. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Crae, George

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

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Kean, John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sheehy, David

  Farrell, James Patrick

  W'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

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

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Mooney, John J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Moss, Samuel

  Sullivan, Donal

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Muldoon, John

  Taylor, Theodore C (Radcliffe)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Toulmin, George

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E (Berwick)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Ure, Alexander

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Wallace, Robert

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  O'Brien, P. J (Tipperary, N.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Harwood, George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Dowd, John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Malley, William

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  O'Mara, James

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Perks, Robert William

  Young, Samuel

  Joyce, Michael

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Priestley, Arthur

  Kitson, Sir James

  Rea, Russell

  MR. BRIGHT,in moving so to amend Sub-section (a) as to throw upon the authorities the onus of proving the inability of a person to obtain a livelihood, said the important constitutional point raised by the Amendment had been to a certain extent dealt with on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. Under the clause an alien would be refused admission to the country if he could not show that he was in possession of means of decently supporting himself; that was to say, he would be held to be guilty of poverty unless he could prove his innocence. That was an absolute inversion of the law, customs, and traditions of the country.
  MR. PEELsubmitted, on a point of order, that the question now raised had been already dealt with on a previous Amendment, viz., that moved by the hon. Member for King's Lynn.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that, haying considered the matter, he did not consider the question to be covered by the Amendment referred to. The Amendment of the hon. Member for King's Lynn dealt with the plan of procedure of the immigration board, whereas the present Amendment referred to the immigration officer.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid he had no intention of re-debating the question further than to point out that his Amendment raised a concrete case. Although, as the Prime Minister had stated, the Bill was one of administration and did not deal with civil rights, the fact remained that an administrative Bill should not over-ride civil rights. The country was governed by precedent, and what was done to-day for aliens might be done to-morrow for our own countrymen. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 23, to leave out from the word 'if' to the end of the line, and insert the words 'it can be shown that he has not in his possession or is not in a'"—(Mr. Bright.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid they were dealing not with any question of the administration of the criminal law, but merely with an inquiry into a simple question of fact, and what the Committee had to determine was upon whom it was most convenient the burden of proof should rest. If the alien had means in his possession it would be easy for him to prove it, whereas it would be practically impossible for the immigration officer or the board to prove that he had not means. Any business man would say that the proper way of dealing with the matter was to put the burden of proof upon the alien.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the argument as put forward by the Attorney-General was general in its application, but surely the right hon. Gentleman would not assert that a lunatic should be required to prove that he was a lunatic, an idiot that he was an idiot, or another person that he had been sentenced in a foreign country. It was clear that in all such cases the onus of proof must be on the officer making the charge. Why, then, was it unreasonable to apply to this particular sub-section the same principles that would have to be applied to other sub-sections? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be extremely anxious to make the ordeal of these unfortunate people as severe as possible, and apparently he came to the House with no other object than to put the screw on the most miserable members of the human family. If there was any means by which he could make their lot harder and their burden heavier, the right hon. Gentleman did not hesitate to avail himself of it. It was obvious that whether before the immigration board or the immigration officer aliens were to have short shrift. The Prime Minister had stated that what was wanted was a rough-and-ready method of dealing with aliens, that it was a matter
  876
  of administration and not of justice, and he certainly seemed to have got an Attorney-General who had thoroughly imbibed the principles of the Bill, and was ready to turn his legal talents to no better purpose than the finding of arguments to justify such a measure.
  MR. DALZIELasked what kind of instructions were to be given to the immigration officer as to the amount of money an immigrant should have in his possession before being allowed to land. Was the amount to be £10, £15, or £20? He presumed that some instructions would be given, as it was surely not to be suggested that the immigration officer should have a perfectly free hand in the matter. Had the Government conceived the possibility of an agency being established in this country for supplying the immigrants with the necessary amount of money to enable them to land? There was nothing whatever in the Bill to prevent immigrants being met by an agent and receiving from him a loan sufficient to comply with the financial conditions to landing. These were matters which ought to be dealt with at the present stage, and the Committee were entitled to know what instructions would be given to the immigration officers who would have to deal with the circumstances when they arose.
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

  WAR STORES COMMISSION BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)asked to be allowed, in view of the special circumstances of the case, to take the Third Reading.
  Objection being taken, the Motion was postponed.
  Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N. R. Thirsk) in the Chair.
  Clause 1:—
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. DALZIEL MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy. Burghs) moved to report Progress. He said that hon. Members had not had notice that the Bill would be taken. A few nights ago when the Government announced that the Bill would be taken, many Members interested in the matter waited, but to-night, not at all expecting it would come on, they had gone home. He submitted that, under the circumstances, it would be very unfair to take the Committee stage without notice.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,said that when the Bill was put down the other night he was asked by hon. Gentlemen opposite not to take it that night. The measure was one for which there was urgency, and, as no object would be gained by postponement, he hoped the Committee would now proceed with the consideration of the clause.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he was sure the communication with the other side was not made through the ordinary official channels.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite leaned across the Table and said, "I suppose you will not take the Bill to-night?"
  MR. DALZIELdid not regard that as a representation; it was merely a request for information. The right hon. Gentleman would get his Bill much
  878
  more easily if he gave twenty-four hours notice.
  MR. LOUGHhoped the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the request of his hon. friend. Nothing would be gained by pressing the Bill to-night, and it was only reasonable that some notice should be given.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid there was something peculiarly inappropriate in taking this Bill without notice. This year a Consolidated Fund Bill had been brought forward in a manner contrary to all precedent, and methods had been adopted that were contrary to good finance. It was therefore essential that the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill should not be taken without due notice.
  MR. CHURCHILLasked whether the Committee were not to have any Answer from the Leader of the House. A request, couched in extremely moderate language, had been made that the Bill should be postponed for a day. It was extremely inconvenient that so important a matter should be thrust upon the Committee after midnight. If the right hon. Gentleman's desire was to get the measure through by a covert manœuvre he thought it possible that the discussion might be protracted till quite a late hour in the morning. The Prime Minister really treated the House with utter contempt. The right hon. Gentleman hardly ever condescended to enter the House during the ordinary course of business except for the purpose of proposing some gagging Resolution. If no Answers were to be obtained to reasonable Questions he thought the time had come when every opportunity still remaining in the hands of a minority should be used to protest against such treatment.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,said the hon. Gentleman accused him of treating the House with contempt. That was the last sentiment that ever entered his mind. He did not say that there were no individuals in the House for whom at times he might not entertain contempt, but for

  879
  the House itself, never. The hon. Gentleman accused him of not having got up to answer the Question; but, so far as he knew, no Question had been put which had not been already answered by his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was responsible for the conduct of this Bill through the House-His right hon. friend might have added, however, that when hon. Members talked in the same breath of a departure from ancient precedent and also of the importance of discussion on the Committee
  stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill they showed complete forgetfulness or ignorance of what was perfectly familiar to all the older Members of the House. There was no case of an important debate ever having taken place on this stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 136. (Division List No. 228.)

  AYES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hammond, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Asher, Alexander

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Dowd, John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Malley, William

  Black, Alexander William

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Mara, James

  Boland, John

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden

  Brigg, John

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Priestley, Arthur

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Russell

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan. W

  Reddy, M.

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lamont, Norman

  Roche, John (Galway, East

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Russell, T. W.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Crean, Eugene

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cremer, William Randal

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Toulmin, George

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Crae, George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Ellice, Capt E C (S Andrw'sBghs

  Moss, Samuel

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Muldoon, John

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Murphy, John

  Wilson, Fred W (Norfolk, Mid.)

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Dalziel and Major Seely.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bond, Edward

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Davenport, Wm. Bromley

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.

  Brassey, Albert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Doughty, Sir George

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Balcarres, Lord

  Campbell, J. H M (Dublin Univ.

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

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

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cavendish, V. C W. (Derbyshire

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssBghs.

  Banner, John S Harmood-

  Chamberlain. Rt Hn J A (Worc.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Chapman, Edward

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Forster, Henry William

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bingham, Lord

  Compton, Lord Alywne

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Hamilton, Marqof (L'nd'nderry

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Hay, Hn. Claude George

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)

  Heath, Sir Jas (Staffords, N. W.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur Ormskirk

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Hunt, Rowland

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Jeffreys, Ht. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tuff, Charles

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Kerr, John

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Keswick, William

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Percy, Earl

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Warde, Colonel C. E

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Lawson, Hn. H L W (Mile End)

  Purvis, Robert

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Randles, John S.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rankin, Sir James

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol. S

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Question again proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he desired to call the attention of the Committee to the disastrous state of His Majesty's land forces.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that would be clearly out of order. It was a well-known rule of the House that such general discussions were in order on the Second and Third Reading of the Bill, but it had been laid down time after time that they were not in order in Committee.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid that as he understood the precedent it was not in order to discuss the general condition of the land forces in Committee on the Consolidated Fund Bill under ordinary circumstances, but under exceptional circumstances, such as took place in 1884, he believed it was held that the state of uncertainty could be discussed.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he had carefully studied the precedents of the last twenty years, and he was confident that that was not so.
  MR. CHURCHILLunderstood the ruling of the Chair to be that no general subject such as would be relevant to a Second Reading debate was in order in Committee. He presumed, however, that any specific item of expenditure included in the sum dealt with by this clause to which exception was taken could be discussed on the present occasion.
  THE CHAIRMANexplained that the Committee could not over-rule a decision of the House itself, and the House had already decided by the Resolution of June 6th that this particular sum should be granted out of the Consolidated Fund. It would therefore be out of order for the Committee to attempt to go behind the decision of the House.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the Question put from the Chair was "that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill," and the Committer, of course, could either reject or accept that Motion. Therefore, while it was in order to reject the clause absolutely, it was apparently not in order to assign any reason for taking such a course.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that so far as he could gather from the precedents that

  883
  was what had always been ruled. He did not defend it; he simply adhered to the practice of the House.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether the Chairman meant to assert that on no previous occasion had Members been allowed in Committee on the Consolidated Fund Bill to discuss the merits of the clauses or to move Amendments to them; and, further, whether be ruled that no Amendment whatever could be made to Clause 1 or any other clause in the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid his ruling referred to a particular Amendment on Clause 1. When other clauses were reached, if any Amendments were put forward, he would rule upon them.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether it would be in order for any Member who objected to the procedure to be adopted in raising this money to move the postponement of Clause 1 until the borrowing proposals had been discussed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No, I think not.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked what, then, could be discussed. This sum of £16,000,000 included an item of £1,000 or £2,000 in connection with the Deputy Judge Advocate-General's office. Could he discuss that, or were the Members of the House of Commons to vote money simply as automata?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that precisely the same point was raised by the late Member for Cork in 1885, and it was then held that he could not move such an Amendment.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked whether the Committee was to understand that they could not discuss anything.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he had ruled that it was not in order to discuss the condition of the land forces. That was the only subject which had yet been suggested for discussion.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: Is there anything we can discuss?
  THE CHAIRMAN: All I can say is that for twenty years the ingenuity of many Inn. Members has been directed to finding something to discuss, and they have never succeeded in finding anything.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he would not venture to comment upon the results of the ruling just given, but the Committee were in a very peculiar position. They were asked to express an opinion as to whether or not Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill, but they were not allowed to consider any of the facts relevant to such a decision. But the question was not merely whether the clause should be embodied in the Bill; there was the further point of whether they ought not to decide as to the borrowing powers to be granted to the Government before they dealt with the Supply itself. He therefore moved to postpone Clause 1 until Clause 2 had been dealt with.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that such a Motion would not be in order. The Question that Clause 1 stand part had already been put, and any Motion to postpone the clause should be made before that Question was proposed from the Chair.
  MR. SOAREShoped some explanation of the clause would be given. Even if the measure were more or less of a formal character it was nevertheless necessary that the Committee should understand the Bill before they passed it.
  MR. DALZIELsaid there were various reasons why this clause should not be added to the Bill. The measure had come on unexpectedly, and many Members interested therein were not present. There was also the question of whether the Government ought to be encouraged in this policy of continually bringing in Consolidated Fund Bills.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That subject might be in order on the Second Reading, but it is certainly out of order on Clause 1.
  MR. DALZIELsaid another matter for consideration was whether the Government were a fit body to be entrusted with this amount of money.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The House has already decided that question by the Resolution of June 6th, upon which we cannot go back.
  MR. CHURCHILLasked how, if the House had already decided that the Government were to have this money, it was competent for the Committee to over-rule the decision of the House, as it obviously was competent from the very fact that the Chairman had put the Question from the Chair.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already stated the rule of the House; I am afraid I cannot argue the matter with the hon. Member.
  MR. CHURCHILLsuggested that it would be extremely convenient, and greatly to the satisfaction of all parties, if the Chairman would inaugurate his career by creating and establishing for all time a precedent that would bear some remote resemblance to commonsense.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLthought that, in view of the fact that hon. Members did not expect this discussion to come on, he was within his rights in moving the adjournment of the debate. [The Clerk at the Table made an observation to the Chairman.] He must really ask the Clerk to keep quiet. The question was for the Chairman to decide. He would submit to the decision of the proper authority, but he protested against the Chairman being the mouthpiece of any official at the Table. [Cries of "Withdraw!"] He would withdraw nothing. If the Government would not answer Questions that were put to them he was perfectly in order in moving the adjournment of the debate.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member would, no doubt, have been within his rights in moving the adjournment of the debate were it not that the Committee had just rejected a Motion to
  886
  report Progress. He could not accept the
  MR. CHURCHILLasked whether they were not entitled to have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some statement in explanation of the very important proposition which he had been responsible for commending to the House. The Committee were not allowed to criticise in detail the various public objects to be served by the Supply or to deal with any of the general subjects which appsared naturally to arise in connection with the expenditure of the money, but they were at least entitled to a statement from the responsible head of the Treasury as to the general scope of the clause. If the debate appeared to lack the element of reality, that element could be at once supplied by the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench. He would not make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, because, naturally, the right hon. Gentleman did not pay any attention to anything he said—unless it was to do the exact opposite—but the Leader of the House had assured them that, though he had a contempt for him personally, he had no contempt for the House, and he would urge the right hon. Gentleman to live up to that newly-made resolution and apply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that almost overwhelming pressure which would induce him to make to the Committee the explanation which it desired and deserved.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question pat, "That the Question be now put."
  While the House was being cleared for a division,
  MR. CALDWELLdrew attention to the fact that in 1888 when the question was raised the Chairman said—
  "The hon. Member can discuss whether it is expedient that the Supply which has been already granted by the House should or should not be appropriated, and the mode of appropriation, but those are the only questions he can raise. The Supply has been already voted; the amount has been already determined; the only question for this Committee is whether the Treasury shall be

  887
  compelled by law to appropriate the money in a certain way."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member's point, but he has over-
  looked the fact that that was an Appropriation Bill.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes, 78. (Division List No. 229.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. H. O.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'mlets

  Percy, Earl

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Purvis, Robert

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Randles, John S.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords, N W

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Bingham, Lord

  Hunt, Rowland

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bond, Edward

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Brassey, Albert

  Kerr, John

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Keswick, William

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Campbell, J. HM (Dublin Univ.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J A (Worc.

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Tuff, Charles

  Chapman, Edward

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick. N. S

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A E.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

  Milvain, Thomas

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscovnt Valentia.

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Finlay, Sir R B (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morrell, George Herbert

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cremer, Wm. Randal

  Higham, John Sharp

  Asher, Alexander

  Cullinan, J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Devlin, J. (Kilkenny, N.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Black, Alexander William

  Doogan, P. C.

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

  Boland, John

  Duffy, William J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Brigg, John

  Ellice, Capt E C (SAndrw'sB'ghs

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Caldwell, James

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

  Lough, Thomas

  Causton, Richard Knight.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herb. John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hammond, John

  M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Harcourt, Lewis

  M'Crae, George

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Crean, Eugene

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Toulmin, George

  Moss, Samuel

  Priestley, Arthur

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Muldoon, John

  Rea, Russell

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Murphy, John

  Reddy, M.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Nolan, J. (Louth, South)

  Russell, T. W.

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, Fred W (Norfolk, Mid.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Dalziel and Mr. Ellis Griffith.

  O'Malley, William

  Sullivan, Donal

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Question put accordingly, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 125; Noes, 79. (Division List No 230.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T'r H'mlets

  Percy, Earl

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Hamilton, Marqof (L'nd'nderry)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balfour, Capt C. B. (Hornsey)

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Balfour, Rt Hn G. W. (Leeds)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Purvis, Robert

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Randles, John S.

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Bingham, Lord

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T (Denbigh

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hn Col. W.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Bond, Edward

  Kerr, John

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Keswick, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Brassey, Albert

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Campbell, J H M (Dublin Univ.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lawson, Hn H L W (Mile End

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A (Wore.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Chapman, Edward

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Tuff, Charles

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Corbett, T. L (Down, North)

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

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

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Majendie, James A. H.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Morrison, James Archibald

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Caldwell, James

  Cullinan, J.

  Asher, Alexander

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Boland, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

  Brigg, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Ellice, Capt E C (SAndrw'sB'ghs

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Preistley, Arthur

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

  M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Rea, Russell

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Reddy, M.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Russell, T. W.

  Hammond, John

  Mitchell, Edw (Fermanagh, N.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Moss, Samuel

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Muldoon, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murphy, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Toulmin, George

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick ((Kilkenny)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, Fred W (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Trevelyan and Mr. Bright.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Mara, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Clause 2:—
  MR. McCRAE, in moving to omit the word "borrow," complained of the inconvenience of discussing technical financial points at that hour of the morning.
  THE CHAIRMANintimated that the hon. Member would not be in order unless he proposed to substitute some other word for the word "borrow."
  MR. McCRAEsaid he was about to show how the money could be provided if the word "borrow" was omitted.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he could not accept the Amendment as it stood, as the clause would not be sense without some verb in the place of "borrow."
  MR. CHURCHILLunderstood that his hon. friend wished to call attention to certain technical irregularities in the method of borrowing now pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in order to remove the difficulty referred to by the Chairman he would move the substitution of the word "obtain" for the word "borrow." At first sight it might appear to be a mere verbal quibble, but that was not at all the case. There were many sources from which the Treasury could obtain funds without borrowing. There was, for instance, the overdue contribution of £10,000,000 from the mineowners of South Africa. That alone would have provided considerably more than one-half of the amount dealt with in this Bill. Then
  892
  there were the enormous profits said to have been made out of the sale of stores through the genius and foresight of a paragon Secretary of State. Surely some appropriation from that source might very well be brought into account. Another method of raising funds was afforded by the giving of commissions in the Army to gentlemen who were unable to pass their examinations.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODasked, on a point of order, whether the hon. Member was not trifling with the time of the House.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member did not appear to be speaking very relevantly. He was following the remarks of the hon. Gentleman very closely, and, though he could not say he was out of order, he would ask him to keep as near to the point as possible.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid nothing was further from him than to trifle with the Committee. They were, it was true, scrutinising the Bill with greater minuteness than they would have done had not the Chancellor of the Exchequer treated the House in an abominable and discourteous manner.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid those remarks, at any rate, were not relevant.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid that possibly he had strayed a little from the subject. He suggested that the contribution from South Africa, the profits from the sale of stores, the sums that might be realised

  893
  by contributions from officers whose intellects would not enable them to pass competitive examinations, the economies which the representative of the Board of Works expected to accrue from Big Ben's being illuminated with a green instead of a yellow light, and the imposition of a charge for the admission of motor-cars into Hyde Park during certain hours, were all sources from which additional revenue might be derived. He hoped that in moving his Amendment he could count on the support of all hon. Gentlemen who disapproved of the violent, unreasonable, uncharitable, and unfair course pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in thrusting the Bill unexpectedly on the House.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 19, to leave out the word 'borrow,' and insert the word 'obtain.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'borrow' stand part of the clause."
  MR. McCRAEsaid that in his Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer obtained authority to borrow £10,000,000 on Exchequer bonds between April and December, not for the services of the year, but for the purpose of liquidating other Exchequer bonds falling out in December. The right hon. Gentleman had exercised that power to the extent of about £6,000,000. The Exchequer balances recently stood at £9,000,000 and in the following week at £10,000,000, and although they had been reduced for the moment by the payment of Supply and the laying aside of some £5,00a, 000 for the payment of dividends, the financial position was such that the right hon. Gentleman did not require to borrow to the same extent for Supply as he would have had to do in a normal year. He thought, therefore, the Committee should be very careful in giving further borrowing powers, and before any such powers were granted an undertaking ought to be given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the money would be applied only to the purposes for which it was voted. During recent years the practice of transferring money from one head to another without the consent of Parliament had grown to such an extent that it was be-
  894
  coming a danger to the State. While the financial affairs of the nation were conducted in so lax a manner there was no wonder that expenditure went on increasing by leaps and bounds. It was necessary that a stop should be put to the growth of the floating debt, but if this clause were passed without any undertaking from the Chancellor of the Exchequer he feared that that debt would not be reduced as it ought to be.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he should be extremely sorry if in his conduct of any measure he could fairly be charged with discourtesy to the House or to any Member. He honestly thought he was not open to the strong comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, which were couched in needlessly offensive language.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid his language had reference to the right hon. Gentleman's political action, not his personal demeanour.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not plead guilty to the charge, but it was unnecessary further to allude to it. With regard to the Amendment, he might remind the Committee that this was a common form of clause which had appeared for several years in these Bills, and such Bills had always been treated as non-controversial, or, at any rate, as not requiring any lengthened discussion. He need scarcely assure the Committee that the borrowing would be confined to what was absolutely necessary. The Treasury had to provide £10,000,000 against December; they could not raise it all at the last moment, so they were raising it in instalments during the year. As far as that money could be made available during the year advantage would be taken of it. But the provision was one that appeared in all such Bills, and the power to borrow was always used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with as much moderation as the circumstances permitted. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would allow the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present Government the discretion which had always been allowed by previous Bills of this character
  MR. STUART SAMUELsaid that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of bonowing in the early part of the year when money was dearest, had waited until the present time when money was under 2 per cent., and had raised it by Treasury bills instead of by Exchequer bonds, he would have got the money at practically half the rate that he had to pay on the last occasion. Considerable criticism had been directed against the method adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether the hon. Member was in order in discussing on the present Bill what in reality was a provision of the Finance Act.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member would not be in order in discussing a previous borrowing.
  MR. McCRAEsubmitted that the matter came within the purview of the Committee, as the money was not being devoted to the purpose for which it was borrowed, but was lying in the bank, and could be made available for the purposes of this Bill.
  MR. STUART SAMUELsaid he was about to suggest the manner in which the money should be obtained. He was opposed to any discretion being left to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the manner in which the money should be raised. The best form was that of Treasury bills, as money could be obtained so much more cheaply when it was to be repaid at short fixed intervals. Money could be obtained for six months at under 2 per cent., whereas under the wasteful procedure adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer 3 per cent, or 3¼ per cent, had had to be paid.
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that the only question before the Committee was the substitution of "obtain" for "borrow."
  MR. STUART SAMUELsaid that whether the Treasury "borrowed" or "obtained" they must issue something, and he was arguing in favour of Treasury bills as against Exchequer bonds. The manner in which money had been borrowed recently was condemned by practically all sound financial experts. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no intention of adding to the permanent debt of the country, and that he would Dot, as on a previous occasion, payoff £7,000,000 by borrowing £9,000,000.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that if the hon. Member would read the clause he would see that neither of those things could be done under the power granted by the Bill.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANScomplained that not a single word of explanation had been given as to the purposes for which this money was required, nor had any reason been given for pressing the Bill at this sitting. The fact that it was the forty-seventh Order showed that it was not urgent.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That question is not relevant to the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he objected just as much to the Government's "obtaining" as he did to their "borrowing" this £16,000,000. There was no urgency for the Bill, and he moved to report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that under the powers vested in him he would put the Motion forthwith.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 73; Noes, 117. (Division List No. 231.)

  AYES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brigg, John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Boland, John

  Caldwell, James

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Mara, James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Crean, Eugene

  Kilbride, Denis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Cullinan, J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Rea, Russell

  Dalziel, James Henry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Reddy, M.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.

  M'Crae, George

  Russell, T. W.

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Samuel, S. W. (Whitechapel)

  Duffy, William J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

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

  Ellice, Capt E C. (SAndrw'sBghs

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Moss, Samuel

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.

  Muldoon, John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murphy, John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, K. Tipperary Mid.)

  Wilson, Fred. W (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Samuel Evans and Mr. Soares.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Dowd, John

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Malley, William

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O.

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlineton)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Percy, Earl

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford

  Purvis, Robert

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Randles, John S.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords N W.)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hunt, Rowland

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bingham, Lord

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Bond, Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Kerr, John

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Brassey, Albert

  Keswick, William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Cawendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J A. (Worc.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Tuff, Charles

  Chapman, Edward

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Doughty, Sir George

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Milvain Thomas

  TELLERS F0R THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Fellowes Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Fielden Edward Brocklehurst

  Morgan D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 118; Noes, 72 (Division List No. 232.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Finlay, Sir R B(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arrol, Sir William

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, J (Londonderry, South

  Percy, Earl

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

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'donderry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Purvis, Robert

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Randles, John S.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hope, J F (Sheffield Brightside)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bingham, Lord

  Hunt, Rowland

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Bond, Edward

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Brassey, Albert

  Kerr, John

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Keswick, William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A (Worc.

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Tuff, Charles

  Chapman, Edward

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick, N S.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

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

  Lucas, Col. F. (Lowestoft)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Wi'son, A. Stanley (York, E. R

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Majendie, James A. H

  Wylie, Alexander

  Doughty, Sir George

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Milvain, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Moss, Samuel

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Muldoon, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

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

  Murphy, John

  Boland, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Brigg, John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Caldwell, James

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Dowd, John

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Malley, William

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Priestley, Arthur

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rea, Russell

  Cullinan, J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Reddy, M.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Russell, T. W.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Crae, George

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Ellice, Capt E C (SAndrw's Bghs)

  Mitchell, Edw (Fermanagh, N.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. O'Mara and Mr. Mac Veagh.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wills, ArthurWalters (N Dorset

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Wilson, Fred W (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Question put accordingly, "That the word 'borrow' stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 117; Noes, 73 (Division List No. 233)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gordon, J (Londonderry, South

  Percy, Earl

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'r H'm'ts

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balfour, Capt. C. B (Hornsey)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Purvis, Robert

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Randies, John S.

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

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

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hunt, Rowland

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bingham, Lord

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bond, Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Kerr, John

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Brassey, Albert

  Keswick, William

  Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Campell, J. H M (Dublin Univ.)

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A (Worc)

  Legge, Col. Hn. Heneage

  Tuff, Charles

  Chapman, Edward

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol. S

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset).

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Doughty, Sir George

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Milvain, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Finlay, Sir R B (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Boland, John

  Ellice, Capt. E C (SAndrw'sBghs

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Brigg, John

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Crae, George

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Caldwell, James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herb. John

  Moss, Samuel

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Muldoon, John

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hammond, John

  Murphy, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Crean, Eugene

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cullinan, J.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kennedy Vincent P (Cavan, W

  O'Dowd, John

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  O'Malley, William

  Russell, T. W.

  Williams Osmond (Merioneth)

  O'Mara, James

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Seely, Maj J E B (Isleof Wight)

  Wilson, Fred. W (Norfolk, Mid.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Sullivan, Donal

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Churchill and Mr. Harcourt.

  Rea, Russell

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Reddy, M.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Mr. CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERclaimed to move, "That the Question 'That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill' be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question 'That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill' be now put."
  While the House was being, cleared.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid, we have been discussing the first sub-section of this clause only. Do I understand that you have actually accepted the closure on the other two sub-sections which have not even been approached by the Committee.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid that the Chairman had at an earlier period called on him to move an Amendment. That being so, was it not unusual to accept the closure?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member's memory is a little defective. What I said was that I considered the Amendment to be moved in a spirit of sarcasm or mockery.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid that possibly that was what the Chairman intended to have said, but in point of fact he called his name and h; stood up to move the Amendment.
  MR. LOUGHasked whether there was any necessity to move the closure a second time. Was not one closure Motion sufficient?
  THE CHAIRMAN: No, if the hon. Member will read the rule.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 116, Noes, 73. (Division List No. 234)

  AYES

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. Hugho

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Arrol, Sir William

  Doughty, Sir George

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Lockwood, Lieut,-Col. A. R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn Ailwyn Edw.

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

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

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lucas, Col Francis (Lowestoft)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsm'th

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W (Leeds)

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Forster, Henry William

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Milvain, Thomas

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gordon, Maj Evans (TrH'mlets)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Bingham, Lord

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bond, Edward

  Hamilton, Marc. Of (L'donderry)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Brassey, Albert

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. N. W

  Pease, Herb. P. (Darlington)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Percy, Earl

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

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Piatt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J A (Worc.)

  Kerr, John

  Purvis, Robert

  Chapman, Edward

  Keswick, William

  Randles, John S.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ridley, S. Forde

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

  Lawrence; Sir J. (Monm'th)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Tuff, Charles

  Wylie, Alexander

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia,

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Dowd, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Boland, John

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Malley, William

  Brigg, John

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  O'Mara, James

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rea, Russell

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Reddy, M.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Russell, T. W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitecbapel)

  Crean, Eugene

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Crae, George

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, R.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Doogan, P. C.

  Moss, Samuel

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Duffy, William J.

  Muldoon, John

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Ellice, Capt E C. (SAndrw'sB'ghs

  Murphy, John

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Churchill and Major Seely.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, N E

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Question put accordingly, That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 116; I Noes, 71. (Division List No. 235.)
  Clause 3:—
  Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. SOARESsaid he desired to move the substitution of the word "shall" for the word "may."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The form of words in the clause is one which has been put into nearly every Act of Parliament and is consecrated by long usage; I cannot allow the Amendment.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he failed to understand why the measure was brought
  908
  before the Committee at all if they were not to be allowed to move any Amendments whatever. He submitted that the drafting of the Bill was a matter within the competence of the House.
  MR. J. A. PEASEpointed out that only on Friday last several hon. Members objected to the Trustee Bill on the ground that "may" had been inserted instead of "shall," and it was only when the Government agreed to alter the word that the objections were withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he must not be taken as ruling that the substitution of

  909
  "shall" for "may" would never be in order. All he said was that he could not accept it on the present occasion.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid that, in view of the fact that the Committee had now taken five divisions on end, and that under the last ruling not even a drafting Amendment could be moved, he would ask leave to move to report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he could not accept the Motion.
  MR. CHURCHILLasked to be allowed to state his reasons for the Motion. Unless the proceedings were to degenerate into a test of physical strength merely, he suggested that a few words of argument might occasionally be allowed to interrupt the procession through the lobbies.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Then you will not accept my Motion.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is so.
  MR CHURCHILLsaid it was not for him to comment upon the refusal of the Chair, but he deeply regretted the decision. He could not help thinking that the Opposition had been treated in a manner that would be used against hon. Members opposite at no distant date. Members were allowed to criticise the wording of the clause, but they were not allowed to move Amendments to give effect to their
  910
  criticisms. He could not move to substitute "shall" for "may," though he might show that "shall" would he much more appropriate than "may." "Shall" was of an imperative nature, and was therefore much more in harmony with the manner in which the Bill had been forced through Committee. Then, too, the word "intituled" was more usual than the word "cited." An Act must be intituled something before it could be cited. On this point he would appeal to the Prime Minister as a literary man—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. I think the hon. Member is trifling with, the Committee.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid nothing was farther from his desire. He asked where was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, having imposed upon the House the odious task of sitting up, had now gone off somewhere to bed. A more discreditable example had never been set to a Party. He regretted that the Prime Minister, who had almost as much authority over the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, had not thought it proper to retain the services of his chief financial adviser in the conduct of this Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 115; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 236.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hn. Col. W.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.

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

  Kerr, John

  Arrol, Sir William

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Keswick, William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Balcarres, Lord

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)

  Balfour, Capt, C. B (Hornsey)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Finlay, Sir R B (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col A. R.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S-

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fitzroy, Hn. EdwardAlgernon

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Bingham, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsm'th

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Bond, Edward

  Gordon, J (Londonderry, South

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Brassey, Albert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Milvain, Thomas

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Campbell, J H M (Dublin Univ.)

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morpeth, Viseount

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords N. W.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J A. (Worc.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Mount, William Arthur

  Chapman, Edward

  Hunt, Rowland

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Percy, Earl

  Rutherford, W. V. (Liverpool)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Walrond, Rt Hn Sir William H.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset

  Purvis, Robert

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

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

  Randles, John S.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Talbot Lord E. (Chichester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tuff, Charles

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  O'Connor, John (Kldare, N.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Dowd, John

  Boland, John

  Hammond, John

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Brigg, John

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Malley, William

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Mara, James

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Helme, Norval Walton

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden

  Caldwell, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reddy, M.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Russell, T. W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Crean, Eugene

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

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

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Dona

  Dalziel, Janies Henry

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Moss, Samuel

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Duffy, William J.

  Muldoon, John

  Wilson, Fred W (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Ellice, Capt E C (SAndrw'sB'ghs

  Murphy John

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Russell Rea and Mr. Theodore Taylor.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Pinch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Finlay, Sir R B (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Percy, Earl

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

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Balfour, Capt C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamhro, Charles Eric

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col Edward

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Purvis, Robert

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Randles, John S.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords N W.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Bingham, Lord

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bond, Edward

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn Arthur Fred

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Brassey, Albert

  Kerr, John

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Keswick, William

  Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Lawrence, Sir J (Monm'th)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Lawson, Hn. H L W (Mile End)

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A (Worc.)

  Legge, Col. Hn. Heneage

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Tuff, Charles

  Chapman, Edward

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Long, Rt Hn Walter(Bristol, S.)

  Walker, Col William Hall

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Walrond, Rt Hn Sir Wm. H.

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

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Davenport, Wm. Bromley

  Majendie, James A. H.

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Doughty, Sir George

  Milvain, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Fielden, Edward Broeklehurst

  Morpeth, Viscount

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Duffy, William J.

  Mitchell, Edw (Fermanagh, N.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Ellice, Capt E C (SAndrw'sB'ghs

  Moss, Samuel

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Muldoon, John

  Boland, John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Murphy, John

  Brigg, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Caldwell, James

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  O'Dowd, John

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Helme, Norval Watson

  0'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Cogan, Denis J;

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Malley, William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Mara, James

  Crean, Eugene

  Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan. W

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kilbride, Denis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cullinan, J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Dalziel, James Henry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rea, Russell

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Reddy, M.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Russell, T. W

  912

  913

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. M'Crae and Mr. Higham.

  Seely, Maj J. E. B. (Isleof Wigbt

  Whitley, J. H. Halifax)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Question put accordingly "That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 115; 'Noes, 70. (Division List No. 237.)

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Muldoon, John

  Reddy, M.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murphy, John

  Boche, John (Galway, East)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Russell, T. W.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Seely, Maj J E B (Isle of Wight)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  O'Dowd, John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  M'Crae, George

  O'Mara, James

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Pease, J, A. (Saffron Walden)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Soares and Mr. Wills.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N

  Priestley, Arthur

  Moss, Samuel

  Rea, Russell

  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is that I report this Bill without Amendment to the House.
  Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House."
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he had given notice to move a new clause, and perhaps, if there was any question as to whether it was in order, he might be permitted to explain its purpose.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think he could allow the hon. Member to make a speech on a new clause which he could not put to the House. He ruled the clause out of order, because he considered it a frivolous Amendment. It was a definition of the word "person," and stated "no one shall be deemed to be a person within the meaning of this Act unless he be a British subject." That struck him as being put in a spirit of irony. Moreover, it was clearly not a new clause, but ought to come as an addendum to Clause 2.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS,on a point of order, referred to the procedure laid down by the rules of the House with reference to new clauses.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that that procedure referred to Amendments that were in order, but he, having used his judgment to the best of his ability, had ruled the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight to be out of order.
  MR. CHURCHILLunderstood the ruling of the Chair to refer only to the particular clause in question, and not in any way to impugn the right of Members to move new clauses to Consolidated Fund Bills.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the clauses are in order, of course they may be moved,
  MR. CHURCHILL: I mean that your ruling is of a particular and not of a general character.
  THE CHAIRMAN: My ruling is directed to the Question before me and nothing else. It is a particular and not a general ruling.
  MAJOR SEELYasked on what grounds, a Motion to make the word "person" apply to British subjects could be ruled out of order as frivolous.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he held it to be moved in a spirit of mockery, but he had

  917
  also said that even if that were not so it ought to come as an Amendment to Clause 2.
  MR. CALDWELLpointed out that a definition appropriately came as a new clause, a ad in any case the matter could not have been dealt with on Clause 2 because that clause was closured.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I will put the Question to the House. There must be an end to points of order at some time. The Question is that I report this Bill without Amendment to the House.
  MR. CHURCHILL,on a point of order, said the Chairman had now given two reasons for ruling the Amendment out of order, viz., that it was frivolous, and that it was not moved in the proper place. He submitted that those two reasons could not be allowed to go together.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Points of order must always be raised before the Question Is put the second time.
  MR. CHURCHILLsubmitted, with great respect, that he did raise the point before the Question was put a second time.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Then I did not hear it.

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn HughO.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Arrol, Sir William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bingham, Lord

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Bond, Edward

  MR. CHURCHILL: That was because of the uproar on the other side.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry if there has been any misapprehension. I am only too glad to answer points of order. I am the servant of the Committee, bat questions of order have never been raised after the Question has been put the second time.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Then do I understand that you will not rule on my point of order?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not like to set the precedent of allowing points of order to be raised after the Question has been put the second time.
  MR. SOARESremarked that or the night when hon. Members from Ireland had difficulties with the Speaker at least three points of order were raised after the Question had been put a second time.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Might I suggest that you should send for the police?
  The CHAIRMAN: Will hon. Members kindly proceed to the lobbies?
  Question put,
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 238.)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. N. W

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Campbell, J H M (Dublin Univ.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Purvis, Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Randles, John S.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col W

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Keswick, William

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Chapman, Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Coates, Edward Feetham

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

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H A. E.

  Lee, A. H (Hants, Fareham)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W. >

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Legge, Col. Hn. Heneage

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol. S

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lucas, Col Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Majendie, James A. H

  Tuff, Charles

  Finlay, Sir R B (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs)

  Marks, Harry. Hananel

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Milvain, Thomas

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Percy, Earl

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  O'Dowd, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Boland, John

  Hammond, John

  O'Malley, William

  Brigg, John

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Mara, James

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Brown, George M (Edinburgh)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Caldwell, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Priestley, Arthur

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rea, Russell

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reddy, M.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Kilbride, Denis

  Russell, T. W.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Moss, Samuel

  Whitley, J. H (Halifax)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Muldoon, John

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murphy, John

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

  Duffy, William J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Ellice, Capt E C (SAndrw's B'ghs

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth South)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.Barran and Mr. Wills.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

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

  Farrell, James Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Bill to be read the third time this day.
  And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House with-
  out Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minute after Three o'clock a.m.