Commons Sitting of 26 July 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
There were thirty private Bills and Provisional Orders set down for consideration, but their progress was again "blocked."
MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)objected to all the Bills, with the exception of the Dublin United Tramways Bill. In this case, however, a Ministerialist retaliated by "blocking" the Bill, which, with all the others, was again postponed.
On the Order for the Second Reading of the Central London Railway Bill.
MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.)who was in charge of the business connected with private Bills, moved that the Order be read and discharged and the Bill withdrawn.
MR. MACVEAGHobjected.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot object to the withdrawal of a private Bill.
The Motion was agreed to
MR. CALDWELLmade a similar Motion with regard to the Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (No. 2) Bill.
MR. MACVEAGHrenewed his objection.
MR. SPEAKER: I have already told the hon. Member he has no power to object.
MR. MACVEAGH,on a point of order, asked the Speaker whether such a Motion could only be sanctioned with the leave of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: No objection can be taken to the withdrawal of a private Bill.
330
An hon. Member may object to progress being made with a Bill, but not to its withdrawal.
The Motion was agreed to.
MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe)asked the Chairman of Committees whether he had come to any conclusion as to the course he proposed to take in the circumstances which had arisen in regard to private Bills.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)said this was a matter that rested with him as Chairman of Committees and did not concern the Government in any way. He regretted very much the course that had been taken, though hon. Members might take what course they pleased. It appeared to him extremely hard that private people and corporations, after they had spent perhaps tens of thousands of pounds in the promotion of Bills—
MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford): you have no right to deliver a lecture. Answer the Question.
MR. GRANT LAWSONwas understood to say that, if the opposition were persisted in, it was his intention to put down a Motion suspending all the Bills whose progress had been barred until next session.
MR. JOHN ELLIS: Is that what is known as a hanging-up Motion?
MR. GRANT LAWSON: Yes. As at present advised, that is what will be done.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he proposes to move that the whole of these thirty odd Bills shall be deferred to next session?
MR. GRANT LAWSON: Yes, Sir. It has been done on many occasions. I think there are seven or eight precedents for this course.

331
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill (by Order); Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill (by Order); Edgware and Hampstead Railway Bill (by Order); London and North Western Railway Bill (by Order); Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill (by Order); Dublin United Tramways Bill (by Order); Midland Railway Bill (by Order); Skegness Water Bill (by Order); Woolwich Borough Council Bill (by Order). Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till To-morrow.
Formby Township Bill [Lords] (by Order); Workington Harbour and Dock Bill [Lords] (by Order); Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (by Order); Matlock Bath Improvement Bill [Lords] (by Order); Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill [Lords] (by Order); Sheffield University Bill [Lords] (by Order); South Lancashire Tramways Bill [Lords] (by Order). Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Littlehampton Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (by Order); Shepton Mallet Gas Company (Electric Lighting) Bill [Lords] (by Order); Bristol Blind Asylum Bill [Lords] (by Order); Corbett Estate Bill [Lords] (by Order); County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords] (by Order); Huraber Conservancy Bill [Lords] (by Order); South port, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [Lords] (by Order); Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order). Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
Central London Railway Bill (by Order). Order for Second Reading read and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (No. 2) Bill (by Order). Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Esk Valley Power Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Stone haven Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Consideration deferred till To-morrow.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
332
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Second Reading deferred: till Monday next (Evening Sitting).
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill [Lords] (by Order). Second Reading deferred till Monday next (Evening Sitting).
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders I (No. 8) Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to he upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Central Electric Supply Bill [Lords]; Oldham and Saddleworth District Tramways Bill [Lords]; Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Company Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS.
MR. MACVEAGH,on a point of order, asked if it was not the duty of any hon. Member who objected to a Return being granted to be in his place to raise the objection? Was there anything in the Standing Order entitling him to claim that the mere expression of an opinion outside the House was sufficient to prevent a Return being issued?
MR. SPEAKER: The custom of the House has always been that, before a Member can move a Return he shall present a letter from the Department concerned declaring it unopposed. In the absence of such authority it is not granted. It can, of course, be moved after midnight, but then any hon. Member can object to it if he chooses.

PETITIONS
  CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Petition from Montrose, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  CROFTERS HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL
  Petition from Montrose, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Petition from Montrose, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SINGH, MAHARAJAH MADHO
  Petition from Bellary and other places in India, for inquiry into his case; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Petition from Montrose, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL
  Petition from Barnsley, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  INLAND REVENUE
  Copy presented, of Forty-eighth Report of the Commissioners, for the year ended 31st March, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE
  Copy presented, of Fifty-first Report of the Postmaster-General [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL)
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 451 (Hong-Kong, Annual Report for 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1890 (RULE)
  Copy presented, of General Rule made pursuant to Section 25 of The Bankruptcy Act, 1890 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES)
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3457 to 3459 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (PENSIONS)
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 20th March; Captain Norton]; to lie upon the Table.

  ORDNANCE SURVEY
  Copy presented, of Report of the Progress of the Ordnance Survey to the
  334
  31st March, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
  1. Inquiry into Charities (County of Wilts). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 9th August, 1901; Mr. Griffith Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 266.]
  2. Royal University of Ireland. Copy of Account of Receipts and Expenditure of the Royal University of Ireland for the year ended 31st March, 1905, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 267.]

  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (ADMINISTRATIVE COUNTY OF DEVON)
  Return ordered, "comprising (1) the Reports made to the Charity Commissioners in the result of an Inquiry held in every parish wholly or partly within the administrative county of Devon into Endowments, subject to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894, and appropriated in whole or in part for the benefit of that county, or of any part thereof, together with the Reports on those Endowments of the Commissioners for inquiring concerning Charities, 1818 to 1837; (2) a Digest showing, in the case of each such parish, whether any, and, if any, what such Endowments are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners in the parish; and (3) an Index, alphabetically arranged, of names and places mentioned in the Reports."—(Mr. Griffith Boscawen.)

  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY BOROUGH OF SAINT HELENS)
  Return ordered, "comprising (1) the Reports made to the Charity Commissioners in the result of an Inquiry held in the county borough of St. Helens into Endowments, subject to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894, and appropriated in whole or in part for the benefit of that county borough, or of any part thereof, together with the Reports on those Endowments of the Commissioners for inquiring concerning Charities, 1818 to 1837; (2) a Digest showing whether any, and, if any, what such Endowments are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners in the county borough; and 3) an Index, alphabetically arranged

  335
  of names and places mentioned in the Reports."—(Mr. Griffith Boscawen.)

  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY ROROUGH OF PRESTON)
  Return ordered, "comprising (1) the Reports made to the Charity Commissioners in the result of an Inquiry held in the county borough of Preston into Endowments, subject to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894, and appropriated in whole or in part for the benefit of that county borough, or of any part thereof, together with the Reports on those Endowments of the Commissioners for inquiring concerning Charities, 1818 to 1837; (2) a

  County and Parish.

  year

  Parish Rates.

  County Rates.

  Total.

  Notes as to Rates levied in Special Districts.

  Owners.

  Occupiers.

  Owners.

  Occupiers.

  Owners.

  Occupiers.

  Argyll:

  1892–3

  A

  1893–4 &c.

  1903–4

  Increase or Decrease between 1892–3 & 1903–4

  B

  1892–3 &c.

  —(Mr. John Dewar.)

  CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND)
  Copy presented, of Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1904. Part I Criminal Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRINITY COLLEGE (INTERMEDIATE SCHOLARSHIPS)
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 25th July; Mr. Walter Long]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 264.]

  NAVY (STATEMENT OF EXCESS), 1903–4
  Copy presented, of Statement of the Sum required to be voted in order to make good Excesses of Navy Expenditure beyond the Grants, for the year ended 31st March, 1904 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 265.]
  Digest showing whether any, and, if any, what such Endowments are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners in the county borough; and (3) an Index, alphabetically arranged, of names and places mentioned in the Reports."—(Mr. Griffith Boscawen.)

  LOCAL RATES IN CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND)
  Return ordered, "giving the amount of Local Rates per pound levied during the rears 1892–3 to 1903–4, inclusive, in each parish within the Congested Districts in Scotland, as specified in the Sixth Annual Report of the Congested Districts Board (Scotland):—
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES

  Southampton Post Office—Dangerous Approach
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBER-LAYNE (Southampton): To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that, at a meeting recently held in Southampton at which a representative of the Office of Works was present, it was decided that the approach to the new post office in that town was a source of danger to those using it; that the attention of the then Postmaster-General was drawn to this matter before the post office was built, and that he replied that there would be no danger and that the site was in every way suitable; and whether the Office of Works will now make what alterations

  337
  may be necessary free of all expense to the town of Southampton.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) In answer to the first paragraph, I have to say that a meeting was recently held at Southampton at which representatives of the Office of Works were present and at which a discussion upon the approach to the new post office took place; no decision such as my hon. friend mentions was arrived at. The First Commissioner is awaiting a communication from the town council and other public bodies at Southampton; and, pending the arrival of this communication, he is not prepared to make any statement on the subject.

  County.

  Farms, etc.

  Areas.

  Dates when farms etc., came into hand.

  observations.

  a.

  r.

  p.

  Cambridge.

  A farm and lands at Bur-well.

  916

  1

  29

  Michaelmas, 1904

  Hants (Isle of Wight).

  A farm at Osborne.

  768

  3

  8

  1st January, 1903

  Transferred to management of Commissioners of Woods under Osborne Estate Act, 1902

  Kent (Isle of Sheppey).

  A farm and lands at Neats Court.

  1,157

  3

  5

  Part at Michael mas, 1897, part at Michaelmas, 1899, part at Michaelmas, 1892, and part at Michaelmas, 1903.

  Norfolk

  Grassland, Wingland.

  357

  0

  0

  Michaelamas, 1883

  Oxford

  A farm at Whichwood.

  490

  2

  19

  Michaelmas, 1887

  Suffolk

  A farm at Shimpling.

  572

  0

  31

  Michaelmas, 1892

  Surrey

  Land at Esher

  16

  2

  7

  Michaelmas, 1902

  Available for building.

  Total area

  4,279

  1

  19

  Steps are taken with the view of letting the farms, and any application for a part

  Crown Land Farms Vacant
  SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston):To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the number of Crown land farms mentioned as vacant in last year's Report which are still unlet, giving the size of each farm, the county in which it is situated, and the length of time it has been vacant; and whether any steps have been taken to divide the larger farms into smaller holdings, or to let any portion of them in small holdings and allotments.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The following is the list of farms asked for by the hon. Member:—
  of one as a smaller holding would be considered, but it must be borne in mind

  339
  that a division of the farms into smaller holdings except for allotments would involve substantial outlay in the provision of additional farmhouses and buildings.

  Mails from North of Ireland to London
  MR. LIDDELL (Down, W.): To ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the acceleration in service between Derry and London via Larne and Stranraer; if he is aware that the time allocated from the departure of the train from Derry is actually twenty minutes longer than it was fourteen years ago; if he will arrange for a departure from Derry of not earlier than 5.25 p.m., and from Belfast at 7.35 p.m., to connect with the Highland express leaving Carlisle at 1.50 a.m., securing the same London delivery as at present.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that the time allowed for the service from Londonderry to London, by way of Larne, is now twenty minutes longer than it was fourteen years ago. In 1891 the service was accelerated, and the despatch from Londonderry was made at 2.50 p.m., while the arrival in London was at 7.20 a.m. Now the despatch from Londonderry is at 4 p.m., and the arrival in London 7.10 a.m. The journey, therefore, occupies one hour twenty minutes less than in 1891. I regret that I cannot see my way to arrange for the further improvement suggested by the hon. Member.

  Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists in the Savings Bank Department
  MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green): To ask the Postmaster-General if he can say what number of sorting clerks and telegraphists are employed in the Savings Bank Department; can he say if the hours and pay in that department are the same as obtain in other offices where sorting clerks and telegraphists are solely employed.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am afraid I do not quite understand the hon. Member's Question. There are no sorting clerks and telegraphists on the staff of the Savings Bank Department. At
  340
  bank holiday seasons, when there have been large numbers of withdrawals by telegraph, telegraphists have been sent to perform the telegraph work; and in the post office adjoining the Savings Bank Department, counter clerks and telegraphists are employed. These officers work the usual eight hours a day.

  Post Office—Reclassification of Offices Scheme
  MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.): To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can now state the date upon which he intends to publish his scheme dealing with reclassification of offices; and whether he will consider the cases of these officers who have been waiting from five to fifteen years for promotion.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The question of reclassifying offices at towns where the cost of living is shown to be abnormally high is at present under consideration. It necessitates careful, and, I fear, somewhat prolonged inquiries. These inquiries are in progress, but I am not in a position to promise an early decision. No time shall, however, be lost, and I will do my best to expedite matters. The case of officers who have been at the maximum point of their scale for some time past, and whom it has not been possible to promote, does not affect the inquiry; nor can I admit that the fact of any officers being in such a position, of itself, constitutes a grievance.

  Privy Council and List of Poisons
  SIR JOHN LENG (Dundee): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain recently resolved that each of ten different articles should be declared a poison within the meaning of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, and that, in conformity with the Report of the Departmental Committee on Poisons, and the views of coroners and medical men, those ten articles included acetanalide, soluble salts of oxalic acid, and sulphonal, he will explain why these three articles were excluded from the list of poisons approved by the Lords of the Privy Council and advertised accordingly in the London Gazette of July 18th.

  341
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have communicated on this matter with the Lord President of the Council, who informs me that the Lords of the Privy Council, after consideration of the substances covered by the terms of the resolution of the Pharmaceutical Society, and after taking expert advice upon the subject, decided, in the exercise of the discretion with which they are vested by Section 2 of The Pharmacy Act, 1868, to exclude from their approved list the three substances named in the Question.

  Wrongful Imprisonment of Frederick Cooper at Salford
  MR. GROVES (Salford, S.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of Frederick Cooper, of Gloucester Street, Salford, who was wrongfully convicted of an indecent assault, at the Salford Sessions, on May 22nd last, and sentenced to three months hard labour, and who was released, after serving seven weeks of this sentence, upon his innocence being established; and whether, under the circumstances of the case, and in view of this man's present condition, it is proposed to offer some recompense and reparation to him.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The offence of which Frederick Cooper was actually convicted was a common assault. Information which came to light after the trial, though it did not establish the prisoner's innocence of this charge, modified materially the view which the chairman of quarter sessions took of the case; and, on his recommendation, I advised the remission of the remainder of the sentence; but I am sorry I cannot take the view that the case is one in which I could suggest to the Treasury that a grant should be made from public funds.

  Hall-Marking of Foreign Watches
  MR. ARTHUR STANLEY (Lancashire, Ormskirk): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a decision of Mr. Justice Channell with regard to the hall-marking of foreign watches; and whether he proposes to take any action, by legislation
  342
  or otherwise, to remove the disabilities under which British watch manufacturers are now labouring.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) My attention has been called to the decision in question, and I am informed by the Goldsmiths' Company that they have decided to appeal.

  New Drill of Royal Irish Constabulary
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a new Army drill is being practised at the Royal Irish Constabulary depôt; and, if so, whether such drill has been issued to the force at large; and, if not, by what authority and in what counties is the same being practised; and whether the only book as present published on the subject of such new drill is one compiled by a constable of the force (so far unauthorised by the Inspector-General) which constables have to buy at their own expense; and whether a newer drill has been or is about to be introduced into the Army; and, if so, will he consider the desirability of withdrawing the drill in question and substituting the newer Army drill.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) A new drill became necessary in consequence of the issue to the force of Lee-Metford in substitution for Martini-Henry carbines. This drill has been practised at the constabulary depot, and, tentatively, in two counties, but it has not yet been issued to the force at large. The issue of the new arms has only now been completed, and a new drill-book, which will follow the latest Army drill with suitable modifications, is about to be prepared and issued to the force. There is no obligation on members of the force to purchase the unauthorised drill-book referred to.

  Imprisonment of Indentured Indian Labourers in Trinidad
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (Yorkshire, Cleveland): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Indian

  343
  labourers were serving under indentures in Trinidad, and how many of these were sentenced to imprisonment, and for what offences, in the latest year for which the figures are available.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The number of Indian immigrants under indenture in 1903 was 8,877. The number of natives of India sentenced to imprisonment in Trinidad in the same year was 2,306; this includes Indians not under indenture, who number about 85,000. Details as to the number of indentured immigrants imprisoned, and of the offences for which they were sentenced, are not available without reference to the colony.

  Cost of Land Settlement in Transvaal and Orange River Colony
  MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the cost of the land settlement to date in the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The issues from loan to 29th April last were £2,185,413 4s. lid., viz., Transvaal £1,070,124 10s. 4d., and Orange River Colony £1,115,288 14s. 7d. (see p.67 of Cd. 2563), but I am not able to give the total cost, as some part of the cost of the Department of Commissioner of Lands is no doubt due to land settlement, and, on the other hand, there must be certain small receipts and repayments.

  Supposed Purchase of Foreign Motorcars for the War Office
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge): To ask the Secretary of State for War if his Department have entered into a contract with a Mr. Leinkhauf, or anyone else, to purchase 350, or any less number, of motor-cars abroad for War Office use; and, if so, whether any opportunity was given to English houses to compete for the order.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) No contract has been made for the purchase of motor-cars abroad for War Office use.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE

    Royal Marine Barracks—Sales of Tickets to Recruits
    MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will consider the desirability of stopping the practice of soliciting young recruits within the barracks to purchase tickets for theatrical performances in theatres specially provided and maintained by His Majesty's Government for the use of the Royal Marines, and to which the public are freely admitted on payment at the doors.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood-bridge): The alleged practice is not known to exist.
    MR. WEIR: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries? It is within my knowledge that the practice does exist
    MR. PRETYMAN: I have made inquiries and given the hon. Member the information I have received.
    MR. WEIR: It is false information.

    The Whitworth Coalfields
    MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire Mansfield): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that a South African financier is shortly floating a company to work the Whitworth Coal Estate in South Wales; whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to acquire an interest in this company; and whether he has received any reports from His Majesty's inspectors of mines relating to the value of this coal for naval purposes.
    MR. PRETYMAN: The Admiralty have no information as to the alleged operations of the South African financier, and have no intention of acquiring any interest in the property. The Admiralty have taken care to inform themselves as to the probable character of the coal underlying the Whitworth Estate, but I am not at liberty to state the source

    345
    from which this information has been derived.
    MR. MARKHAM: Is it not the fact that three years ago this property was offered to the Government and declined on the report received from His Majesty's inspectors of mines that it was valueless, and, with a view to the protection of the investing public, will the hon. Gentleman publish this report?
    MR. PRETYMAN: I should not like to say anything either to appreciate or depreciate the value of the property. The Admiralty have to deal with the matter from the purely national standpoint.

    The Volunteers
    MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight): I beg to ask the Secretary for War a Question of which I have given private notice, viz., whether his attention has been called to a statement made to-day in the Press that certain Volunteer units have refused to be medically examined as to their fitness for foreign service in compliance with the terms of the recent circular on the grounds of its illegality; and what steps, if any, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take in the matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): I have only this moment received the hon. Gentleman's Question. I have had no report of the incident referred to. So far as I am aware no question of the legality of the order can arise; but if it is illegal it cannot be enforced. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the date for making the report is October 31st, and I have no doubt that the commanding officers will do their best to conform to the order, and will supply the Army Council with information which is necessary in the interest of national defence.
    MAJOR SEELY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he proposes to do in the event of certain Volunteer units refusing to comply with the order?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is clearly a hypothetical Question.
    MAJOR SEELY: No, Sir, it is not hypothetical.
    MR. SPEAKER: That remark was hardly courteous to the Chair.
    MAJOR SEELY: I rite to a point of order. I desire to explain that I intended no discourtesy to the Chair, and to apologise. What I wanted to point out to the Secretary of State for War was that this incident was reported in to-day's Standard and has in fact occurred.
    MR. SPEAKER: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation, but I would point out that his Question was as to what the right hon. Gentleman intended to do in the event of certain things occurring, and that, I ruled, was a purely hypothetical Question.

    Alexandria Harbour—Wreckage Obstructions
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with a view to preventing obstruction to British trade entering the port of Alexandria, he will instruct Lord Cromer to represent to the Egyptian Government the desirability of removing wrecks from the Boghas Pass and the entrance to Alexandria Harbour; and will he state how long the wreck of the steamship "Cairo," which went aground some months ago, was allowed to remain before any attempt was made to remove it.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): His Majesty's Government have received no information from the Egyptian Government on the subject of the hon. Member's Question.

    The Unemployed Workmen Bill
    MR. DAVID MACIVER (Liverpool, Kirkdale): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the experimental character of the Unemployed Workmen Bill, and with a view to lessening the probabilities of objections being raised to its further progress, he will agree to introduce words which would limit its operation to a

    347
    period of three years in order that, at the end of that time, the whole subject may be reconsidered; and whether he will agree to the insertion of words intended to secure that no additional burden shall be put upon the rates, and that all expenditure under the Bill shall be recouped from the National Exchequer out of a special grant in aid of local taxation, to be derived, as is already the case in the Channel Islands, from a landing charge of one penny per hundredweight levied upon all importations which compete with our industries, and upon importations generally other than raw materials.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): As regards the first part of the Question, I think that three years would be too short a period for the duration of the Bill; but I have given notice of an Amendment which would limit its operation to ten years. As regards the second part of the Question, the reply must be in the negative.

    Payment of Education Grants
    MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the grants payable to education authorities in respect of elementary schools maintained by them, and due on 1st May last, are again in arrear; and whether he is also aware that the non-receipt of these grants is causing the local education authorities trouble and the ratepayers expense in having to provide nearly double the amount of money than estimated as sufficient at the commencement of the half year; and what steps he proposes to take in this matter.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): The aid grant and fee grant appear to have been paid this year at the same times as last year. I presume, therefore, that the grants referred to by the hon. Member are the annual grants. The payment of the annual grants accruing for payment on May 1st has proceeded at least as fast this year as last. The difference in the sums
    348
    received is, I think, explained by the fact that the partial system of payment of the annual grant by quarterly instalments, which has been in force daring the past two financial years, was discontinued during the early part of the present financial year. The Board have now made arrangements for the continued payment of these instalments during this year but no longer. Local authorities are, therefore, now receiving these instalments.
    MR. SOARES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the dilatoriness in this matter is causing great inconvenience to the town of Barnstaple?
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: No, Sir, I am not aware of anything of the sort.

    Island of Lewis Fishing Industry
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether, with a view to assist the fishing industry in the Island of Lewis, he will consider the expediency of establishing a weight-carrying motor-car service between Carloway and Stornoway, Island of Lewis.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): If the service referred to by the hon. Member is regarded in the island as tending to practical and efficient development to the fishing industry on the western seaboard of the Lews, and application is made for assistance in establishing such service, the Secretary for Scotland will give the matter his favourable consideration.

    The Beaufort Castle Shooting Case
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state whether Scheffer Phipps and Henry Carnegie Phipps, of Beaufort Castle, Inverness-shire, who were recentlv committed at Inverness on a charge of shooting at four men engaged at work on the Beaulv River, and released on their own recognisances, are still in the United Kingdom; and can he take any steps to prevent their fleeing from justice.
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: Messrs. Phipps were not liberated on their own recognisances but on bail bonds in

    349
    common form. Mr. John S. Phipps is at present out of the country, but arranged before leaving that he would return at any time within forty-eight hours. I have every reason to believe that they intend to meet any charge that may be brought against them. I have nothing further to add to the Answers I have already given to the hon. Member.
    MR. WEIR: What part of the world has he gone to?
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I believe he has gone to Paris.

    Girls' Schools in Ireland—Rule 127 (b)
    MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state the number of schools for girls in Ireland that have only one room.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): I For the reasons stated in my reply to the hon. Member's similar Question on 6th instant,† the Commissioners do not propose to make inquiry with the object of ascertaining the number of these schools.
    MR. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole country is upset by this Rule 127(b).
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am not sure that that is so, but under any circumstances I see no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioners that an inquiry as suggested would take a very long time and the results would not be such as to justify the labour and expense.
    MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): Then how are the Commissioners going to ascertain if the schools are suitable to send young boys into?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Obviously they must make inquiries of their own.
    MR. DILLON: But they will not give us the information they obtain!
    † See (4) Debates, cxlviii., 1344

    The Irish Development Grant
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland where the £111,355 5s. 3d., the unexpended balance of the Irish Development Grant for 1904, is deposited, and at what rate of interest; and, if it is not drawing interest, if he will arrange for the inviting of tenders from the Irish banks for deposit interest on this unexpended balance; and if he will further arrange to have tenders invited from the Irish banks on every 31st of March for the use on deposit of whatever may be the current balance of the Irish Development Grant each year.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The unexpended balance is at present in the Paymaster-General's supply account, and not in any interest-bearing account the question whether this balance should be temporarily invested is at present engaging attention.
    MR. DILLONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had ever heard of a large sum of money like this on which no interest was payable.
    MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.): The Irish landlords will give 5 per cent.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: As this matter is of great importance to Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman pursue his inquiries in other directions and ascertain whether there are any other branches of Irish administration in which large sums of money are not bearing any interest.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am doing so.
    MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.): Does the right hon. Gentleman's Answer mean that this Irish money is being used for English purposes when no money is available for certain Irish purposes?
    MR. WALTER LONG: The money is available for use as the Irish Government may think desirable.
    MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S): Where is this money deposited?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have said it rests with the Paymaster-General.
    MR. MACVEAGH: That is not an Answer to the Question, The Question I ask is where is this money deposited, and it is no Answer to say that the matter rests with the Paymaster-General.
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman answered that.
    MR. MACVEAGH;No, Sir, he has not answered it.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Answer may not be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman, but an Answer has been given.

    The Trans-Atlantic Marine Post Office
    MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he has received two petitions from the staff on the Dublin and Queens-town T. P. O., relative to appointments on the marine post office between England and the United States; and whether, in view of monetary loss imposed on these officers by the new arrangements for dealing with American mails, and their experience and service, he will say whether it is his intention to appoint them positions on the sea post office.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): I have had before me the petitions to which the hon. Member refers. They appear to be based on a misapprehension of the facts. No officer employed on a travelling post office has a claim to be permanently retained on such work, and may be removed at any time when the requirements of the Department render such removal desirable. The allowance which is paid to officers engaged in travelling post office work is paid for subsistence and in view of the inconvenience to which the duty is liable, and would, of course, cease when the duty was no longer to be performed. As I explained in Answer to Questions asked, by the hon. Member among others, on the 9th† and
    † See (4) Debates, cxlv., 1339.
    352
    15th May‡, the selection of officers for the sea post office on board the mail packets carrying the mails between this country and the United States will be governed by convenience in working the duty and the competence of the officers available; and, in the existing circumstances, it is most convenient to work it with staff drawn from the Liverpool Office.
    MR. NANNETTI: May I ask if it be not the fact that on every occasion on which letters by the marine post office have arrived in Ireland, the correspondence has been delayed and the officials there kept on duty extra time so that they have lost the nine hours at home to which they are entitled?
    LORD STANLEY: I should think not.
    MR. NANNETTI: Will you inquire?
    LORD STANLEY;No.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): Poor bloodsuckers.

    Crown Prosecution at Galway Assizes
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN (Galway)asked the Attorney-General for Ireland if his attention had been called to the report of a speech delivered on behalf of the Crown by Mr. Powell, K.C., in a prosecution at the Galway Assizes, and particularly to a statement by the learned counsel that "there would be no harm if some fellows were whipped in that county"? Was Mr. Powell instructed by the right hon. Gentleman to make that statement, or in so doing did he represent the right hon. Gentleman's views, and if not, what steps would be taken to repudiate it?
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): I have only just received the notice. The report is evidently a condensed one.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: But the statement is clearly made.
    MR. ATKINSON: There appears to have been some discussion
    ‡ See (4) Debates, cxlv., 277.

    353
    as to the power to inflict the punishment of whipping under the Act of Will. IV., and according to this report the learned counsel said the prisoner could not be whipped, volunteering the additional statement referred to in the Question. I need not say I was not aware the learned counsel was going to say that, and not having seen the full report I cannot, of course, say whether I approve or disapprove his speech.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: The matter is a very serious one. Men for attending a meeting were sent to prison for nine months. May I ask the Chief Secretary if flogging is to be part and parcel of his coercion policy in the West of Ireland?
    MR. ATKINSON: The point of the speech was that flogging could not be inflicted, and the Judge in his charge to the jury said he had no power to order it. Therefore it is no part of the Government policy.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny. N.): Was this speech made before a packed jury? Was it delivered for the purpose of inciting the Judge to pass a heavier sentence?
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: And is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Judge told the jury it was not a case calling for a special jury or a State trial?
    MR. ATKINSON: I am aware the Judge made some such remark in answer to an appeal by the accused, who said he was directed by the President of the Land League to write the letter.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: That is not the point Did not the Judge say it was not a case which should be made a State trial before a specially packed jury?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must give notice of that Question.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I will do so.

    Royal Hibernian Academy
    MR. BOLANDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he was now in a position to state the terms of reference to the Committee appointed to inquire into the work of the Royal Hibernian Academy.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.)said the terms of reference to the Committee appointed by the Treasury was to inquire into the work carried on by the Royal Hibernian Academy and the Metropolitan School of Art in Dublin, and to report whether any measures, and if so what measures, should be taken to enable these institutions to serve the purposes for which they were maintained.
    MR. BOLANDasked why the National Gallery was excluded from the inquiry.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he did not think there was any particular demand for an inquiry into the working of the National Gallery, but if it should appear in the course of the investigation of the Committee that that institution should be included he should be glad to extend the scope of the inquiry.
    MR. MOONEY (Dublin County, S.), as the Member whose Resolution led to the promise to appoint the Committee, was understood to say that he only withdrew his Motion on the distinct understanding that the inquiry should embrace the National Gallery as well.

    Minister of Industry and Commerce
    MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now say when it is proposed to introduce the Bill to create a Minister of Industry and Commerce.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): Within the next two or three days.

    The Unemployed Workmen Bill
    MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which I have given him

    355
    private notice, namely, why the Committee stage of the Unemployed Bill has not been set down for this day, as the right hon. Gentleman stated last week would probably be the case.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not remember the anticipation of business to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I think it is very likely that he is quite accurate in his memory. But it seems to me that the Bill which is down first on the Paper is one which has a prior claim to any other, and that is the reason why I placed it first on the Paper.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is it because of a statement to the effect that the Labour Members were opposed to the Unemployed Bill that it was not set down for to-day?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. My light hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board was carrying on negotiations last week with various sections of the House interested in this Bill; but, as far as I am aware, the reason I have given was the only reason, certainly it was the principal reason, why the Scottish Churches Bill was put down first.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Committee stage will be taken?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. But I cannot take it any day this week.
    MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)asked on what date the Committee stage would be reached. Since it was alleged that the Labour Members were responsible for the delay, he would ask whether it was not a new order of things for four or five Labour Members in that House to dictate the policy of the Government, and to say what Bills should be introduced?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member has fallen into an error, not uncommon in this House, in attributing to me statements which I have never made, but which appear to have been made on my behalf by other people. I have
    356
    never made a single statement as to the so-called obstruction of the Labour Members.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar): Could not the Unemployed Bill be put down as the second order on Friday, in case the Naval Works Bill does not occupy the whole sitting.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am bound, of course, to consider any arrangement about business which may conduce to the rapid and peaceful termination of the session; but I have been assailed by so many threats and suggestions of difficulty with regard to legislation that the House will recognise that my primary duty is to get through the Bills which must be passed, in the hope that there will still be time left for Bills which, however desirable, are not in the same administrative category as those to which I refer.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether this Bill, which deals with the life of the poor, does not come within the category of those that must pass.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Member is under a mistake. There are a certain number of Bills which must absolutely be passed, whoever is in power.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is the Churches (Scotland) Bill one of these?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are particular crises, like that which has made the Scottish Bill necessary, which also bring Bills into the category of absolutely necessary Bills. The question of the unemployed, and the suffering which want of employment gives to certain classes of the population, is one which must exercise the anxiety of every man in this House, and of those responsible for the government of the country. But it is not a phenomenon which began in 1905; the difficulties connected with employment are of very old standing, they have been considered by this House for many generations; and, though I am the last man to underrate the importance either of the Government proposals or

    357
    any other proposals which may be submitted dealing with this question, it is really a travesty of facts to say that this is a new phenomenon suddenly sprung on the world which absolutely requires in this session to be dealt with. There are much less important matters—relatively insignificant matters—which everybody knows must be passed.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: If a crisis is necessary, I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that there will be one on this question in the winter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.): Can the Prime Minister say what Supply is to be taken on the remaining allotted days? I understand the suggestion is to take the Education Estimate on Monday, the Home Office Vote on Tuesday, and the Foreign Office Vote on Wednesday.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): And when is it proposed to bring in the Irish Land Act Amendment Bill?
MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.): Will the Education Vote be taken before August 1st, when the new Education Code comes into force, seeing that that will be the only opportunity the House will have of discussing the matter.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose to take Estimates on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of next week. Tomorrow is already allocated to the Colonial Vote, and I shall be glad to take the Education Vote on Tuesday if that will meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I shall probably suggest to the House on Monday that the time has arrived when we ought to suspend the twelve o'clock rule. The amending Irish Land Bill will be introduced on or before Monday.
MR.JOSEPH DEVLIN: Will it be introduced by the present Chief Secretary?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know who else it is to be introduced by.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Bill is opposed by both landlords and tenants.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then I am afraid it cannot pass.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: What is the use of wasting time on it then?
MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)urged that an opportunity should be given for the discussion of the Home Office Vote.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is down for to-morrow night.
MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe): It was clearly understood we were to have a morning sitting for the Home Office Vote. Knowing what is going on we could not accept an evening sitting for this Vote. It is a matter which affects many thousands of people in this country. Why not take it on Wednesday?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsuggested that the best course would be that his right hon. friend the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury should consult with those who had the confidence of hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the allocation of the remaining days of Supply. To the Government it was, of course, a matter of relative indifference on what subject hon. Gentlemen desired to criticise their administration; he had always declared, almost ad nauseam, that the Government were prepared to accept the version of hon. Gentlemen opposite as to what they thought the most desirable matters to criticise.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: We think it the most desirable arrangement to take the Home Office Vote on Wednesday.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I venture to suggest a consultation, as time is limited.

THE COLONIAL CONFERENCE
MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government is bound by, and intends to act

359
upon, the solemn declaration of this House, made on 4th April this year, to the effect that "any Colonial Conference which was entered upon, except on the understanding that this country would not agree to the taxation of corn, meat, and dairy produce, would result in failure."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The solemn declaration of which then hon. Gentleman speaks appears to be in the nature of a prophecy. I do not think the Government can be bound by any prophecy in which this House chooses to indulge.
MR. SOARES: My Question arises out of a declaration which appears on the books of the House. It is a Resolution passed by the House on April 4th.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; but that is a prophecy; it is a statement that a certain course will result in failure. I do not see how the Government can be bound by a prophecy.
MR. SOARES: Do I understand that the Prime Minister is not bound by the deliberate opinion of this House?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly, I do not think that I, or any sane man, can be bound, least of all the House itself, by any forecast of the future in which it may indulge.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): Are we to understand that if the House of Commons expresses its opinion that a certain course of action if taken by the Government would result in failure, the Government is not bound by an expression of opinion of that kind before it takes action?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the Government is in the least bound beyond the length I have stated.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is the opinion of this House worth anything at all?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Sometimes, not always.
Mr.Soares.

SHIPOWNERS' NEGLIGENCE(REMEDIES) BILL
Lords Amendment to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 293.]
NEW BILLS
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL
  "To amend the Law with respect to Customs Duties in the Isle of Man," presented by Mr. Victor Cavendish; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 292.]
  HIGHWAYS (No. 2) BILL
  "To provide for the establishment of a Highway Commission for England and Wales and for the Amendment of the Laws relating to Highways and Bridges in England and Wales, and for other purposes," presented by Mr. Arthur Stanley; supported by Sir Alfred Hickman, Mr. Lough, Mr. Griffith Boscawen, Mr. Perks, Mr. Bull, Mr. Scott-Montagu, and Mr. Tennant; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 294.]
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  "To continue various Expiring Laws," presented by Mr. Victor Cavendish; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 296.]
  LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) BILL
  "To make provision for the taking of a Census in 1906 for the purposes of The London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894," [resented by Mr. Gerald Balfour; supported by Mr. Jeffreys; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 295.]

  MARINE WORKS (IRELAND) BILL
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.)asked leave to bring in a Bill under the ten minutes rule to extend the Marine Works (Ireland) Act to districts outside of the congested districts. He said the subject had been debated in the House several times, and it was unnecessary for him to dilate upon the merits of his case. The House was well aware of the condition of a very

  361
  large section of the Irish population and of the state of the fishing industry on some parts of the Irish coast.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.), rising to a point of order, called attention to the absence of the Chief Secretary. This was not right, seeing that the Bill affected the interests of Irish fishermen.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to go out.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: He is paid £5,000 a year and ought to be here.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.): May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is writing his resignation?
  Mr. WALTER LONGhere returned.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE, proceeding, said the Bill was introduced on behalf of a large section of the Irish fishing population. The question had been brought to the notice of various Chief Secretaries, but, so far, nothing had been done. He made no doubt, however, that the House would be glad to assist them to obtain this small and modest measure of relief, especially as it was not very likely that any measure of legislative importance would be forthcoming for Ireland as the result of the session. It was a matter of very urgent and pressing necessity. Year by year the fishing population was diminishing, and year by year the tide of emigration was flowing quietly on. There was already a Bill, the Marine Works Act, referring to certain parts of Ireland, and he asked that that measure should be extended to the entire coast of Ireland. The question was non-controversial. The Bill had been very carefully considered by everybody in Ireland who understood the question, and it had the support of Irish bodies, county councils and harbour boards, and everybody interested in the fishing industry. In fact, it was a measure which would have the support of an Irish Parliament. The existing Act was not quite as good as it might be, and in the new Bill they desired to improve it. For instance, the Irish
  362
  Board of Works, which was a very unsatisfactory body, had large powers, and they proposed to place their responsibilities upon the shoulders of Irish elected bodies to whom the Act would be entrusted. Similarly, they proposed to give the county councils and harbour boards such powers of supervision and protection as would to some extent protect the Irish ratepayers against possible mistakes by the Board of Works. They further desired to improve the financial position of the Irish local bodies by consolidating their debts and taking other steps to assist the Irish ratepayers. He trusted the House would agree to the First Reading of the Bill and that it would assist them in its subsequent stages.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the Marine Works (Ireland) Act, 1902, to districts out of the Congested Districts."—(Sir Thomas Esmonde.)
  MR. POWER (WaterforJ, E.)sought to speak, but the Speaker ruled that unless he opposed he had no locus standi. The hon. Member said he did not oppose the principle, but he could not agree with all the hon. Member for North Wexford had said.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)said that without speaking in opposition he had frequently commented on speeches of Ministers in introducing a Bill under the ten minutes rule, and he submitted that it provided that the Speaker might call upon a Member to oppose, or might restrict the debate or allow it to go on.
  THE SPEAKERsaid he thought that reading a little too wide. The Standing Order only applied to opposed Bills.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill to extend the Marine Works (Ireland) Act, 1902, to districts outside of the Congested Districts, ordered to be brought in by Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Cogan, and Mr. Power.

  MARINE WORKS (IRELAND) BILL
  "To extend The Marine Works (Ireland) Act, 1902, to districts outside the

  363
  Congested Districts," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 297.]

  DURATION OF PARLIAMENTS
  MR. CHURCHILL (Oldham)asked for leave to introduce even at that late period of the session a Bill to limit the duration of Parliaments to five years. He submitted that the present condition of things was peculiarly suitable for the favourable consideration of any plan for shortening the duration of Parliaments. Under the Septennial Act we enjoyed a longer tenure of Government without appeal to the constituencies than almost every other European country. Some of our greatest and most illustrious statesmen, among them Lord Chatham and Lord Broughham, had strongly urged the curtailment of the period now prescribed. In practice the duration had teen a great deal less than the maximum allowed. The Parliaments of the last century had lasted on an average less than five years—the limit he proposed. His proposal was, therefore, not one to alter the general practice of the country, but to provide and guard against certain special and peculiar circumstances which might arise from time to time.
  In former years the two vital functions of the House—its representative character and the controlling influence which it exercised upon the Government—had been preserved by a number of practical and effective checks. There was a check afforded by the possible intervention of the Crown, either by dismissing Ministers from office or by dissolving Parliament, There was also the check provided by a great number of Members who represented family, or pocket, boroughs, and who, however unsatisfactory from one point of view, undoubtedly gave an element of absolute independence to the House. Lastly, there was the check of public opinion, which at some periods of our history had proved very powerful, and had exercised a kind of moral restraint upon the Government of the day. All these checks which the wisdom of our ancestors had devised, and the practice of former times assured, had gradually fallen into weakness or
  364
  desuetude. The Crown acted only upon advice, and when it was a question of the dismissal of Ministers or the dissolution of Parliament that advice was not always forthcoming. Independent Members were gradually, irresistibly absorbed in the great political organisations, which grew in strength every succeeding year, and public opinion was concealed and often distorted by the ever-spreading ramifications of a vast and combined syndicated newspaper Press. There remained of all these checks only one which was now effective—the check established by the House of Lords, which, if it operated at all, operated only when one political Party was in power. Now that the checks had been removed, it might easily happen that a Government might continue in power long after confidence had been withdrawn from it by the country. The Ministers themselves might earnestly and honestly desire to be relieved from duties which they were no longer discharging to their own satisfaction nor to the satisfaction of the public, and yet, so strong might be the pressure of the instinct of self-preservation upon them, that, by a strange inversion, the very circumstances which ought to procure a dissolution might prevent it.
  The House must remember the increasing power of the Executive and the decline of Parliamentary authority. Our Parliamentary procedure had been adapted to the rigid precision of foreign models. Our constitution still preserved the generous vagueness for which it was famous. We had borrowed from foreign nations almost every device which could weaken a representative institution; we had rejected almost every safeguard which could control the Executive Government. Contrary to the practice of early days, every vote which was taken was regarded as a vote of confidence in the Government, except, apparently, a vote upon which the Government was defeated. The prolongation of Parliament in such circumstances might very easily produce very grave dangers to the State. Ministers, how ever able and industrious they might be when they came into office, could not fail to be exhausted by many years of the ever-increasing severity of official business

  365
  under modern conditions. There was at the fag-end of Parliament a growth, an accumulation, of bitterness and personal feud which, under his proposal, would be swept away by one appeal to the mation, when an entirely new House would be brought together. There was in long Parliaments increased exacerbation of Party spirit both in and out of the House, and most of all there was danger of some tremendous explosion of popular feeling, the result of passions long suppressed and pent up, and which, when it came, not infrequently created evils almost as many as it cured. The ever-increasing facilities of locomotion
  would render general elections much more easy than in former times. He earnestly hoped that the House would allow him to introduce this measure even at this late period of the session, in order to bring the question of shorter Parliaments a little nearer to the arena of practical political discussion.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the duration of Parliaments to five years."—(Mr. Churchill.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes,239. (Division list No. 311)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Elibank, Master of

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Allen, Charles P.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Field, William

  M Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh. N.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mooney, John J.

  Black, Alexander William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John(Montrose

  Boland, John

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Moss, Samuel

  Brigg, John

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Muldoon, John

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Murnaghan, George

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Gilhooly, James

  Murphy, John

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Burt, Thomas

  Grant, Corrie

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Buxton, NE. (York, NR, Whitby

  Gurdon Sir W. Brampton

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Buxton, SydneyCharles(Poplar

  Hammond John

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Caldwell, James

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Calley, Frederick

  Hayden. John Patrick

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

  Chance, Frederick William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Dowd, John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Malley, William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Mara, James

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O'Shee, James John

  Crombie, John William

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  Partington Oswald

  Crooks, William

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Perks, Robert William

  Cullinan, J.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Dalziel, James Henry.

  Jones, DavidBrynmor(Swansea

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Reddy, M.

  Delany, William

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Devlin, CharlesRamsay(G'lway

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Kennedy, VincentP. (Cavan, W.

  Richards, Thomas

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Dillon, John

  Langley, Batty

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Leese, SirJosephF. (Accrington

  Rose, Sir Thomas

  Duffy, William J.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rose, Charles Day

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Levy, Maurice

  Russell, T. W.

  Samuel, HerbertL. (Cleveland)

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R-)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Grower

  Whitely, J. H. (Halifax)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Sheehy, David

  Toulmin, George

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wallace, Robert

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Wood, James

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Woodhouse, SirJT. (Huddersfd

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR. (Northants

  Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

  Young, Samuel

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Weir, James Galloway

  Sullivan, Donal

  White, George (Norfolk)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Tennant, Harold John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Mr. Churchill and Mr.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Trevelyan.

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Davies, SirHoratioD. (Chatham

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Denny, Colonel

  Hoult, Joseph

  Allhusen, AugustusHenryEden

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Howard, John(Kent, Favresham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Arkwright, John Stanhohe

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFred. Dixon

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh 0.

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. SirJohn E.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Arrol, Sir William

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. SirH.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fellowes, RtHnAilwyn Edward

  Law, Anderw Bonar (Glasgow)

  Baldwin, Alfred

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

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

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants, Fareham

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds

  Finlay, RtHn SirRB. (Inv'rn'ss

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S-

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fitzgerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lindell, Henry

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Bigwood, James

  Flower, Sir Ernset

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S

  Bingham, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bond, Edward

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth.

  Brassey, Albert

  Garfit, William

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Godson, SirAugustus Frederick

  Macdonna, John Cumming

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Gordon, MajEvans-(Tr'Hmlets

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bull, William James

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  M'lver, SirLewis(EdinburghW

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshiie

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

  Graham,Henry Robert

  Malcolm, Ian

  Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Martin, Richaid Biddulph

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gretton, John

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Maxwell, RtHn Sir HE. (Wigt'n

  Chamberlain, RtHn. JA. (Wore.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

  Chapman, Edward

  Hamilton, RtHn. Lord G. (Mid

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry

  Milvain, Thomas

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Harris, L. Leverton(Tynem'th

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Haslam, Sir Alfred

  Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Heath, Arthu rHoward(Hanley

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Heath, SirJames(Staffords. NW

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morton, Arthur H. Ayimer

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C

  Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim, S.

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Muriay, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hermon-Hcdge, Sir Robert T.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Myers, William Henry

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Davenport, William Bromley;

  Hope, J. F. (Shemeld, Brightside

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  368

  369

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Turnour, Viscount

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Walrond, Rt, Hn. SirWilliam H.

  Percy, Earl

  Samuel, Sir HarryS. (Limehouse

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

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Saunderson, Rt. HmCol. Edw. J.

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

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Eenfrew

  Williams, Colonel E. (Dorset)

  Plummer, Sir Walter E.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romtord)

  Willoughby de Eresby (Lord

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wills, SirFrederiek(Bristol, N.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Smith, H.C. (North'mbTyneside

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

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Purvis, Robert

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur)Ormskirk

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

  Eankin, Sir Sames

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelni

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Ratcliff, E. F.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Reid, James (Greenock

  Stroyan, John

  Wylie, Alexander

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wyndham, Rt, Hon. George

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (OxfdUniv

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Renwick, George

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Thornton, Percy W.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Tomlinson, SirWm. Edw. M.

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Tuff, Charles.

  and Viscount Valentia

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL
  As amended, considered.
  MR. THOMAS SHAAV (Hawick Burghs)said he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name, "In Clause 1, page 2, line 14, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'having regard to congregational contributions and other income of the Free Church.'" He might say that this Amendment was substantially a part of the bargain which they had been able to effect with the representatives of the Government. He believed that it contained all that they, on his side, wished to see in regard to the actual terms of the agreement. He expressed the hope that when all the circumstances and various matters were set forth, and considered by the Commissioners, it would never enter into the mind of the Free Church itself, far less into the minds of the Commissioners, as be was sure it did not enter into the mind of either Party in that House, that there was to be a system of permanent endowment of congregations, apart altogether from their self-supporting position.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 14, after the word shall, 'to insert the words' having regard to congregational contributions and other income of the Free Church'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw).
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton)said [he agreed with the statement which his hon. and learned friend had made, viz., that they had endeavoured, as far as possible, to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman opposite. He did not intend in the slightest degree to profess to be able to enter into the minds either of the Free Church or of the Commissioners. He desired that both bodies should have the fullest liberty given to them by the terms of the Amendment, when the Bill was passed into law.
  MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)expressed his approbation that the Government had accepted some small step in the direction in which many on that side of the House desired to go; though he was not quite sure whether the words they had agreed to insert now did carry out what was in his mind when he made the suggestion to the Prime Minister, that it was not a kindness but a cruelty to a Church, which called itself a Free Church, to endow it so that the need for congregational contributions should no longer exist. While he understood that this form of words in the Amendment had been agreed to on both sides of the House, although not entirely meeting the views of his hon. and learned friend the Member for the Border Burghs, he suggested to the Lord-Advocate whether he could not agree to the insertion of three words in the Amendment to make it read "having regard

  371
  to the proper maintenance of the congregational contributions and other income of the Free Church." What he desired to do was this, to provide that in this redistribution of the funds of the Churches, the Free Church, as it called itself, should be left with the same proportion of voluntary effort required from its supporters as had been required previous to 1900. That was not the result of the Bill. He, therefore, took it that all the money that came beyond that amount to the Free Church would be a harm to it, and not a benefit; and this Bill would be one which would kill and not kindle the interests of religion, which both Churches were endeavouring to promote. He would suggest to the Lord-Advocate whether he might not be able to accept a slight strengthening of the words of the Amendment; but for his part, having got the principle acknowledged in the words of the Amendment, he did not intend to enforce his own particular words on the House.
  MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)said that the Amendment which he had put on the Paper did seem to him needed. Of course, he recognised that a very considerable improvement had been effected in the Bill in the manner indicated by his hon. and learned friend the Member for the Border Burghs. He agreed that the improvements which had been effected in the Bill, and which were to be effected by other Amendments which the Government had accepted, would diminish the danger against which he desired to guard by leaving out the word "adequate." Notwithstanding these improvements it seemed to him that a danger did exist from that word and the sense that might be put upon it by the Commissioners. He felt that the word was vague and that it might lead to harm; but if he attached so much importance to his opinion as to divide upon it, and was not successful in the division, he might find his last state worse than the first. Although he wished that the Lord-Advocate could have found another word to take the venom out of the word "adequate," he did not want to see the discretion of
  372
  the Commissioners fettered, and there fore he would not move the Amendment standing in his name.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSONconfessed that to his mind, the word "adequate" had not the fault attributed to it by his right hon. friend; but he was quite certain that all of them had complete confidence in the Commissioners, and though the word differed from the word in the Elgin Commission Report, which was "liberal," he thought "adequate" more clearly carried out the wishes of all of them. He was sure that they wished to give-the Commissioners a free hand.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid that the picture he had in his mind was a picture of the state of things that might be produced, particularly in the North and West of Scotland, where they had divided forces, by the granting of anything in the nature of a permanent endowment. What was wanted was to allow Church development to go on on its normal and natural lines, and not to give perpetuity to a system which would become a common mockery and a byword. They had had far too much of that in times past. He agreed with his right hon. and learned friend that the Commissioners should view such a situation by way of making the adequate provision to which he had referred. He-would remind his right hon. friend the Member for Aberdeen that the word. "adequate" must now stand in the Bill unless they were to go back on the arrangement which had been made, with perfect freedom, on both sides.
  Amendmont proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 15, after the word 'support,' to insert the words 'subject to payment of the usual annual contributions (if any).'"—(The. Lord-Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, lines 17 and 18, to leave out the-words 'supplementing congregational contributions towards.'"—(Mr. Tkomas Shaw.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 20, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'for itinerant preachers.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 21, to leave out the words 'and for itinerant preachers.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words 'and any orders so made,' and insert the words 'Any such orders.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 32, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'may be recorded in the usual manner in the Register of Sasines or other appropriate register.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 41, to leave out the first word 'or.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 41, after the word 'burdens,' to insert the words 'or debts.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 2, after the word 'of,' to insert the word 'that.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 3, after the word 'of,' to insert the word 'that.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'executions on any judgments,' and
  374
  insert the word 'execution.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 16, after the word 'be,' to insert the word 'permanently.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 21, after the first word 'the,' to insert the words 'orders or other.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 21, after the word 'such,' to insert the words 'orders or.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 4, line 16, after the first word 'was,' to insert the words 'vested in or.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 4, line 23, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'notwithstanding anything that has taken place since said date.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BLACK (Banffshire)moved to leave out of Clause 4, page 4, line 25, the words "properly made," and to insert "made in good faith." He said he had no doubt that his suggestion was in accordance with the intention of the Committee, and he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 4, line 25, to leave out the words 'properly made' and insert the words 'made in good faith,'—(Mr. Black)—instead there of."
  Question proposed, "That the words 'properly made' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid he would like to have time to consider the question.

  375
  For the present he thought the Bill should stand as it was.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid that "payments properly made" must be "made in good faith," but payments "made in good faith" might be improperly made.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 4, line 35, after the word 'legacies' to insert the words 'bequests or conveyances of property.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 5, line 4, after the word 'be,' to insert the word 'permanently.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWasked if he might suggest that the same procedure should be followed as in the Committee stage, and that they should postpone Clause 5, so that they might be able to complete the remainder of the Bill. It would be a great convenience.
  THE SPEAKER: I am afraid that course cannot be taken on Report. We must deal with the Bill as a whole.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.)moved to omit Clause 5 from the Bill. He said he felt justified in once more giving the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the clause, because it seemed to him that the position was somewhat altered from that when the Bill appeared before the House on previous occasions. It now appeared that, so far as the other clauses were concerned, they were practically settled between the parties most immediately concerned, and he thought he might say, speaking for those who took the same view as himself, that they desired to take no step whatever that would interfere with those portions of the Bill. In this Bill they had an important factor which did not often exist, and that was that an important clause might be omitted without in any sense destroying the object
  376
  for which the Bill was brought in or the value of the Bill itself. He thought that must be admitted to be the case. If Clause 5 were omitted, it would not affect in the least degree the objects of the Bill. That, he thought, was itself a justification for the action he proposed to ask the House to take.
  Might he remind the House what the object of the Bill really was? Difficulties in respect to a large amount of property existed between two Free Churches in Scotland, and an appeal was made to another place to have those difficulties settled, and a decision, which was admitted, he believed, on all hands, to be more or less a technical decision, made the position an intolerable one. Consequently, an appeal was made to that House to redress by an Act of Parliament the difficulties to which those two Churches had been brought by the decision of the House of Lords. The question at once arose why those two Churches were not alone dealt with in the Bill. That appeared to him to be a very natural question to ask. The matters affecting those two Churches were all that needed to be dealt with, and why should another quite outside matter have been introduced? If it had not been introduced, the question would have been a purely Scotch one, and he was sure none of the English Members would have desired to interfere in any degree. It appeared, however, that certain clerical minds looked upon this Government as an ever present Providence to dispense gifts to them whenever a favourable opportunity occurred, and they appealed to the Prime Minister, who, with a ready response that requited that confidence, inserted Clause 5. That clause was very far-reaching in its character. It dealt with the State Church; the other clauses of the Bill dealt with the Free Churches. If he understood rightly, it was held on a previous occasion that the object of Clause 5 was to do justice to another Church, and to place it in a position of equality with the Churches most immediately concerned by the Bill. But be would ask to be allowed to point out to the House that the property in question certainly belonged to one or other or to both of those Churches, whereas the

  377
  property of the Established Church belonged to the State. That altered the position altogether.
  Why was the Established Church put into the position of a State Church? As he understood it, it was because it was desired that the State should acknowledge some special form of religion which had been embodied m the formulas of that Church, and had been made the religion of the State. The question now arose, after this clause, how far a Church so established would be able to alter its creed or its formula of subscription independent of the State. The Prime Minister, he believed, said on a previous occasion that he desired to remove a handicap from that Church.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I never used that expression.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid the expression was used, but, if it was used by the Lord-Advocate, he begged the Prime Minister's pardon. What he desired to point oat was that to give the Established Church independence, as was now desired, would be really to increase the inequality which already existed between the State Church and the Free Churches. If that Church desired freedom of belief and of subscription, which they were told the consciences of many of its ministers required, then it could have it on the same terms as the Free Churches, but he contended that it was unjust to put a clause into a Bill like this by which it would be allowed to retain property attached to it as a State Church and yet gain freedom in those matters which belonged to the Free Churches themselves. If real justice were to be done, it appeared to him that it could only be done by placing all the property in one common fund and allowing Parliament to dispose of that property as fairness and justice demanded. Otherwise, if a minority objected to the alteration of the formula of subscription, where would it be placed in regard to the property? He contended that under Clause 5 the privileged Church would have its privileges
  378
  increased, and that the Bill was therefore one of a retrograde character.
  South of the Tweed they could not, of course, regard such a Clause without apprehending certain effects which might ensue if it were to be taken in any sense as a precedent. If the Established Church could change its formulas by vote of the Ecclesiastical Assembly, they knew what the constitution of the ecclesiastical assemblies were in connection with the State Church of England. Though no doubt in Scotland they were more largely composed of laymen than in England, and that was a safeguard, still they could not see a clause like Clause 5 without some forebodings as to what might follow in regard to another Church. It seemed to him that the very foundation of the claims of a State Church were gone if such a clause were permitted to be used by that Church. A State Church was established with a certain belief, with a certain formula of religion considered advisable for the country, and if that form of belief was liable to be altered absolutely independently of Parliament, then the very foundation of the claims of a State Church were gone altogether. It was contended that the clause only referred to alterations of formula of subscription, and that the creed was retained. He felt that this was treading on dangerous ground. He should be sorry to make any uncharitable remark, but was it contended that it was a right thing that the formula of subscription might contradict the doctrine of the creed, or might evade that doctrine? Why should they alter the formula if it were not to enable those who could not conscientiously teach the doctrine of the creed to subscribe to the formula with certain reservations. It seemed to him that that would be extending what was already admitted to be a great evil. He rejoiced in a tender conscience, but in matters of belief he felt it must be outside the State Church, and, if that Church desired to have free play, it must get rid of those bonds by which it had been made a State Church. He was bound to say he had heard no evidence given that the Church of Scotland as a Church had made any great and pressing demand for the change, and he felt that

  379
  the least they could demand was that, when the State Church desired to change its formula of belief, it should have to apply to Parliament for its sanction. He did not in any way wish to imperil the passing of the Bill, which he knew was desired on both sides of the House, but Clause 5 could be omitted without in any way imperilling the objects for which the Bill was brought in, and without in any sense making it unable to deliver the Churches from the difficulties in which they were placed by the judgment of the House of Lords. It brought up by a side issue the most important ecclesiastical question that could possibly be discussed in that House.
  MR. COMPTON RICKETT (Scarborough)seconded. He said that it seemed to him that in the interests of the members of the Established Church of Scotland there was very much to be said in favour of the omission of Clause 5 at the present moment. It was left open to a bare majority to make the Confession of Faith merely a pious expression of opinion which should not be obligatory upon teaching and preaching. The idea that the inclusion of laymen in the government of the Church of Scotland makes for greater liberality was doubtful, for they found that in most Churches where there was a demand for liberality irreligious expression, that the demand came from the clergy and ministers and not from the laymen, who were, as a rule, less informed and more fearful of any change. Moreover, he had heard no reply to the suggestion that the interests of the minority were not protected from a simple majority making a change vast and far-reaching in a matter of conscience. Surely a clause of that kind should have contained some security for a revision of the first decision and for some time to elapse before that decision was made permanent. At least two-thirds or three-fourths of the presbyteries should be called upon to approve of a grave alteration. There was no certainty that change would always work in the desired direction, and there might be a drift of reaction which would result, instead of striking off fetters, in making them more severe. Then the clause extended to the
  380
  Universities. He imagined that theology in the Universities of Scotland might be supposed to interest other Churches beside the Established, that the Universities belonged to the nation, and in that case it was rather a serious matter to bring these seats of learning within the scope of the clause.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 5, line 8, to leave out Clause 5."—(Mr. George White.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'and,' in page 5, line 10, stand part of the Bill."
  SIR J. FEEGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)said there was no desire in the Church of Scotland to change, alter, or withdraw from the creeds common to all Churches and held by all bodies of Presbyterians, in Scotland. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said there was no evidence of desire in the Church of Scotland for this relaxation, but. if he had followed the proceedings, he would have been aware that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, by unanimous vote, had desired that relaxation. The seconder said that no time would be allowed for consideration and revision, and that it might, after all, be an actual minority or a small majority of the Church which expressed itself in favour of any change. That showed how very loosely the hon. Gentleman had dealt with the subject and how very little informed he was upon it, because the Barrier Act provided that such questions should be sent down for the opinion of the presbyteries, and that they must be approved by the majority before being accepted. Then they had again to be confirmed by the General Assembly "When an unanimous vote of the General Assembly had been confirmed by a majority of the presbyteries and confirmed by another General Asssembly, it could not be said that there had been no time for consideration, and so complete a confirmation of the vote was an adequate proof of the actual desires of the Church. This was a matter which he would have thought gentlemen with free ideas about Churchmanship would welcome and encourage, but he supposed

  381
  the odium theologicum or dislike of an Established Church induced them to attempt to prevent such a Church from obtaining a relaxation of the subscriptions which were a hindrance and stumbling-block to many consciences, and a release from which would in no sense be used to obtain exemption from the creed which the Church had always held, but would tend to increased sincerity and true religion in the Church.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs)said that, while he admitted Members had a right to oppose this clause inasmuch as the Bill dealt with the result of the Elgin Commission and the matter referred to in the clause formed no part of that inquiry, personally, he thought there were strong reasons for its retention, with the exception of that portion which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen had mentioned. He was strongly in favour of the retention of the portion which dealt with the formula of subscription, though he freely admitted there was no logical reason for the inclusion of the clause in the Bill, and, as a member of the Church of Scotland, he had always disliked the feeling that support of the clause might be interpreted as an indication that the Church of Scotland was using the difficulties of the Free Church in order to get the freedom which, he held, they rightly claimed. In Scotland they had always claimed freedom for their Church Courts, and if they had not had it it was largely due to the influence of this House and of English Members who had not thoroughly understood the system, and did not understand how the Church, though an endowed Church, could hardly be said to be attached by very tight bonds to the State. It would be difficult to call it an Established Church. It was certainly an endowed Church, but when this clause had been added to the Bill the plea for continuing it as a State Church would be a very slender one. He believed in disestablishment as the basis of complete Presbyterian reunion, and he thought this Bill would take them a considerable way towards that basis. But without freedom for the Church Courts the way to complete Presbyterian reunion was barred. Under the un-
  382
  fortunate judgment of the House of Lords no Church could safely enter into union with another unless, as Lord Young put it, it went landless and. penniless, which was not the way of Established Churches.
  The House of Lords judgment had. undoubtedly affected the. Church of Scotland. In the great centres of population it was mainly a voluntary Church; there were four and a half millions of subscribed money which, under the recent decision, any enterprising solicitor could attack. As to the creed, he doubted whether many a heritor would not have a perfectly good case against paying the stipends of Established ministers, as there were few ministers who could sign the whole Confession of Faith, believing every word, and unless they so signed it they were not entitled to their stipends. What was true of ministers was also true of elders. Many an elder who had to sign this document was in the position of a hypocrite. Anyone who signed the Confession of Faith in its entirety was a hypocrite, unless he believed in the six days creation of the world, the babes of a span long being condemned to everlasting fire, the infernal regions, and so forth. The best that could be said of those who signed it was that for the greater part they did not believe in it. The Scotch people were being invited to remain hypocrites, as they could not serve as elders or ministers unless they signed a Confession of Faith in which, as reasonable men, they could not wholly believe, and they were being asked to do this for the convenience of England. That was a very wide extension of the Unionist principle to which he for one had no intention of subscribing. On these grounds he sup ported the inclusion of the clause, with the exception of the portion most properly attacked by the right hon. Gentle man the Member for South Aberdeen. Scotch Members might well appeal to the House to be allowed to settle this matter for themselves. They had never interfered with others in matters of faith or religion—
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): What about the Prime Minister?
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONthought his hon. friend would admit that the great body of Scotch Presbyterians had mot tried to judge of the claims of any other portion of the kingdom by Scotch standards; they had not distinguished themselves by attempting to force others to adhere to their standards, and he thought they were entitled to ask that the tolerance which they had always endeavoured to show to others should be extended to themselves.
  MR. ELLIOT (Durham)said that while he agreed with much of the speech of the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs, he did not think the disestablishment of the Scotch Church was involved in the question under discussion, nor did he recognise the great distinction that the hon. Member had tried to draw in the matter of independence between the Church Courts belonging to the Establishment and those of the voluntary Churches. In both cases they were limited by the law of the land, and the same authority would be supreme in the case of difference between the two institutions—the Church and the State. The clause in question dealt with the subscription to the Confession of Faith by ministers, and with the subscription by professors appointed to chairs of theology in the Scotch Universities. To his mind those two sets of persons stood on somewhat different ground. In introducing the Bill the Lord-Advocate reflected somewhat severely on the Act of Parliament which made subscription for ministers of the Church recessary. But all professors in the Universities, all teachers, and all parish ministers in Scotland were required to conform to the test of their belief in the Confession of Faith, and that was not merely the enactment of this Parliament; it was due to the Act of Security, which was embodied in, and made part of, the Act of Union between the two kingdoms. It was impossible to touch on this subject without noticing the difference between the way in which matters of this kind were regarded now, and the way in which our ancestors regarded them. The whole foundation of the present mode of looking at these questions was to consider it as natural that in succeeding
  384
  generations there should be modifications or changes in belief. That was distinctly opposed to the old idea under which it was supposed that rules were laid down for all time. They had to deal with a reasonable desire for laxity on the part of those who wished to become ministers and teachers. Surely it would be right to assist tender consciences. Wherever they found a number of honourably minded, intelligent men, who wanted to do their work well, they were hampered; and, after all, they were in sympathy with the great majority of the people. It was a scandal to keep out, by statute, persons who were willing to give their best service to the Church.
  With regard to University chairs, he agreed with the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen. He was quite prepared to trust the responsibility of those appointments without any test at all to the Crown. Surely it was unnecessary to go beyond that; and let them exercise their responsibility as they did over the Universities and the people of Scotland generally. He rejoiced to think that one of the most distinguished historians of the country was appointed Professor of History at the University of Cambridge, although he was a Roman Catholic. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman who advised the Crown in regard to these appointments would do so with a due sense of his responsibility. Having got responsible persons to make these appointments they ought not to hamper them and tie them down by means of tests. The people of Scotland were entitled to judge Scotch affairs according to their own lights. When the hon. Member for Leith said that Scotch Members did not interfere with the religious questions of other parts of the kingdom he would remind him that they took a prominent part in disestablishing the Church of Ireland. In the case of Ireland the Church was reconstituted, and a governing body was set up consisting not only of priests but also of laymen, and they had equal power with the clergy not only to arrange the formula but actually to revise the creeds and catechisms. Was the Church of Scotland to have nothing

  385
  at all until it was ripe for disestablishment? He should give the most cordial support to this clause, although he should prefer it improved in the way he had suggested. He did not think it was quite satisfactory that national institutions like the Scottish Universities should have their formula drawn up for them by the Established Church General Assembly. Still he recognised that this clause constituted a very great improvement, and he hoped the House would very soon pass it into law.
  MR. BEIGG (Yorkshire, W.R., Keighley)said he wished to say a word or two in favour of leaving out this clause entirely. England, after all, was very near to Scotland, and the principle involved in this clause was one which they had been taught to look upon with grave suspicion, namely, disestablishment without disendowment. There were sections of the English Church which would be glad if they could be disestablished and not be disendowed at the same time. If the endowment of the Scotch Church was continued it should remain subject to some public directing control. He did not advocate the formation of creeds, but this Clause 5 was doing for the Established Church in Scotland what the High Church Party wanted in England. The position of the three bodies in Scotland was illogical, because one was endowed and two were not endowed, and yet all had equal freedom as to creed. With regard to what the hon. Member for Leith had said, if the Church of Scotland wanted to be free it should give up its endowments and be honest.
  MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)said he thought it was rather significant that all the serious opposition to the clause that day came from English Members who spoke as disestablishes, bearing in mind the effect this clause might have both in regard to Scotland and England. There were many men in Scotland who supported disestablishment, but he did not think that either the Members of that House or of the great religious bodies of Scotland, who in principle were in favour of disestablishment, in the least degree desired to make capital against the Church of Scotland by forcing upon it the con-
  386
  tinuance of this injustice. The objection had been taken to this part of the clause that it might endanger the passing of the measure, but it was now quite clear that the insertion and passing of this clause would not endanger the Bill They all felt that in order to settle the differences which had arisen between the United Free Church and the legal Free Church this Bill was necessary and inevitable. But there was a much closer connection between this clause and the rest of the Bill than had up to the present been pointed out.
  The proposer of this Amendment spoke as if the whole question dealt with in the Bill was a matter of the redistribution of property between the two Churches, and as if the only bearing of the Bill was as to the tenure of the property. But the Bill had a far wider effect, because it would entirely alter the constitution of the Church. The United Free Church had a certain constitution under which it considered that it had power to make alterations in its formula, in regard to its ideas of Church government, and in regard to the relations of Church and State. The decision of the House of Lords had shown that the United Free Church was mistaken in considering that it had that power. By this Bill all the property was handed over to a Commission with power to reallocate it to the United Free Church upon totally new terms. The United Free Church was at liberty to draw its own model trust deeds, and to make for itself the conditions upon which it intended to live as a community in the future. It was also relaxing the restrictions which had held it back in past years. No such questions could ever arise again under the terms upon which the United Free Church would receive back its property. It would be free to make what changes it liked in its formula. That made an enormous difference in the position of the United Free Church, apart from the mere question of how a certain amount of property was to be distributed. That change was bound to react on the whole condition and position of the Established Church. The Established Church, in its last General Assembly, had demanded greater freedom than it had had in the past in.

  387
  its formulas in order to meet the change in the United Free Church. He did not think any man could deny the reality of that claim. That was the reason for Clause 5 being included in this measure, and for the whole being treated as one subject.
  His hon. friend the Member for the Leith Burghs spoke as if everyone, minister and elder, was bound to the terms of subcription, which it was the object of this clause to set free. The hon. Member did not seem to be aware that the lay office bearers never had been constrained to this statutory subscription—to exact formula. In regard to them there had been just that latitude in the General Assembly, subject to the provisions of the Barrier Act, which was now claimed in the term of ministers also. The term of subscription remained for a long time rigid, but public opinion changed and relaxed the terms of subscription for lay members. There had not been, and there never would be, any possibility of abuse in regard to the terms of subscription. What was now asked for ministers was a freedom corresponding to that which was granted forty years ago to the Church of England, though not in identical form. English Members did not seem to understand that the Presbyterian principles in Scotland in regard to Establishment were entirely different from the Episcopal principles and the system of fixed formularies which obtained in the Church of England. He did not consider that any precedent they might create in accordance with the principles of the Church of Scotland for their own guidance would really have the slightest effect on any question that might arise in the Church of England. He thought the fears of English Members in regard to the possibility of evil consequences resulting from this liberty were absolutely imaginary. He believed that this form of repealing the Act of 1693 and returning to the great principle of the Act of 1690 was a method for giving to the Church of Scotland the freedom which public opinion in that country demanded and which was most consonant with the history and traditions of that Church.
  MR. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)said he should be sorry to admit that the
  388
  views which the right hon Gentleman had expressed were a correct or adequate exposition of the attitude of the Scottish Members generally towards this question. In the first place, he took exception to what the right hon. Gentleman had told the House when he said that this Bill in some way changed the constitution of the United Free Church. The constitution of the United Free Church was never questioned before the House of Lords at all except on the question of property. The jurisdiction of the Courts had to do with nothing but the property, and where the House of Lords differed from the contention put forward on behalf of the United Free Church was entirely with reference to its power of dealing with such property. The United Free Church had reaffirmed its own contention with regard to its constitution and it had never departed from that.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: It will receive back its property from the Commission on fresh and different trusts.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the Commission was dealing with property and not touching the constitution of the Church in any shape or form. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that those who supported this clause were in a different attitude of mind on the question of disestablishment in Scotland from those who were opposed to it. He did not think that was so. He had always been of opinion that the principle of establishment in Scotland was one that lent no strength to any Church and he had always been in favour of its removal.; The truth was that the question in Scotland was totally different from the question in England. In Scotland the question of the retention of Church and State was a question of very attenuated relationship indeed. There was very little substance in it, but in England there was great substance in it. The men who went into the Scottish Churches were men of the same training, coming almost from the same houses, and men who looked at things in very much the same fashion. To-day that was peculiarly so. After the great movement known as the Disruption in 1843 there was no doubt that a majority of the most eminent men in Scotland went out

  389
  and joined the Free Church. They took with them a great deal of the life of the establishment principle, and the result was that for many years there was a real difference of disposition and doctrine between the two Churches. Time had gradually removed that difference, and to-day his had no hesitation in saying that the young Free Churchman and the young Established Churchman were nearing each other very much. That was one reason why he looked upon the proposal of this clause as a step not away from disestablishment but towards disestablishment. In Scotland they were dealing with the question from with in and not attacking it from outside. The young United Free Churchman was free, by Tea son of the struggle through which his Church had gone, in a manner in" which the young Established Churchman was not. The difference separating them on the question of establishment was. getting to be more and more a theological difference. He looked forward to the time when the last shred of that difference would disappear. It was the duty of that House, as interpreting public opinion, to remove obstacles which might prevent those Churches drawing closer and closer together. If they took the generation of young men under thirty-five, containing some of the most distinguished people in the United Free Church, they would find very little opposition to this clause, while among the younger men there was a very strong body of opinion in favour of it. That was why he found himself unable to approach the consideration of the clause in any spirit of hostility, and why, he said frankly, he was in favour of it.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.)said that this Bill was in the first place to settle a dispute in regard to property, hut its secondary object was to reform the Scottish Established Church on a thoroughly new basis. The main principle of all the Established Churches was the establishment of a creed, but it appeared to him that the principle of Clause 5 was to establish not a creed hut a set of men—the General Assembly—who had power to make and unmake creeds. What this clause really proposed was to convert the General Assembly into a mild form of Scottish
  390
  Curia. He did not blame the Government for introducing this Bill and in particular this clause. They had acted according to their principles. The right hon. a ad learned Member for Dumfries had mad3 a very earnest speech in favour of this very clause, and the right hon. Member for East Fife, who had introduced a Bill to disestablish the Welsh Church, had not a single word to say against the development of this very fair form of establishment in the country which he represented. Even the hon. Member for Carnarvon, who spoke with affected passion on the establishment question almost whispered approval of this clause. He had had some connection with hon. Gentlemen opposite on the education question, and he was bound to say that their speeches and their silence and their votes in regard to this Bill boded ill for the reform of the Education Act, should they be returned again to Office.
  MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)said that those who did not agree with this clause, yet most heartily agreed with the declaration made by some Scotch Members that such freedom as was conferred by this clause on the Church of Scotland would never be conferred on the Anglican Church of this country. That was a declaration which was gratefully accepted by him and his friends and would be gratefully remembered. But what had puzzled some of them was, what on earth this clause had got to do with the present Bill? They looked upon this Bill rather as benevolent and necessary effort to distribute between the two conflicting Churches in Scotland a certain amount of funds and property, one of which Churches had been declared to be legally entitled and the other not to be entitled to the revenues and the property in dispute. He had looked very diligently into this Bill to discover whether there was any attempt to define the doctrines upon the holding of which these two religious communities should be entitled to the large funds or properties involved in the case. He found no such power contained in the Bill. That seemed to justify the opinion which he, and those who agreed with him, held that the Bill was simply a property Bill for the distribution of the funds and properties between the

  391
  two conflicting Churches. That might command the sympathy of everybody, but his right hon. friend below him had stated that there was an approximation in ecclesiastical opinion between the clergy of the Established Church of Scotland and the other Presbyterian Churches. Nobody would welcome that tendency more than the Free Churches in this country; but it was impossible for them to stand aside when this very important question was raised and treat it merely as a local question affecting Scotland alone. Supposing that in the next Parliament the question was raised as to the position of the Welsh Church. Would the new doctrine then be accepted that Scotland and England were not to interfere at all with the ecclesiastical position raised by their friends in Wales? There were several Gentlemen opposite, who had been loud in their denunciation of the Nonconformists of England who would be the very first to say that the relation of the Church in Wales with that of the Church of England was a question which vitally affected the English, Scotch, and even Irish Members.
  But there was another part of the Bill with which some of them were not satisfied. It seemed to him to denude the parishioners in Scotland from some of the rights which they had hitherto enjoyed, and to confer these rights on an exclusive section of the parishioners. Let him apply that to an English parish. In England the Established Church was at present as much a Department of the State as the Post Office, or the Army or Navy; and the clergymen of that Church had certain duties to perform to the parishioners. They were bound to bury them, to marry them, to preach to them, and there was a place provided nominally for every parishioner in the parish church. But what was proposed by this specific clause was to vary this position of the parish minister', so far as his doctrinal tenets were concerned, in Scotland at the instance of one particular section of the parishioners. He was told that in Scotland the parishioners had a right, totally separate from the particular section to which the Church of Scotland was appropriated, to demand those services; and he thought, in view of the fact that this clause might be quoted as a pre-
  392
  cedent for any important alteration of the relations of the Church of England with the State, and, particularly in view of the fact that there was a growing section of the Church of England which had been asking for that spiritual freedom without the surrender of the emoluments of the State—he thought it was the duty of those who were opposed to a State Establishment to vote against this clause.
  SIR MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbrightshire)said that this was a question in which he himself and his constituents had taken a great deal of interest. He thought that it would have a very great effect in uniting the different Presbyterian denominations in Scotland. These were already almost united in form of doctrine and Church government. This was not a question for the General Assembly itself. From a constitutional point of view the General Assembly had access to the lay mind of Scotland in a very remarkable degree, and he maintained that the lay elders were not likely to be silenced in regard to Biblical criticism or in regard to the interpretation of the standards of the Church. But during the last forty or fifty years all the Presbyterian Churches had made great progress. All had got their sphere of usefulness in Scotland; and he thought that to talk of disestablishment was only to use a political phrase to destroy that usefulness. He believed in the good which had been accomplished by the United Free Church, but the Church of Scotland had also made great progress during the last few years. He hoped that the effect of inserting this clause in the Bill would not be considered as a Parliamentary manoeuvre, but intended, as a set purpose, to promote the union of all the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, which would promote the cause of religion in Scotland He was sure that the predominant feeling in the minds of the younger generation in Scotland was in favour of such a union. He was aware that a few of those who were accustomed to the old ways might regard the insertion of this clause with disfavour; but he was quite satisfied that, from the opinions of those with whom he had talked, there was a strong opinion in the vast majority of

  393
  the people of Scotland, that this clause was the best for the Church of Scotland and the whole people of Scotland. Not one amongst the Scottish Members who had spoken wanted to see this Bill wrecked, and everybody knew the unanimous importance attached in Scotland to getting it through with as little delay as possible. He had no doubt that when the Third Beading of the Bill was passed—as he was sure it would be passed—that it would go forth to Scotland that the Scotch Members were, for once, determined to pass a measure which had in its origin the desire to do good to their country.
  MR. HELME (Lancashire, Lancaster)said that if this was a question that affected Scotland and Scotland alone, no English Liberal Member in the House would oppose the clause. But the principle struck at the root of the Established Churches of England and Wales as well as Scotland, and therefore they ought to be very careful, in adopting the policy now recommended, to take into account its influence upon the policy of Parliament if it should be demanded to be applied to the Church of England. This was not a question of establishment or disestablishment only, but whether the House should continue to control the trust committed to its charge. When in Committee, the hon. Member for Morley endeavoured to take away from this clause the wider issue, by moving that the formula desired should be subjected for the assent of Parliament. In supporting that he had endeavoured to express sympathy with the generous development of thought within the Church, and at the same time to retain the control of Parliament in this matter. But they must have regard to the deeper issues that arose out of the decision that would be taken on this clause, and whilst they sympathised with the growing feeling of friendship between the several Churches in Scotland, they should not support such development at the expense of justice and equity in dealing with the wider matters for which they were responsible in the other Churches.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that this was a large question which raised a great many
  394
  different issues which were regarded from different points of view by various hon. Members. It was too large a question to be discussed on one evening at the close of the session and should have been made the subject of a separate Bill. It had been said that the loss of this clause would wreck the Bill. On the contrary, he believed that dropping this clause would eliminate foreign matter and make its passage easy. The hon. Member for Durham had argued as if this were merely a question of relieving an Established Church from a subscription which was grievous to its members and a burden to their consciences. But that was not the proposal of the clause. The proposal was to empower the General Assembly of the Established Church to prescribe a new formula. That was a totally different thing. It was quite impossible to resist the course of theological development in any Church. Even the Roman Catholic Church had been obliged to resign itself to the development of theological thought. Therefore, let it not be thought that opposition to that proposal was to be attributed to a desire, which he repudiated, to impose a burden on the consciences of Churchmen. The right lion. Member for Haddington supported the clause from a different point of view, thinking that it took a step towards disestablishment. That was not the opinion of the hon. Baronet who had recently spoken, nor of the Lord-Advocate, nor of the First Lord of the Treasury, nor of the General Assembly. He could not support the Bill on either of these grounds put forward with such ability and candour by his right hon. and hon. friend.
  This was a Bill which affected the interests of the laity. In every parish the laity had a clergyman who had made the subscription they desired. It was not easy to see what formula could be devised which could completely ease the consciences of all. There was a great deal in the Confession of Faith which many might think was not agreeable to the Word of God, and who might interpret the Word of God in quite a different sense to that in which it was interpreted by those who sat in Westminster two and a-half centuries ago. Therefore he might remind the House that when they talked of

  395
  relieving consciences they were talking of entering on a task of which it might be easy to see the beginning but not the end, or even the road by which they must travel. That was what this clause would effect. He did not know that it would bring them any nearer to, or any further from, disestablishment, but it would give to the Established Church of Scotland what no Established Church ever had enjoyed in this country and no Established Church enjoyed in any other country—it would give it the power of prescribing its own formula and of determining what purported to be the creed of the nation. The Church of Scotland was established through Parliament because it held the creed of the nation. The Established Church could not have it both ways. They could not have all the freedom for their own Church Courts which the voluntary Churches must have and yet claim the privileges which an Established Church enjoyed. The Lord-Advocate had spoken of giving a fair platform to the different Churches. Such language would be fitting from the lips of a disestablisher. The Established Church of Scotland enjoyed property, State assistance, and patronage, which the other Churches did not, and to talk of a fair platform for the different Churches was simply to suggest the disestablishment of the State Church. This clause would denationalise the Church, and to hand it over to the General Assembly would be to destroy its claim to be the national Church of Scotland. The proper way to relieve the clergy would have been to bring in a Bill similar to the English Act of 1865, giving the General Assembly power to submit amendments to Parliament. But he protested against this hasty device for introducing a momentous change when it could not be fully considered.
  MR. LLOYD - GEORGEsaid that complaint had been made that hon. Members who were not Scotch and who were not Presbyterians had interfered in a question of Presbyterian doctrine. If that was to be the doctrine all round, well and good, but he might point out that there was a Scotchman and a Scotch Presbyterian, in the person of the Prime Minister, who was rather interfering with
  396
  the people of England and Wales. This after all, was not a Scotch question. That was the peculiar position of the clause, that although this was in a Scotch Bill it was a great deal more important to England and Wales than it was to Scotland. If this was a Scotch Parliament he quite agreed that it would be out of place to interfere with a Scotch measure, but this Parliament represented the whole of the United Kingdom, and once they subscribed to this clause they would be bound not only so far as Scotland was concerned but also as regarded England and Wales. Upon the previous occasion when the Bill was discussed, the Prime Minister laid it down that he did not consider that this Bill could be used as a precedent for dealing with the Church in England and Wales. Declarations of that kind were wanted in the country, because they could not be sure that the Prime Minister would not at some time or other, under pressure of the extreme clerical Party in the House, incorporate this clause in an Act for England and Wales.
  This was not an imaginary danger, because at this moment it was being suggested to the Commission on Church Disorders that the identical remedy of this Bill should be adopted. The question was not whether these gentlemen had to subscribe to all the statements made by Moses, but whether it was a national Church, and whether the machinery of the nation should not be brought to bear upon formulas of that character. It was all very well to say that it was a national Church when they wanted tithe, but that the moment a favour was wanted it had ceased to be a national Church and was Presbyterian. If a Church were maintained as a national Church for the sake of privilege and patronage, it must be a national Church also in respect of the control of Parliament. They could not have it both ways. The Government were treating this Church as a sect for the purposes o1: its formulas but not as a sect for the purposes of its endowments. It was said that this was done in the name of freedom. If Churches were to be progressive, they must pay the price of progress. Let them give back to the nation the emoluments and

  397
  endowments that came from the State connection if they wished to be free of State control. An agitation had already begun in the Church of England against this "narrow theology," of which hon. Members had spoken. Presently the Athanasian Creed would be attacked, and let the First Lord of the Treasury remember this, that if the Athanasian Creed was attacked the whole moral basis of retaliation would be gone. As a member of the national Church he claimed to have a voice in determining the meaning of the Athanasian Creed. The object of this agitation was not to get rid of rusty creeds, but to give more power to the clergy, to free them from lay control, and to shed the Protestant character of the Church.
  SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)regretted that this olause had been introduced into the Bill and thought it would have been of better augury if the Church of Scotland had not consented to take advantage of this opportunity to raise a question which of itself was well worthy of consideration. The hon. Member for Carnarvon had unintentionally misrepresented the point of view from which Scotch Members regarded the interposition of English Members in these debates. All they asked was that English and Welsh Members should judge of the questions at issue by Scotch standards. Nobody complained in the least of the interposition of English or Welsh Members, particularly Nonconformists, as it was well known what they had in mind. They apprehended that the position and doctrines of the Church of England might be affected by this clause. Personally lie did not see how the treatment of this particular Scotch question could be regarded as having any bearing whatever on the Church of England.
  Hon. Members spoke of the establishment, and the relation between Church. and State. What was the relation between Church and State in Scotland? In England appointments from the Archbishop of Canterbury down to the vicar or rector of a parish were made by the Crown or the lay patron. That was the strongest form of connection
  398
  between Church and State. But in Scotland there was not a solitary person in the Church in whose appointment the Crown had so much as a whisper. In England the doctrine of the Church might come up for adjudication before the King in Council, and the decisions of the Privy Council were binding on both laity and clergy. In Scotland nothing of the kind obtained. There was no supervision or control by the temporal Courts over spiritual doctrine. There was control over property, but that obtained in regard to every Church, established or disestablished. Wherever a trust was created the Courts were bound to administer that trust, and if the trust depended upon doctrinal considerations the Court was bound to take note of doctrine. There was no analogy between the General Assembly and Convocation. The General Assembly consisted of ministers and laity, and it controlled both. Convocation ever since a statute of Henry VIII. had been unable to bind the laity under any circumstances, and he doubted whether anything they did could bind themselves. No fresh canon could be made by Convocation, nor could one even be recommended without the express licence of the Crown. On the other hand, when the General Assembly met, the Lord High Commissioner, appointed by the Crown, made an address. The debates were carried on under the presidency of the moderator; everything was done by him, and no power of any sort whatever rested with the Lord High Commissioner. Indeed, the Church of Scotland had never recognised that the Lord High Commissioner of the Crown had the right even to fix the date on which the General Assembly should meet. That was the sum total of the connection with the State; whether it was worth while to maintain it he would not now discuss.
  He was in favour of disestablishment, because he believed in absolutely unquestioned freedom in all matters of this kind. What was the origin of its being called an Established Church? Between 1682 and 1688 approximately there was a great persecution in Scotland, and the statutes of 1690 and 1693 were passed for the purpose of binding the State to the Church, to assure the

  399
  people that Episcopacy would not be forced upon the Church of Scotland, as was intended in the reign of James II., and those statutes were recognised under the Act of Union in 1707. The connection between Church and State was the slenderest imaginable, and it was impossible for anyone who had regard to the history of the country to suppose that what might be done in connection with the Church of Scotland would afford any precedent in regard to the Church of England. It was perfectly right, fair, and legitimate that English Nonconformists should wish to assure themselves on the point, but it was impossible to suppose that out of such circumstances as now existed there could arise a precedent which could be used for the Romanising of the Church of England. Historical considerations should dispel any such alarm. As he had said, however,
  he regretted the inclusion of the clause as it raised controversies which might have been avoided, and he should not support it, but he could not say that the fears expressed by hon. Members had been sustained by the debate, or any cause shown for their entertaining them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had refrained from speaking, not from any want of respect to the House, but because the matter had been discussed on a previous occasion. The question had now been fully debated, and he appealed to the House to come to a decision.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 270; Noes,157. (Division List No. 312.)

  AYES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte I

  Butcher, John George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Allhusen, AugustusHenryAden

  Campbell, J.H.M. (DublinUniv.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Carlile, William Walter

  Dunn, Sir William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Amold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.

  Cautley, Henry Strothei

  Elibank, Master of

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.),

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

  Fellowes, RtHnAilwynEdward

  Bagot, Capt.- Josceline FitzRoy

  Chamberlain, RtHnJA. (Worc.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith),

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton)

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

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Chance, Frederick William

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Chapman, Edward

  Finlay, Rt Hn SirRB. (Inv'm'ss

  Balcarres, Lord

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Baldwin, Alfred

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

  FitzGerald, SirRobertPenrose-

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

  Coddington, Sir William

  Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Forster, Henry William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Beach, Rt. Hn. SirMichaelHicks

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North),

  Garfit, William

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Crombie, John William

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Bigwood, James

  Crossley Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets

  Bingham, Lord

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn)

  Denny, Colonel

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Brassey, Albert

  Denny, Colonel

  Greene, HenryD. (Shrewsbury)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St John

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Gretton, John

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. SirJosephC.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. SirJohn E.

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'ndeiry

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Samuel, SirHarryS. (Limehouse

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn RirHE. fWigt'n

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Heath, SirJames(Staffords. NW

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Shaw-Stewart, SirH. (Renfrew)

  Haider, Sir Augustus

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Mantagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Smith, H. C. (North'mbTyneside

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Smith, RtHnJParker(Lanarks.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow

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

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Hoult, Joseph

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Stewart, Sir MarkJ. M'Taggart)

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Stroyan, John

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Myers, William Henry

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Tritton, Sir Charles Ernest

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Tuff, Charles

  Keswick, William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

  Ure, Alexander

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Peel, HmWrn. Robert Wellesley

  Walkei, CoL William Hall

  Lamont, Norman

  Percy, Earl

  Wallace, Robert

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliamH.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants. Fareham

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. CE. (Taunton)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Welby, Sir CharlesG. E. INotte.)

  Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Liddell, Henry

  Puryis, Robert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rankin, Sir James

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol. N.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Wison, John (Glasgow)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Renwick, George

  Wilson-Todd, SirW. H. (Yorks.)

  Lueas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Macdona, John dimming

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wylie, Alexander

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  MTver, SirLewis(EdinburghW.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire).

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Ambrose, Robert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crean, Eugene

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Ffrench, Peter

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Cullinan, J.

  Field, William

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, NE

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Boland, John

  Delany, William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Brigg, John

  Devlin, CharlesRamsay(Galway

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Burt, Thomas

  Dillon, John

  Gilhooly, James

  Buxton, SydneyCharles(Poplar

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

  Caldwell, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Duffy, William J.

  Grant, Corrie

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Edwards, Frank

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  402

  403

  Hammond, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Moss, Samuel

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawiek B.)

  Harrington, Timothy

  Muldoon, John

  Sheehy, David

  Harwood, George

  Murnaghan, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murphy, John

  Snclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR. (Northants

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan E.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

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

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Jones, DavidBrynmor(Swansea

  O'Dowd, John

  Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Toulmin, George

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Malley, William

  Tully, Jasper

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  O'Mara, James

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds, S.

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Shee, James John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Langley, Batty

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Warner, Thomas C'ourtenay)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Perks, Robert William

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Philipps, John Wynford

  White Luke (York, E. R.)

  Leese, Sir JosephF. (Accrington

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Price, Robert John

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R)

  Levy, Maurice

  Reddy, M.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Lloyd-George, David

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Lundon, W.

  Richards, Thomas

  Wood, James

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Woodhouse, SirJ. T(Huddersf d

  MaeVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Russell, T. W.

  Mr. George White and Mr

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles.

  Henry J. Wilson.

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, H.)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  MR. BRYCEsaid he desired to move the Amendment which stood in his name. He felt bound to submit the question again to the House. He noticed that on the last occasion this Amendment was supported by a considerable majority of Scotch Members. He objected to the part of the clause which he proposed to leave out because it was not necessary, and it put the professors of Scotch Universities in a worse position than they stood in at the present moment. He was not raising this question because the Government proposed to alter the present conditions and put the professors under a burden which they were not now subjected to. The professors now had Parliament to appeal to, hut under this Bill they would have to appeal to an ecclesiastical body. The proposal in this clause was distasteful to the professors, and the General Assembly had never expressed any desire to have this power over the professors. With regard to the persons who should be entitled
  404
  to sit on the board which nominated these professors, he suggested to the House that it was perfectly possible to deal with that question in a way which would be satisfactory to public opinion in Scotland and to this House. If it was essential to alter the appointing body and bring in clerical representatives, all that was necessary might be done in one or two ways. It could be done by altering the ordinance of the University. He thought it was a tenable view that the ordinance might be altered in that form. The other way would be to bring in a Bill which would empower the Privy Council to create such a board, or which would create such a board directly. The Government knew perfectly well that a Bill of that kind would be passed without any controversy, and that no difficulty would arise. The Government, having in 1889 empowered a Commission to deal with this question, became morally bound to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. He believed that

  405
  an immense body of opinion in Scotland was in favour of freeing the professors from tests. That could be done with perfect ease. The Government ought either to omit this part of the clause or give an undertaking that they would at the earliest possible moment endeavour to remedy this injustice and carry out the recommendations fo the Commission. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 5, line 10, to leave out from the word 'established' to the word 'shall' in line 12.'"—(Mr. Bryce.)
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 255; Noes, 168. (Division List No. 313)

  AYES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Heath, SirJames(Staffords. NW

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Allhusen, AngustusHenryEden

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hoult, Joseph

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir. H.

  Denny, Colonel

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bagot, Capt, Josceline FitzRoy

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir JosephC.

  Hozier, Hon. JamesHenryCecil

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Doughty, Sir George

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jessel, CaptainHerbert Merton

  Balfour, Capt. C, B. (Hornsey)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.

  Balfour, Rt. HnGeraldW. (Leed)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. Christch.)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Keswick, William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Banner, John S Harmood-

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Beach, Rt. HnSirMichaelHicks

  Fellows, Rt. Hn. AilwynEdward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Finlay, RtHnSirRB. (Inv'rn'ss)

  Lee, ArthurH(Hants, Fareham.

  Bigwood, James

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Bingham, Lord

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Llewllyn, Evan Henry

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham

  Brassey, Albert

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lowe, Francis William

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Garfit, William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Godson, Sir AugustusFrederick

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth

  Butcher, John George

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rHamlets

  Macdona, John Cumming.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Goschen, Hon. George Joacbim

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'lver, SirLewis(EdinburghW.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

  Gretton, John

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A. (Worc.)

  Greville, Hon. Roland

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F.

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Melville, Beresfoid Valentine

  Chapman, Edward

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG, (Middx

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

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

  Milvain, Thomas

  Coddington, Sir William

  Hardy, Laurence (KentAshford

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley

  Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Robinson, Brooke

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Tritton, Sir Charles Ernest

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Tuff, Charles

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Myers, William Henry

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliamH.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

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

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury

  Samuel, SirHarryS. (Limehouse

  Welby, SirCharlesG. E. (Notts.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Peel, Hn. Wm. RobertWellesley

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

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Percy, Earl

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Shaw-Stewart, SirH. (Renfrew)

  Wills, Sir Frederick; (Bristol. N.)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  Wilson-Todd, SirW. H. (Yorks.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Smith, Rt. HnJParker(Lanarks

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

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

  Purvis, Robert

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset

  Wylie, Alexander

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Renwick, George

  Stroyan, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (OxfdUniv).

  and Viscount Valentia.

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  JonesDavidBrynmor(Swansea

  Allen, Charles P.

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dunn, Sir William

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Edwards, Frank

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Ellice, CaptEC(S. Andrw'sBghs)

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Barlow John Emmott

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Kilbride, Denis

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Black, Alexander William

  Esmonde, Thomas Sir

  Lamont, Norman

  Boland, John

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Langley, Batty

  Brigg, John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Layland- Barratt, Francis

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Ffrench, Peter

  Leese, S r Joseph F. (Accrington

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Field, William

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, NE

  Levy, Maurice

  Burt, Thomas

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lloyd-George, David

  Buxton, N. E. (York, NRWhitby

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lundon, W.

  Buxton, SydneyCharles(Poplar

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  MacNeill, John GordonSwift

  Caldwell, James

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mooney, John J.

  Crean, Eugene

  Hammond, John

  Morley, RtHon. John(Montrose

  Cremer, William Randal

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Muldoon, John

  Crombie, John William

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  Murnaghan, George

  Cullinan, J.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Murphy, John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harrington, Timothy

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Delany, William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Devlin, CharlesRamsay(Galway

  Hemphill, Rt, Hon. Charles H.

  O Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Dillon John

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

  408

  409

  O'Dowd, John

  Russell, T. W.

  Wallace, Robert

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds, S.

  O'Malley, William

  Shackleton, David James

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.

  O'Mara, James

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawiek B.)

  Whte, George (Norfolk)

  O'Shee, James John

  Sheehy, David

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Perks, Robert William

  Shipman, Dr. John 6.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Slack, John Bamford

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Price, Robert John

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  Reddy, M.

  Spencer, Rt. HnCR. (Northants)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Reddy, M.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Wood, James

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Straehey, Sir Edward

  Woodhouse, SirJT(Huddersfd.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Richards, Thomas

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Toulmin, George

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Tully, Jasper

  Mr. Causton.

  Rocho, John (Galway, East)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 5, line 21, after the word 'and,' to insert the words 'unless the context. otherwise requires.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, column 1, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'supplementing congregational contributions towards the.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, column 2, line 13, to leave out 'the words' General Church, 'and insert the words' these or similar.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, column 1, line 15, 'after the word Act,' to insert the words 'and for itinerant preachers.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, column 1, line 16, to leave out paragraph (b), line 16 to end, and insert the words '(5) General purposes of administration; and management.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, column 1, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words 'of the church, including expenses.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, column 1, lines 18 and 19, to leave out the words 'provision for itinerant preachers,' and insert the words 'management of the Free Church.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the. Bill—
  "In page 6, column 2, line 23, to leave out the words 'for teachers.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, column 2, line 23, to leave out the word 'training.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, column 2, line 24, at end to insert the words 'or given.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SCOTT-DICKSON: I ask the House to consent to the Third Reading of the Bill being now taken.

IRISH EDUCATION (AFFLICTED CHILDREN) BILL

  SECOND READING
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.)
  411
  said that in moving the Second Reading of this Bill he had to explain that it was an unfortunate fact that no provision was made in Ireland, similar to that existing already in England and Scotland, for afflicted children. The Bill dealt with children who were blind or deaf or physically defective. It made it compulsory on the local authority to provide for the education of blind and deaf children, and to defray the cost out of the rates, subject to a State contribution, the amount of which would be dependent upon the provision to be made by the Central Board of Education with the approval of the Treasury. Roughly speaking, that would be about one-third of the cost. At present if the local authorities desired to deal with these children they could only send them to the workhouse or to existing institutions, paying the whole cost out of the rates. The Bill applied to the county councils, the town commissioners, and also to all those rural districts which had adopted the Education Act, so that it would apply to a considerable part of Ireland. It would enable local authorities to contribute out of the rates to such existing institutions for their enlargement and improvement so far as was necessary for the reception of the children so afflicted. There were, it appeared, a sufficient number of them to which children could be sent; and it would not, therefore, be necessary for local authorities to provide institutions. The rates out of which the cost would be borne would be the poor rate in the case of the county council, the borough rate in the case of the borough council, and the Towns Improvement Act—or the local Acts—in the case of the urban districts. He expressed the hope that as the Bill was regarded as uncontroversial it would find acceptance in the House. It was obviously desirable that there should be an opportunity given to local authorities to make some decent provision for children who not only required education but who, from their mental and physical infirmities, commanded their sympathy.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)said he did not oppose the Second Reading, but he pressed for time in Committee for the consideration of the Bill, stating that some of the provisions required discussion. This was a compulsory Bill, and he did not know whether the Bill had been brought before the local authorities in any way.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid a great many recommendations had been received from various bodies in Ireland that the powers should be conferred, and in the Bill they tried to faithfully carry out the expression of opinion in many quarters in Ireland.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he thought they should have some evidence of that opinion, and in its absence he did not desire to pledge himself. He understood that the contribution from the Government was to be an additional grant to the existing educational grant in Ireland and that it was not to be put on the Development Grant.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he was glad to know that it was not to come out of the existing educational funds in Ireland.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the precedent to be followed was precisely that of England and Scotland.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to provide some time for consideration of the Bill in Committee. Anxious as they were to promote the objects of the Bill, which did not seem to be a very objectionable Bill, he would not consent to the Second Reading unless they had some opportunity of laying before the Government the views of the local authorities and the public in Ireland on the subject.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid it was obvious he could not give an undertaking as to the time that would be available for the Committee stage of the Bill. Surely the hon. Member would not enforce such a demand until he had seen

  413
  the Bill and ascertained whether there were any changes he desired to make in it. He, however, would do his best to obtain some time to enable hon. Members opposite to make any suggestions they thought would be desirable. The Bill was not a new one. It had been on the stocks for a considerable time.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The Bill was only printed six or seven days ago.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid what he meant was that the subject of the Bill had been the object of considerable discussion in Ireland for some time. The local authorities had discussed the question, and in carrying out the objects of the Bill the Government had accepted the suggestions of the people of Ireland and of hon. Members opposite. As far as his information went, the Bill was the result of expressions of opinion in many directions in Ireland, and the Government had endeavoured faithfully to give effect to those expressions of opinion.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said the Bill was a long one, and, though the subject with which it dealt was one of which they all approved, it was one that they could not allow to pass without some consideration. He had only read the Bill very hastily, but he had found three clauses which he could not imagine the Irish Party allowing to go through without some examination. Clause 15, for instance, provided that—
  "The Commissioners may give aid from moneys provided by Parliament for public education in Ireland to a school in respect of education given to afflicted children, to such an amount and on such conditions as may be directed"
  The wording of the clause did not carry out the intention of the Government. Then Clause 10 provided that the local authority should send a child, if possible, to a school under the management of persons of the same religious persuasion. Who was to be the judge in that regard? Clause 7 was the most contentious clause of any he had seen. It said—
  "If the local authority fail to fulfil any of their duties under this Act, the Commissioners may, after holding a public inquiry, make such order as they think necessary or proper for the
  414
  purpose of compelling the authority to fulfil its duty."
  It was a compulsory Bill.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Only as regards the blind and deaf.
  MR. DILLONsaid that, nevertheless, that was an enormous power to give to the Board of Education, and he doubted whether the local authorities of Ireland would agree to giving that Board a blank cheque of that character. It was therefore plain that the Bill required very careful consideration.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said some of them had been endeavouring for many years to get assistance for this class of children, and he welcomed the Bill most heartily. It was not a measure that would be opposed on Party grounds. Every Irish representative, whatever constitutency he represented, was anxious to see it carried; but at the same time it was impossible to let this. Bill or any other Bill through in the dog days without careful examination. The National Board in Ireland was not so highly respected that they could commit to it any power without careful examination. While nothing was done in Ireland for this class of children much was done in England and Scotland, and he could assure the Chief Secretary that the Irish Members were prepared to make any sacrifices so that this Bill could be considered, but the Chief Secretary must not ask them simply to accept the Bill without any consideration at all. They did not want much time, but he hoped the Chief Secretary would secure for them some little time in which the provisions of the Bill might be carefully examined.
  MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)said he understood from the right hon. Gentleman that the contribution from the Treasury would be one-third. He asked whether that was the same as the contribution which was made to England. Before he assented to the Second Reading of this Bill he would like it proved by figures that the contribution to England for the last eleven years had only amounted to one-third, because his recollection was that the sum voted was much larger,

  415
  and for Scotland it was larger still. He asked, before this Bill was put on the Paper again, that the right hon. Gentleman should take out of the Estimates and the Treasury records the amount of the contribution which had been made by the Treasury and that which had been made by the local authorities in England since 1893. In his opinion, Irish Members ought not to be content unless an assurance was given that a Parliamentary Paper would be issued giving that information.
  MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)entirely agreed with what had fallen from members of the Irish Party. He only desired to say that, so far as he was aware, the local authorities of Ireland had received no notice of this Bill, which, so far as he could gather, had only been printed some seven or eight days. He thought the people of Ireland, upon whom the duty would be thrown of administering this Bill, ought to have an opportunity of considering it, and that every local authority ought to receive a copy of the Bill. He would not delay the House further than to say that he hoped those who would have to administer the Bill would be given an opportunity of considering the matter in detail.
  MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)said that while Irish Members would be glad to give all reasonable support to the Bill, they had to remember that local taxation in Ireland was very heavy indeed, and they were anxious that no additional burdens should be placed on the ratepayers unless they were absolutely unavoidable. So far as the burdens likely to be imposed by this Bill were concerned, the House was completely in the dark. He agreed that it was highly objectionable to give the Commissioners of National Education power to compel the county councils to carry into effect the provisions of the Bill. It had not been stated in what proportions the burden was to be borne by the local rates and the Exchequer, and it was doubtful out of what fund the grant was to be made. He thought these were points which ought to be explained before the House committed itself to the measure.
  MR. COUETENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)asked whether the Bill simply extended to Ireland the powers already existing in England and Scotland. He understood that that was so so far as the financial part of the measure was concerned, but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to express some doubt as to whether many of the other powers in the Bill were quite the same.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that in asking why no statement had been made as to the burden which would be thrown on the rates, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had overlooked the fact that this Bill actually proposed to lessen the burdens which now existed. Under the law as it stood, if boards of guardians desired to provide for these unfortunate children, and did not send them to the workhouse, the whole of the extra cost fell upon the rates. The Bill proposed to reduce that cost, not increase it, because if guardians took advantage of these powers to send the children to suitable institutions, two-thirds approximately of the cost would be borne by the local rates, and one-third by the Exchequer. As to whether the cost would come out of existing Votes or out of s Vote for the purpose, it was a well-known principle that when a power of this kind was put into a Bill the cost came out of the money voted for the purposes of the Bill. If, however, there was the smallest doubt as to that under the Bill it would be amended. The hon. Member for North Dublin had asked him for information as to the basis on which the calculation had been made. The Government had taken the results of the English and Scotch Acts, and as they had determined to extend the same powers to Ireland they had gone on the assumption that similar results would follow. He thought a fair estimate of the cost to the local rates would be£10,000, and the contribution out of the Imperial Exchequer£5,000. He quite admitted the force of the suggestion that there should be more information as to the precise figures, and he would be very glad to obtain any information he could for the benefit of the House. He recognised the friendly and non-controversial spirit in which the Bill had been received by

  417
  hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was obvious that they could not pledge themselves as to the details of the Bill until they had had time to examine them, and if it were necessary to deal with them by Amendment he would do his best to meet them. The criticism already made did not offer any probability of prolonged consideration in Committee. He, on behalf of the Government, put the Bill forward in an entirely non-controversial spirit, having the same object in view as most hon. Members opposite, and he did not anticipate any difficulty in coming to an arrangement upon the points which had been raised.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON (Dublin Harbour)pointed out that many of the schools in Ireland dealing with deaf and blind children were not in any sense connected with the National Board. This Bill proposed to give the National Board power to audit and inspect the accounts of those schools and that was a distinct departure from the principles upon which those schools, were governed at the present time.
  MR. CULLINAN (Tipperary, S.)said that during the passage of the Local Government Act of 1898 through the House of Commons the attention of the Government was drawn to this subject. In his opinion this was not the proper time to introduce this Bill, because the tendency of all the numerous boards in Ireland at the present time was to raise their expenditure in every department. There was at the present time a Poor Law Commission inquiring into the Poor Law system with the intention of seeing whether it would not be possible to reduce the number of workhouses in Ireland. To take up a matter like this at the present moment would be only adding one more torture to the ratepayers of Ireland. This Bill would establish a new class of officials, and there were many other obstacles standing in the way. The proper way to deal with this question would be to wait until the Report of the Poor Law Commission was issued, and then they might be able to find some way of economising instead of tinkering in this way with such an important subject.

OSBORNE ESTATE ACT (1902) AMENDMENT BILL

  SECOND READING
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVEN-Derbyshire, W.)formally moved the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.)said that as no explanation of this Bill had been offered by the Government, it fell upon him to explain the nature of this measure The Osborne Estate belonged to the late Queen as private property apart altogether from Crown property, and she was particularly anxious that the Osborne Estate should remain the property of the Crown. She held the Osborne Estate as private property and paid taxes upon it, and she was very solicitous that Osborne should be retained as the personal property of the Crown. In consequence of the property being bequeathed in that way, on the Second Reading of the Bill last year he explained how solicitous Her Majesty had been in handing this property down as a personal appendage to the Crown. When the Osborne property was handed over to the nation it was stated that it was a valuable gift on the part of His Majesty. They were told that the free income of the estate was £1,000 a year. It was provided in the Osborne Estate Act that the portion of Osborne House which had been in the personal occupancy of the late Queen should be retained as a memorial of Her Majesty and be open to the general public, while the rest of the house should be devoted to the benefit of officers of His Majesty's naval and military forces, their wives, widows, and families. At the time of the passing of the Act it was said that the structural alterations required were

  419
  estimated at between £5,000 and £6,000. It was further stated that the upkeep of the house and gardens would be from £3,000 to £5,000 a year. It was not long since 1902 when the Act was passed, but they found from the current year's Estimates that the amount to be expended on Osborne was £14,900. Last year the amount for structural alterations was £20,550. The House would, therefore, see that this property, which was said to be a valuable gift to the nation, had turned out to be an enormous burden. It was now proposed by the Bill before the House to extend the benefits of the convalescent home at Osborne to other branches of the public service, having particularly those in view who were serving the Crown in the Colonies or foreign countries under unhealthy or dangerous conditions. Who was to have the patronage with regard to the persons who were to occupy Osborne? The place was to be under the management of the Commissioner of Works. The Department of the Commissioner of Works was represented in the House, and it was answerable to the House for the manner in which it exercised its patronage. But this Bill proposed that the patronage in regard to the admissions to Osborne should be handed over to the Privy Council.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood abjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING

  LONDON BUILDING ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL. (BY OEDEE.)
  As amended considered.
  MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.), on behalf of the Chairman of Ways and Means, moved that the Standing Orders be suspended and that the Bill be now read a third time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)said that some of his constituents, being both the largest and smallest tradesmen in Islington, felt that their interests would be very much affected by what they regarded as the very drastic methods adopted in the Bill for the prevention of the consequences of fire. The London Chamber of Commerce had represented the feeling that existed to the Committee which dealt with the Bill, with the result that very material modifications had been made in the measure which went far, but by no means entirely, to remove what were regarded as its more objectionable features. He submitted that the class for whom he spoke deserved, owing to competition and other public burdens upon them, every consideration, and that the promoters of the Bill should recognise the duty of not asking for more than was absolutely necessary for the protection of life and property. One or two points of difference which had been discussed still remained, and he hoped that opportunities of negotiating them would be afforded when the Bill was dealt with in another place, otherwise the only other course would be for his constituents and the chamber of commerce, as they said, to present a petition and go to further expense in opposing the measure. On the present occasion he could only content himself with making this protest on behalf of his constituents.
  (King's Consent and Prince of Wales' Consent signified).

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
  SIR A. HAYTER (Walsall)called attention to the four Reports of the Public Accounts Committee; and moved, "That the said Reports be now taken into consideration." He said that all the members of the Committee rejoiced that the Prime Minister, mainly owing to the exertions of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, had given them this opportunity of bringing their Reports before the House. He

  421
  could assure the House, although their Reports were not seen, that the labours of the Committee had not been without fruit, because the Treasury were bound to take their recommendations into consideration, and not only to call to account any Department implicated, but also to send to the Committee a Paper showing the answer made by the Department. The first recommendation the Committee made this year was that the grants not exceeding £500, placed at the disposal of general officers commanding for unforeseen charges, should be applied solely to that purpose and not applied, as it appeared they had been, to supplement ordinary Votes and especially the Vote for works. The Treasury had issued regulations under which these grants were to be spent, and had warned general officers commanding that the grants would be withdrawn unless the conditions under which they were made were observed. Another recommendation of the Committee was that before any moneys were issued for the purposes of expenditure under the Military Works Acts, 1897 and 1903, an estimate should be submitted to the Treasury of the expenditure under any head for which it was proposed to issue money, together with a statement of the period within which it was proposed to expend the money. This question arose on the expenditure of £2,300,000 on barracks in South Africa, of which the Committee found that no accurate and detailed estimate had been provided and approved by the Treasury.
  The House would be rather surprised to hear that the representatives of the Foreign Office did not see any necessity for all the sums which were entrusted to diplomatic and Consular officers abroad being brought into the general account and submitted to the audit of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The items of this kind included large sums advanced by His Majesty's Minister at Peking from public money in his hands in anticipation of payments from the Chinese indemnity; fines levied for the murder of two missionaries; an indemnity paid in respect of the levy of illegal likin duties; and the balance of certain tonnage duties refunded by the Brazilian Government. The representa-
  422
  tive of the Foreign Office said that these sums had been paid into the hands of diplomatic and Consular officers abroad, and that the Committee had nothing to do with them. It was quite enough, he contended, for him to obtain from these officers a certificate that they had received the money. The Committee took a totally different view of the matter, and recommended that all such payments should be entered in the Foreign Office accounts, and rendered to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for his review and audit.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX CHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)said he understood that what the right hon. Baronet laid stress on was that these sums ought to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and that if they were so audited he did not lay stress on the particular form of the accounts.
  SIR A. HAYTERsaid that was so. If the money was accounted for, that was enough for the House. The Committee entirely agreed with the view that it was advisable to amalgamate the packet, telegraph, and postal services. The Committee believed that the result would be a considerable saving both of Parliamentary and Departmental time. As to refunds to contractors in connection with the war, the Committee felt that these questions ought to be examined only by a judicial Committee. He rejoiced that they were being submitted to the Commission presided over by Mr. Justice Farwell. The Committee recommended that sums of £1,671 refunded to Mr. Stepney, £21,232 refunded to Mr. Meyer, £739 refunded to Messrs. Wilson & Worthington, and £1,542 refunded to Messrs. Wilson & Son, Cape Town, making a total of £25,185, should be removed from the account 1903–4 and charged to suspense account pending further investigation. The whole question could be gone into after the decision of the Commissioners. In the Navy accounts the Committee found that £160,000 had been paid for the refit of ships, and that these ships had within eighteen months

  423
  been condemned as unfit for use for the Navy. It was stated that the refits had not added much to the value of the ships because they were not sold for commercial purposes, and fetched little more than the price of old iron. The Committee had put on record the statement that they could not too strongly condemn so extravagant a policy. He begged to move.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said in rising to second the Motion he thought he might congratulate the House in having, for the first time, an opportunity of considering the most important Reports of its Committee on Public Accounts. If, as had been so kindly suggested by the Chairman of that Committee, it was due to his (Mr. Bowles') instrumentality, it might, perhaps, be counted to him as one good deed to set against the many evil with which he was credited. The full control of this House over expenditure was much more modern than many people thought. Under the Tudors and Plantagenet Sovereigns, although the House was jealous of granting money to the Crown, when it was granted they took no further notice of the matter. In the time of Charles II. an attempt was made to apply the simple idea of appropriating to specific purposes. But it was the time of William and Mary—1689 that an appropriation clause was first inserted in an Act of Parliament. Yet strangely enough, although the House did thenceforward appropriate its grants to particular purposes, it was something like 140 years before it took any steps to see that the appropriation had been carried out. No general accounts indeed of public expenditure were then presented to the House at all. And when in 1802 a general account was first presented, it was the Finance Accounts, which were not accounts of expenditure, but only of imprests or sums advanced to the Departments. Appropriation accounts there were none, nor was it until 1831 that an Act required the Navy to furnish an annual appropriation account of actual expenditure. The example of the Navy was followed by other Departments, and in 1857 a most powerful Committee, under Sir G. C. Lewis, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, recommended the ex-
  424
  tension of the system, and that appropriation accounts from all Departments should be annually presented to the House. It further recommended that these accounts should annually be submitted to the revision of the House of Commons. That was the first idea of the Public Accounts Committee in 1857, and accordingly that Committee was established in 1862, and remained to this day.
  Accounts, as the House knew, were very dull things, and nobody ever cared to tackle them until they were compelled. The Public Accounts Committee was accordingly accounted dull. It was as it were the plain sister of the House, and it was at the mature age of forty-three that she was, so to speak, for the first time to presented at Court by her chaperons. This was the first time that the report of the Public Accounts Committee had been brought under the notice of the House with Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Yet when the Committee was appointed in 1862, that was not the completion of the work. That did not come till 1866, when that great Act, the Exchequer and Audit Act, was passed, which he had always regarded as the Magna Charta of our financial system, whereby the Comptroller and Auditor-General was appointed and his powers defined, and whereby the action of the Public Accounts Committee was secured and its procedure regularised. That Act still remained as the true charter of our financial system, although it had been impaired in many ways. The subsequent errors thus made and the serious infractions of principle involved in successive partial repeals of its clauses and the consequent vicious interceptions of revenue on its way to the Exchequer, could all be remedied by reverting to the principles and enactments of that Act.
  He thought he was not exaggerating when he said that the Public Accounts Committee was the greatest present active force of Parliamentary control; the most powerful and effectual existing instrument for securing economy in public expenditure and the due administration of public funds. It was, perhaps, the only effectual instrument—more effectual even than the House itself, and that for several reasons. In the first place, it had the

  425
  priceless advantage of having at its command the work done by the Comptroller and Auditor-Greneral, an officer of that House appointed to examine, on behalf of that House, the appropriation accounts, whose salary was charged on the Consolidated Fund, and who was irremovable except upon Addresses from both Houses of Parliament. He was not alone an Auditor, he was also the inheritor of the authority of the Comptroller of Exchequer Receipts and Issues who in 1841 refused to Peel, in 1852 to Lord Derby, and in 1854 to Mr. Gladstone, the issue of large sums of money which the Ministry of the day, with the approbation of the Treasury, demanded. So great, indeed, was his power that not one penny could issue to-day from the national account in the Bank of England without his order nor a penny be spent without being justified to him and to the Public Accounts Committee as duly vouched and duly sanctioned by the appropriation of the House. The Comptroller and Auditor-General did most invaluable service both to this House and to the country, which only those who read through the voluminous Appropriation Accounts could judge at its true value. He examined all the accounts of the Empire, a most enormous task, as the House would readily understand, which he performed with the aid of skilled officers; he called attention to irregularities which came under his notice. Although it was true that the Public Accounts Committee had sometimes detected for itself irregularities to which, he had not called attention, still it remained true that the major part of the work of the Public Accounts Committee was founded on his Reports. He found the fox, and the Committee ran it to earth.
  The Committee's functions were large indeed. They extended, in his belief, and according to its own unchanged practice, not alone to the formal regularity of the expenditure, but also to its wisdom, faithfulness, and economy. It actually did on the completed account that which the House sought to do on the estimated account. It had advantages which the House had not. It had before it the actual officials concerned in the transactions—the accounting
  426
  officers, numbering some seventy, each of whom was responsible for the expenditure of his own department, a responsibility which was not immune from attack, but which must be strictly maintained if the Comptroller and the Public Accounts Committee were to do their work. The Public Accounts Committee examined these officers, and occasionally cross-examined them. It required them to produce any papers it needed; it could sand for any person whatever, and, if need be, could administer an oath to him. He looked forward to the time when the Committee would Send for the First Lord of the Treasury to speak, for once, the truth, the whole truth and nothing bat the truth. Moreover, in the Public Accounts Committee there was no guillotine, and no portion of the expenditure could be withdrawn from its full review and criticism, as the Estimates could be, and were, withdrawn from discussion in the House.
  One other point he might be permitted to add. Although the Committed was composed of members of both Parties, with a preponderance of one in favour of the Party in power, he had never in the whole of his experience seen a subject treated in a partisan spirit, and certainly he had never Seen a division of a Party character during the whole tine he had served on the Committee. It did its work in a spirit of faithfulness. Nothing was too large or too small for it. Like the elephant's trunk, it could pick up a pin or tear down an official lord of the bureaucratic forest. Its range was as extensive as its powers. When Parliament had made its grants a stream of British guineas flowed to the uttermost ends of the earth. The Committee followed every guinea and saw that the money was properly applied, and, if not, that the officials were called to account. When it was remembered that the work extended over the expenditure of the whole British Empire it would be recognised that that was no small labour. That labour was embodied it Reports to this House such as the four which had been presented that day. Such Reports should not be buried in obscurity. They were of great interest and extreme importance. They were of greater importance

  427
  now, when so much more public attention was given to national expenditure than ever before. He rejoiced that an opportunity had been given for the first time when the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee could be considered by the House.
  The Committee was appointed at a much too late period of the session, but, in addition to that, the work had not been less, but rather greater than usual. Last week it sat every day, and the inevitable result had been, to his great regret, that it had not been physically possible to distribute all the evidence taken in time for this debate. He trusted that the Government would in future take the eminently wise step of appointing the Committee at the earliest period of the session in order that its Reports might be in the hands of Members some time before the debate which he confidently anticipated must henceforth be annual, and which he as confidently predicted would become one of the most fruitful and important of any conducted in that House. Three hours was a short time for this House to give to the discussion of the whole accounts of the British Empire; but it was the most they could get on this occasion, and he, personally, was grateful for it.
  It was impossible to deal with all the various subjects embraced in these Reports, and even with those which would most interest the House it would be inadvisable on this occasion to deal. Nevertheless, he wished to call attention to one or two points of the greatest importance and of the highest moment. The Committee expressed opinions on various important matters which would be found in its Reports, from the condemnation of the expenditure of £8 6s. 8d. for printing a staff ride to the expenditure of £494,000 by the Admiralty without having signed a contract, which, in its opinion, were entitled to the serious consideration of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer paid that that expenditure was expended by Parliamentary authority, but he respectfully differed from him. So much as to its opinions. As to its absolute recommendations they were few, not more than six in all. To two of them he would respectfully call the attention of the House as of the very
  428
  greatest importance. In the first placer the Committee recommended that four sums, amounting to £25,185, should be removed from the accounts of 1903–4 and charged to a suspense account. That amounted to a provisional disallowance of those four sums as charges against the Votes of the year. He was; not going into detail about what were called the war store scandals, or the finance of the war in South Africa, of which the items making up the £25,185-referred to were off-shoots. There were no doubt very great losses to the public during and after that war caused by faulty contracts, by the failure of the system adopted by the War Office to secure due accountability, by frauds and robberies and by the unfortunate dual system of sales and repurchases—Very often from sales to, and purchases from, the same man, initiated by Lord Kitchener, and carried on by Sir Neville Lyttelton. There was a general breakdown in many important particulars, not alone of the War Office-system established for the very purpose of dealing with the difficulties always attending war, but also of the new devices for this particular war. Such was the breakdown that during the war accountability largely disappeared and accounting ceased. It was not too much to say that throughout the war, as regarded an appreciable amount of expenditure, it was impossible to say how the money went; what, if anything, was got for it, or who was responsible for its outlay. Strictly speaking, of the expenditure on the war there was no proper and complete account at all to be obtained.
  As an illustration of the completeness and sufficiency of the system of which the Public Accounts Committee was the crown and summit, he would point out that the irregularities connected with the stores in South Africa were one and all detected by the Comptroller-General-The information regarding them was. published in his Reports before it occurred to anybody either to ask a Question or to appoint a Committee or a Commission and had there been no Butler Committee and no Royal Commission, the House would probably have had before it now the final decision, on all these matters at any rate, as to the £25,000, of the

  429
  Public Accounts Committee. Had that taken place, one of two things must have occurred; Either the Department must have recovered the- items from the officer responsible for the expenditure, or His Majesty's Government must have come to the House for another Vote, upon which the whole question of responsibility would have been raised. As to the dual contract system, he felt there was not much at present proper to be said, although a good deal might be thought by the members of the Public Accounts Committee. This, however, he might say, that the system of dual contracts was mainly due to the fact that when in June, 1902, Colonel Armstrong, the financial adviser of the general on the spot, left, Sir Neville Lyttelton intimated that he did not require any financial adviser, and it was the consequent absence of an official of that kind which rendered possible the disastrous system of dual contract.
  One other matter touching South Africa called for a word. The Imperial Yeomanry Committee was entrusted with £1,262,000 to spend. It appeared last year, and was reported to the House, that for more than a third, or £460,000, no details or vouchers were produced. It was now authoritatively alleged that vouchers did exist, though they had not been called for. He was very glad if they did exist, but he deemed it necessary to say that they had not been produced to the Comptroller and Auditor - General or to the Public Accounts Committee. The other recommendation he wished to refer to was that which had reference to accounting officers, and which arose out of a suggested Army Order—an Order which, if it had been carried through, would have tended to the complete destruction of the financial control of that House. He could not be blind to the fact that new professors and advocates had arisen of a most dangerous militarism, and that there seemed to be an idea seeking root in this country that the Army and the Navy should escape from the control of the civil power. He earnestly warned the House, and, if his voice could as far reach, he would warn the country against allowing any counten-
  430
  ance to be given to so fatal a motion. This was a civil country with a civil people engaged in civil avocations, and it was for the defence of that people in those avocations, against foreign or domestic violence—and for that alone—that either Army or Navy existed. They must be instruments of the supreme civil power, never its masters. They must be subordinate above, all, in finance. If once they allowed either the soldier or the sailor to escape from civilian control in the most essential matter of finance, that moment they had not only destroyed the control of Parliament, but had seriously endangered the liberties of the country. That there had been an attempt to escape from that control was, he feared, undoubted. That the attempt had succeeded in India seemed to him but too likely, and its probable results would there be only too dangerous. But here, thanks as he humbly conceived, to the Public Accounts Committee, any such attempt, if intended, had failed. The recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee, it carried out, as carried out it must be, would suffice to check that idea. He confidentially commended these Reports, which were the result of great labour and faithful service to the House. He should always remember with pride that, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee for ten years, he had been privileged to take a part in what he believed to be some of the most effectual service that could be rendered to the State.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the four Reports of the Public Accounts Committee be now taken into consideration."—(Sir A. Hayter.)
  SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)said that he sincerely trusted that the hon. Gentleman would long continue his services in investigating the financial affairs of this country. He congratuated the hon. Gentleman on the manner in which the Public Accounts Committee did their work in helping economy in administration; and on his success in securing a part of a day for the discussion of the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee. Since then great scandals as to waste of money had been

  431
  reported. Those exposures had electrified the public conscience and had resulted from increased scrutiny and activity on the part of the Public Accounts Committee. When they were considering the subject upstairs, in the Select Committee on public expenditure in 1903, they found that the Public Accounts Committee was the most efficient instrument Parliament had for discovering the waste of money. That Committee had also sought by other means to increase the survey and general investigation of public expenditure; they had advised a careful analysis of the Estimates before they were voted. Whilst he congratulated the House in having that opportunity of discussing in a short sitting accounts pregnant with information, he would suggest that in future years they should have a larger and longer opportunity of discussion. The recommendation of the Public Expenditure Committee was that a whole day should be given to consider the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, and he was sorry that earlier in the session a day was not granted for a critical discussion of that great subject. If Parliament was to maintain and retain that control over public money which it ought to have, it was necessary that every Member of the House should be interested in the investigation and consideration of the national Estimates. After all, they were there mainly as the guardians of the public purse. First of all, they guarded the liberties of the nation, if they could (and it was somewhat difficult in the present day), and next their duty was to consider public expenditure and to guard the interests of their constituents.
  They had to thank the Public Accounts Committee for having done good work, but if they were going to continue the work over an increased area they would have to have another Committee formed on very much the same lines. He would like the recommendation of the Public Expenditure Committee considered at some future time, viz., that certain sections of the public accounts should be submitted to an Estimates Committee sitting upstairs who would study and report on the Estimates before the money was voted. There was no possibility, especially under the new rules, of their doing their duty in that House in the criticism of public
  432
  expenditure. The way in which the Estimates came before them and the way in which discussions were carried on under the new rules made it impossible that close and minute scrutiny should be given over the whole expenditure. In a few days they would have millions voted under the closure and which had never been discussed at all. They ought to have some body to study and analyse every Vote and every item; in fact, he was sure they ought to have another Committee, called the Estimates Committee, which would take year by year, as suggested, he believed, by the hon. Member for King's Lynn in the first instance, sections of the Estimates, dissect them in the most careful manner, and report once a year on a section of public expenditure. Then in the course of three or four years the whole area of their public expenditure might be analysed and investigated and Reports placed before the House. When some such system was adopted, they would get rid of scandals which had disgraced the Government in recent years, and they would have more economical and efficient expenditure of public money.
  MR. DUKE (Plymouth)said he did not think anybody who read the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee could fail to see that that Committee was doing all that was at present done toward discharging a primary duty on the part of the House. They were there to control public expenditure and regulate the purse strings, but owing to the rudimentary mode in which public expenditure was controlled money was voted almost in entire ignorance. Although he admired the work done by the Public Accounts Committee, he sympathised with the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet opposite with regard to what had been said in a tone of unwonted congratulation by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. At present they began to check expenditure when it was too late to save money, and the House totally neglected its power to save either £500,000 or Is. 6d. at the time when saving could be effected. He sincerely trusted that what had been said by the hon. Member for King's Lynn would bear

  433
  some fruit. It could not be satisfactory that the expenditure of the country should go on as though we lived in China or Russia, and as though, because a sentry was posted or a department or a store was opened at a certain point two hundred years ago, there was almost gospel sanction for the continuance of the expenditure. The House, for the want of such a Committee as had been suggested, did not get at the root of the expenditure. He was sure there were many unofficial Members who were pressed both by their own feelings and by their constituents to try and find out, for instance, why so small an Army as ours costs so vast a sum. It was not because of its numbers, and it was said to be not because of its efficiency. The cost was altogether out of proportion, but during the five years he had been in the House he had never been able to find any Member, official or unofficial, who could guide him to any point on which, expenditure could be saved. It could not be done unless some Committee were warranted to take the Estimates item by item and recommend to the House, if necessary over the heads of permanent Departments, what the expenditure should be.
  He was told that great saving in the current Navy Estimates had been effected because some person of common sense suggested that if he were permitted to take the expenditure £10,000 by £10,000 and call before him those who vouched for the necessity of it he would be able at any rate to find out with regard to sums of £10,000 whether each of them was required. It seemed an elementary proceeding. He was satisfied it took place and that there was a saving. It might not be a permanent saving, because abuses revived, but there was at present an immediate saving of £3,500,000 on the Navy. One of the representatives of the Army regarded that as an amazing saving, but would he tell the House that economy was not effected by that means. If any right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench told the House that the economy was not effected by that means, he should be very much surprised, because at the present moment he had excellent reasons for believing that that was the
  434
  precise means. He might be misinformed, but, if it were a method which had not occurred to anybody, he ventured to think it was a thing which might very well be suggested. It might be that the great expenditure with which the record of the Conservative Party would for years be associated had been absolutely necessary, but he was not at all sure that their constituents were satisfied that it had been. If some such method as had been suggested by the hon. Baronet opposite were adopted and applied both to the Army and Navy, they would at any rate have the satisfaction of knowing that the vast sums spent were necessarily spent, if they did not have the satisfaction of reducing them by considerable amounts.
  MR. GODDARD (Ipswich)said he should like to say a few words upon this, the first occasion upon which the Reports of the Committee had be-n under discussion by the House. He congratulated the hon. Member for King's Lynn on having so persistency stood out for an opportunity of discussing that phase of national expenditure. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee had already laid before the House the recommendations of the Committee, and the hon. Member for King's Lynn had gone at some length into a very interesting statement of the history of the Committee. He rather preferred to take a different line, and he should like to say a few words as to his impression after eight years experience on the Committee with regard to its work in connection with the expenditure of the country.
  The debate offered an opportunity, and perhaps would inspire a curiosity, to look into the appropriation accounts. Probably outside the official members of the Government and the members of the Public Accounts Committee there were very few Members who ever took the trouble to read the appropriation accounts, for the very-simple and sensible reason that they regarded the expenditure as having been made and done with. But, because of that want of exploration into those accounts, hon. Members lost a great deal

  435
  of information which did not appear in the Estimates. A considerable amount of enlightenment might be given them if they would only take the trouble of reading the appropriation accounts and the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General upon them. He would give an illustration. I here was an excess of £20,068 in the Vote for salaries of the military department, and it was stated to be due mainly to an increase of staff, including an extra staff, approved by the beads of the War Office and the Treasury, for a history of the South African War. He did not know whether it was officially known by the Members of the House that they were spending a considerable amount of money on the preparation of a history of the South African War. It did not appear in the Estimates, hut the real fact was that they were paying £6,000 a year for three years for that purpose. He did not wish to criticise the account. It might be worth the expenditure for military purposes and it might be an exceedingly useful document, but from the Estimates it was impossible to gather that the expenditure was going on. He had no doubt it was covered by some salaries, but it was not specifically named. The point he wished to illustrate was the loss of control over expenditure by the House of Commons. He did not think there was a more responsible duty attaching to the Members of the House of Commons than to watch the expenditure of the country. It was one of the prime reasons for which they were sent to the House of Commons, and any attempt to deprive them of that power of control was very serious and ought to be critically examined.
  His impression after eight years on the Public Accounts Committee was that the control of the House of Commons over public expenditure was a diminishing quality. He thought that loss was mainly due to three reasons. There was first of all the new closure rule, which limited discussion. Secondly, he thought he was justified in saying that there was a growing practice of sanctioning expenditure simply by means of the Treasury. And, thirdly, there was the loose and inadequate way in which Estimates were drawn up and laid before Parliament, resulting very often
  436
  in money being voted for one purpose and being used altogether for another purpose without any Parliamentary consideration, and in expenditure upon particular services exceeding the Estimates granted by the House, in many cases by upwards of 100 per cent. With regard to the new closure rule, he might perhaps remind the House that only last year no less a sum than £31,224,231 was voted without any examination of the Estimates. He did not think that could be held to be conducive to good Estimates. If the Departments thought there was a laxity in considering them, and that they might go through Parliament without a word being said, it was not conducive to care in drawing them up. He did not wish to cast any reflection upon the Treasury, for he did not suppose it was any worse than it would be under any other Government, and he quite understood that it was an exceedingly difficult thing to resist the pressure that was put upon it from various Departments to increase the amount of expenditure, but he did think, and he thought he should be able to prove, that the Treasury might be firmer in withholding sanction from some of the expenditure. It was a very rare thing to find the Treasury absolutely withholding sanction. He thought there was only one case which came under the notice of the Public Accounts Committee that year. It was in connection with the expenditure in the Chatham Dockyard. There was a token Vote of £50,000, and the Department exceeded it by £20,000. The Treasury did in that case refuse to give its sanction to the amount. It was, however, very rare indeed for the Treasury to do that.
  The method of getting expenditure which had not been sanctioned or even considered by Parliament was growing, and it was most dangerous. He would like to give one or two illustrations. The net result of the Navy transactions for the year 1903–4 was that on the total expenditure of £37,000,000 odd there was an excess of £97,951. Of course that did not represent the fluctuations on the amounts of the various Votes. The Admiralty as late as 14th March, 1904, made a forecast showing expenditure and Estimates fairly equal

  437
  but in the final balance the net excessive expenditure on Votes 2. and 11., which on 14th March had been estimated to amount to £22,800 and £39,500 respectively, had grown to £70,931 and £87,000. These two amounts practically accounted for the whole of the net excess. In the ordinary course of events, the Department ought to have come to Parliament for a Supplementary Estimate to warrant that expenditure. That would have given the House an opportunity of discussing it and would have restored the control of the House of Commons over such expenditure. But that was not the way in which it was done. The Treasury very properly refused to allow the application of certain surpluses upon certain Votes to be used for making up deficiencies on other Votes without reference to Parliament but in effect it worked out in another way. The Treasury did not prevent the Admiralty from making use of excesses of receipts upon appropriations-in-aid to other purposes. There was an excess upon appropriations-in-aid of £115,000 or £116,000. In the ordinary course that amount would have been immediately transferred to the Exchequer as extra receipts, and Supplementary Estimates would have been asked for excess expenditure. He thought the Treasury ought to have insisted upon that course being followed and not to have allowed the excess of receipts upon appropriations-in-aid to have been used to make up deficiencies. The result, of course, was that a balance in hand was shown. It would therefore be seen that £97,000 had been absolutely withdrawn from the control of Parliament.
  He would only give one other illustration. Formerly all items of works undertaken by the War Office and the Admiralty and estimated to cost £1,000 and more were shown separately in the Estimates. In 1902–3, when a great many irregularities crept into their conduct of national finance, there was an alteration with regard to the Army, and no details were given of works which did not cost more than £2,000. In 1903–4 that alteration was extended to the Admiralty. There they had an extension of power to Departments to spend money on works the particulars of which were not known out side the Department at all. It was
  438
  a clear case of loss of control by the House of Commons. No doubt it was done with the sanction of the Treasury and was in perfect order according to the rules of Parliament, but Parliament had lost control over that money. All items under those heads which would not amount to more than £2,000 could be started without giving any particulars of them in the Estimates, and there would be no vote upon them. That was what he meant by loss of Parliamentary control. Already the War Office and the Admiralty escaped much of the control given to other Departments, and he thought it was a great pity to have given them power which lessened that control. He had another illustration which showed how the same thing crept into other Departments besides the Army and Navy.
  Another instance he might gives if time permitted, was in regard to the Revenue buildings in which a sum of £185,000 was used without proper Estimates being submitted. The loose and inadequate Estimates placed before Parliament were one reason for the loss of Parliamentary control. As an illustration of this, he pointed out that in the Army Votes there were seven services for which Estimates were passed, but no expenditure made, which meant that the money voted could be used for other purposes not sanctioned by Parliament; there were twenty items on which the expenditure was less than the Estimates, four items in which the expenditure had exceeded the Estimates, and three items of expenditure for which no provision had been made in the Estimates, but for which expenditure had been incurred by Treasury sanction. There was an illustration from the Admiralty. The Admiralty had estimated in 1903–4 that the expenditure, on the Osborne Royal Naval College would be £40,000. On April 27th, 1903, the Admiralty wrote to the Treasury stating that the total cost at Osborne would be £65,000, an I sanction was asked for this expenditure from savings under other heads. It was always necessary to show that savings had been made under other heads, otherwise the Treasury would not give their sanction, and that was probably a reason why excessive Estimates were often submitted. The Admiralty also asked for authority to go on with other works,

  439
  such as bungalows for the cadets, costing £22,200; so that the original Estimate rose from £40,000 to £87,200. On July 30th, 1903, the Admiralty again wrote to the Treasury in respect of an hospital for infectious diseases, the site of which had had to be changed, necessitating an expenditure of £5,500 instead of £3,500. The total Estimate for Osborne thus rose from £40,000 to £92,700. But that was not the end of the story. On March 12th, 1904, the Admiralty wrote again to the Treasury stating that the Estimates would be largely exceeded. In 1903–4 the total expenditure was estimated at £94,000, and the sum finally named as the total Estimate for this work was £160,000. The Treasury entered a feeble kind of protest against this method of presenting Estimates, but under pressure it gave way and consented to the expenditure. Parliament thus found that it was pledged to an expenditure of £160,000 when only £40,000 had been asked for a short time before. Such cases, he thought, showed how Parliament lost grip over expenditure, and how, in consequence, the national expenditure enormously increased.
  The Supplementary Estimates were also growing. In 1903 Supplementary Estimates for £4,500,000 were asked for. This expenditure had already been incurred and, as the major portion of the money had been spent, Parliament found it to be impossible to refuse the grant. The money included the price of the two Chilian war vessels, though Parliament was never asked about the purchase. It was a perfect farce to ask Parliament to vote money which had already been expended. Facts like these showed that Parliament had lost control over the expenditure of the country, and, in these days of swollen Estimates from which the poorest of the community were suffering, it behoved hon. Members to examine the question of Parliamentary control in finance closely for themselves with the object of preventing waste and extravagance.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT (Exeter)said he yieldel to no man in his hostility to Supplementary Estimates; they were totally subversive of good finance, but he
  440
  believed he was correct in saying that-the Supplementary Estimates this year were far lower than they had been in previous years. He regarded that as a hopeful sign of financial administration. The advocates of economy and supporters-of a more stringent system of finance-had had several reasons for congratulation in the course of the present session—first, because they had achieved a notable triumph in the abolition of the system of Works Bills, for he took it that the declaration of the Government applied to the Works Bills generally and not merely to the naval works; secondly, because they had a distinct improvement in the form of the financial statement presenting on Budget night, from which the entire expenditure could now be clearly-observed; and lastly, in having secured that night for the first time a discussion on the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee. The result of that discussion must be largely to increase the sense of the House and of the country as to the importance of the services of the Public-Accounts Committee and also to increase its authority and prestige. The allotment of a day for the discussion of the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee was one of the recommendations of the National Expenditure-Committee. He congratulated the Government upon having adopted that recommendation, and urged them not to stop in. the path of progress, but, having learnt the value of the services rendered by a Select Committee in regard to accounts, to extend the system and set up, Select Committee to examine the Estimates.
  The control of expenditure was far more efficient applied before the event than after. If the expenditure had already been made it was simply a question of establishing past responsibility, and there was no opportunity for saving the money of the country. He-was convinced that the utility of examination before the event was as ten to one compared with examination after. It had been argued against the establishment of a Committee such as had been suggested, that it would diminish the control of this House, but they had from the Prime Minister a very important statement of opinion, that discussion in Committee of Supply did not aid

  441
  the cause of financial economy. Everyone knew that to be true. It was absolutely impossible for private Members to gain any useful purpose by discussing with the Minister of the Crown Estimates regarding which he alone had information given him by permanent officials. Unless private Members could examine the Votes in detail and obtain information regarding them by examining the permanent officials of the various Departments, their criticism was almost always void of effect and of no real service to the country. He did not think it could be seriously contended that the establishment of such a Committee would relieve the Treasury of responsibility or destroy the authority of the Treasury over the spending Departments. He did not share the view that the Treasury had lost power and authority during recent years. The permanent officials had never been more zealous or more capable than at the present time, but the amount of good that they could do in the way of financial control depended largely upon the amount of support given them in the Cabinet by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the amount of authority exercised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Cabinet depended largely upon the amount of support he received in that House. The House could only give support if it had knowledge.
  MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon. Member was going outside the Motion before the House.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid he would conclude by expressing his personal view of the great value to the cause of public economy of the services rendered by the members of the Public Accounts Committee as evidenced by the admirable Reports which were now submitted to the House.
  MR. CHURCHILL (Oldham)said the present debate was a pleasant interlude amidst the hard political times through which they were passing, and had yet to pass. Upon many points a very general agreement had been expressed. All were
  442
  convinced that the present system of: financial control was lax and ineffectual, and that no proper scrutiny of the Estimates or control of finance was exercised. They were also agreed as to the unique value of the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, which, for the first time, they had an opportunity afforded them of discussing. In that matter the Prime Minister had treated the House with some considerations which Members ought not to omit to recognise Then, too, all were bound to recognise the great services rendered to the cause of public finance by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who, in days when private Members had little opportunity of doing useful work, was one of the few Members who had been able to make his influence felt from an unofficial position upon the course of public affairs.
  He desired to submit one or two considerations suggested by the functions of the Public Accounts Committee and bearing on the question of financial control. Financial control divided 1itself into two separate spheres—the examination of Estimates and the audit of accounts. The Public Accounts Committee dealt extremely well with the audit of accounts, but it did not touch the examination of Estimates. The examination before that Committee was so formidable a one that nobody would care to submit himself to it unless he were as sure as he could be of the statement he had to present, and that audit of Accounts was effective and real because they had accurate knowledge based on expert opinion and there was an entire absence of partisanship. Moreover, they were guided by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who was independent of any political Party, and they could call before them Departmental officers who, as the Blue-bookshowed, gave excellent, clear, and definite answers to the questions addressed to them. The contrast between the examination of the accounts for the purposes of audit and the examination of the Estimates before the House of Commons was deplorable. On the one hand, there was knowledge, absence of partisanship, expert evidence, and the submission of high officials to cross-examination? On the other hand, what did they see in Committee of Supply? He admitted the value of Supply days

  443
  as occasions for raising grievances and discussing questions of policy, but so far as any systematic and scientific examination of the expenditure of the country was concerned, they were a series of farces from beginning to end. That must be so from the size and variety of the Estimates presented and the enormous field covered by them. No human being not possessed of expert information or access to official documents could possibly bring any effective criticism—expect by accident—to bear upon the details of expenditure in Committee of Supply. It was absurd to suggest that a system under which 670 Members, dominated by partisanship and Party feeling, strolled in and out on Supply days, and voted without having heard the debates, involved any definite, methodical, and scientific examination of the expenditure of the country, He submitted that the recommendations of the purely non-partisan Committee which was appointed some three years ago ought to have been acted upon, or, at any rate, publicly considered before now.
  Public expenditure divided itself into three aspects. There was the policy of expenditure, the merit of expenditure, and the audit of expenditure. To illustrate what he meant, let the House suppose there arose a question of the improvement of the scientific training of the Royal Army Medical Corps. Whether it should be done would be a question of policy; whether the end should be secured by building special hospitals or by placing the men in London hospitals, would be the merit of the expenditure; and whether the money voted had been honestly and properly expended would belong to the sphere of audit. Questions of policy were for the Cabinet and the House of Commons, and the question of audit was adequately dealt with by the Public accounts Committee, the Treasury, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General. But between these two there was a lacuna or middle ground, which, for want of a better term, he called the merit of expenditure, and upon that no control adequately or effectively operated at the present time. What they had heard of the work of the Public Accounts Committee ought to encourage them to apply
  444
  to the sphere of merit the same kind of efficient examination that they applied to the sphere of audit. They ought to set up an Estimates Committee, which should conduct the examination of the Estimates by the same scientific methods as the audit of accounts was now conducted by the Public Account Committee. He earnestly hoped that work would be undertaken in the future No one would suggest that an Estimates Committee, any more than the Public Accounts Committee, should have any executive function; they would have power to reduce or increase a Vote; all that they would have power to do would be to find out the truth and place it before the House of Commons. He suggested that if an Estimates Committee were set up its comments on each Estimate should be printed on a blue slip and attached to the Estimate when it was laid before the House. They would then be able to debate the Estimates in the House with knowledge, be able to award praise and blame where it was deserved, and the present slip-shod and haphazard system would pass away. He looked forward to a reformed Parliament which would be disembarrassed, by devolution, of the mass of detail with which their progress was now largely choked, and in such a Parliament these two Committees would be an indispensable feature.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD - FORSTER, Belfast, N.), on behalf of the Government, associated himself with all that had been said as to the valuable work done in the Public Accounts Committee. The present was an interesting occasion, as it was the first on which the work of the Committee had been submitted to the House. He had been struck, in reading the four Reports of the Committee, with the admirable quality of impartiality therein displayed, and it was because of that quality that they had been received with the respect they merited in that House. He hoped that the practice, now initiated, would in no wise alter the character of those Reports; it was conceivable, he hoped it was not probable, that by bringing the Reports into the arena of the House of Commons they might to

  445
  a certain extent lose that admirable quality of impartiality. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had mentioned that, in the Committee, Party divisions were practically unknown, and that the questions were discussed purely on their merits. In that House there was sometimes a danger of matters that were national and not Party matters being somewhat dimmed by the differences which existed between the two great Parties, but he hoped that the fine tradition embodied in these Reports might continue unimpaired.
  His hon. friend the Member for Exeter, the hon. Member for Oldham, and other hon. Members had expressed the desire that what was now being done in connection with audit might be extended to Estimates. That was a very large question. His own belief was that no Party in that House would readily adopt the system which found favour in France, and that they would never have a Budget Committee, the approval of which would be a necessary condition precedent to the presentation of Estimates to that House. He did not believe, as a matter of practice, that any Party in that House would relieve Ministers from their responsibility in submitting the Estimates to Parliament. Whether it might be possible to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ilkeston, and for the Public Accounts Committee to carry out an extended review of the different branches or the public accounts so that in the course of a few years the whole area might be covered, was another matter. It would be in pursuance of -the aim of the hon. Member for Oldham, and the obvious corollary would be that they should pass over detailed matters not recommended for discussion by the Public Accounts Committee.
  He was not sure that some of the illustrations used to enforce the arguments of hon. Members that evening had been quite happy. With nearly all that had been said on matters of principle they found themselves in agreement, but he could not allow one or two of the illustrations used to pass without comment. For instance, the large economies in tin expenditure of the Navy were not due, except in a
  446
  minute degree, to the examination referred to by the hon. Member for Plymouth, but to a large act of policy affecting the whole establishment of the Navy and the character of the sea-going I Fleet which was not the outcome of that detailed criticism. If the hon. Member for Ipswich had taken the trouble to ask the accounting officer of the Department, whose laches he was criticising, or if he had taken the trouble to examine the Estimates, he would have found that the obscurity in the items relating to the history of the war was not so great as he asked the House to believe. In the Estimates he would have found in each year an item for £6,000 for "preparation of the history of the South African War." Another ill-chosen example of criticism, that in connection with the College at Osborne, referred to the transfer of expenditure from a sea-going ship to the establishment on land, and this showed the folly of purely arithmetical criticisms unless they were accompanied by a review of the circumstances under which the Estimates were presented. This expenditure was due to the creation of a college, one of the most succeessful pieces of construction by the naval department, and it was because the college was completed in so short a time that the money was transferred from one item to the other. The hon. Member for Ipswich said that £40,000 was asked for, and £160,000 was actually spent, and he wished the House to understand that that was extravagance.
  MR. GODDARD: I did not say that. I said that the Estimate began at £40,000, and it had gone up to £160,000.
  MR. ARNOLD - FORSTERaccepted the hon. Member's explanation. He wished to point out, however, that there had been no departure from the purpose for which the money was intended. He thought it was the duty of somebody on behalf of the Government to state how these Reports had been received by them, and the task had fallen to his lot because it happened that the larger part of the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee

  447
  concerned his Department. The Government had accepted the unanimous Report of the Public Accounts Committee, and he would like to say one or two words about the principal items accepted.
  MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.): What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by accepted?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the Report made certain recommendations. Those recommendations had been accepted, and it was proposed to act upon them. The first had reference to the grant of £500 to general officers commanding for unforeseen charges. The War Office and the Treasury shared the opinion of the Public Accounts Committee that those amounts should be applied exclusively to the purposes for which they were granted, and they would be so applied in the future. The second recommendation concerned military, naval, and other works. He was aware of the particular case that came under the notice of the Committee, and he could not find that there was any failure on the part of the War Department to furnish the particulars asked for; but the principle that such particulars should be furnished on all occasions was readily accepted by the War Office and the Treasury.
  There was one more item which was of more general interest, and was, no doubt, of great importance. It dealt with the accounting officer referred to in the new Army Order. He was anxious the He use should understand the position of the Army Council with regard to this matter. The War Office, like every public body, was bound by the law of Parliament; and the law of Parliament had enjoined that the accounting officer was responsible to the House, and that he should have his representative in all the great spending Departments of State. There was no desire or intention to challenge that fundamental law; but at the same time it ought to be made clear that the Army Order which had been made the subject of criticism was drawn with a very deliberate intention. It was not the
  448
  intention to exclude the right of the accounting officer to communicate directly with representatives of the House, but there was the intention of giving a greater liberty to officers in charge of administration of districts. In this connection he would like to read one or two passages from the Report of the Esher Committee. They said—
  "The entire system of War Office finance, which has been built up during many years, and has its origin in a distant past, is based upon the assumption that all military officers are necessarily spendthrifts, and that their actions must be controlled in gross and in detail by civilians. This theory is largely responsible for the unreadiness for war which has been frequently exhibited, as well as for reckless and wasteful expenditure."
  Again, the Esher Committee said—
  "The theory that military officers of I all ranks are, by the fact of wearing uniform, shorn of all business instincts has inevitably tended to produce the laxity which it is supposed to prevent. While the present system of financial control is futile in peace, it is ruinous in war. Officers unaccustomed to bear any financial responsibility and ruled by excessively complex regulations cannot at once improvise a system for the control of expenditure in the field when the restraints are suddenly removed. The result, as in South Africa, is the waste of millions."
  Those were very pregnant sentences, and it was the intention of the War Office to give effect to that sound doctrine. The Army Order had now been modified in a form which met with the approval of the Treasury. They had preserved a far greater liberty than that which had hitherto been allowed to the general officer in charge of administration, but it had been made clear that the control of Parliament should be maintained, and he believed that the Army Order so drawn would satisfy the House.
  There was one other item which called for remark, and that was the question of refunds in South Africa. There, again, they had accepted the-recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee. The Committee recommended that those items which had not yet been satisfactorily dealt with because of the length of the inquiry and the distance which separated this country from the scene of the transactions, should be carried over to a suspense account until the investigation that was going on

  449
  was complete. They accepted the recommendation. These accounts was aid be carried to suspense account. In conclusion, he said he thought that on this, the first occasion when the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee had been brought under the review of the House of Commons, there had been a ready acceptance of its proposals by the Government, because they had felt that those proposals were framed after an examination of the problems with which they were concerned from a purely non-party point of view, and with an eye to the good of the country at large.
  DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)referred to the question of the meat and vegetable rations sent out to the troops in South Africa. In his Report of January 31st this year the Comptroller and Auditor-General reported that 5,571,622 of the rations supplied were condemned and destroyed in South Africa. In addition he reported that 497,125 emergency rations supplied by the firm of Maconochie Brothers, never having left these shores, were returned to that firm and condemned as being unfit for use. He also reported that this same firm replaced 365,000 rations in place of those condemned and that many of these were subsequently found to be unsound; and he finally informed the House, through his Report, that of the total rations destroyed, 955,727 were Maconochie emergency rations and 1,053,563 were Maconochie meat and vegetable rations. The Public Accounts Committee took all these facts into consideration and they heard what Messrs. Maconochie had to say. The explanation given by the firm was that the War Office, in November, 1899, came to them in a great emergency and asked them to supply large quantities, under great stress, of these emergency meat and vegetable rations. The firm was invited if it had not material at hand to use pemmican, which was at Woolwich in the possession of the Government, in manufacturing the rations. It was further stated that the firm understood that the rations were for immediate consumption—at any rate, consumption within the next few months. The firm agreed, and they appeared not to have agreed very eagerly, because
  450
  they had to lay aside a great deal of their own business, which, he understood was permanently lost. That was in February, 1899, and the firm pushed on with the order at the special wish of the War Office.
  In December, 1899, down came the War Office with a contract to be signed by Maconochie Brothers, and what happened at this juncture? The Report showed that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen was examined, and in his evidence he said that he told Mr. Major, the late Director of Contracts at the War Office, that his firm could not sign the usual contract form and this was not an ordinary contract, and that the sort of thing he was supplying would not keep for more than twelve months and so his firm could not give the usual guarantee. Then Mr. Major replied" but we must have something for office reference." Then the firm's reply was "If that is all then we will sign it," and it was signed. Mr. Major, the hon. Member explained might have understood that as a guarantee, but the firm understood exactly the opposite, and said that if that was all they would sign the contract. Now what was that contract? It stated that the contractors warranted the articles to keep sound and wholesome in any climate for a period of two years from the date of delivery, and it further stated that this warranty would not be enforced in trivial cases or upon small rejections. And so the firm of Maconochie Brothers said they were asked to sign this for office reference, and they signed this contract on December 2nd, 1899. Mr. Major was subsequently asked whether the statement that this contract was merely for office reference was true, and he denied it in his evidence and would not admit any such suggestion. The next reply of Messrs. Maconochie was to the effect that the rations were made from Woolwich pemmican, for which they were not responsible. The final reply of Messrs. Maconochie was to the effect that the rations were exposed to extremes of tropical climate and that they were badly stored and kicked about here, there, and everywhere in all weathers and therefore went bad. He dared say that was true of a good many, but it was the fact that

  451
  497,412 condemned rations never left these shores, and therefore this answer could not apply to them.
  The matter of the condemnation of these rations had been the subject of a voluminous correspondence between the War Office and Messrs. Maconochie, and on November 19th, 1904, the firm wrote an important letter in which it stated that it was prepared, without prejudice, to make over the sum of £2,500 to the War Office in settlement of claims in respect to condemned rations. It appeared from the next letter that the Treasury rather opposed this, but the Army Council appeared to have acquiesced and the offer of £2,500 was accepted. That was the conclusion of this part of the matter. The final judgment of the Public Accounts Committee was this (paragraph 10)—
  "Your Committee, while admitting that the manufacture of these rations was something in the nature of an experiment, are of opinion that Messrs. Maconochie sent in defective rations, and that they cannot plead either the effect of tropical climate or rough usage or the presence of Woolwich pemmican to excuse the non-fulfilment of their contract for the supply of emergency rations for the troops."
  As against that the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, on page 169, told the Committee that the firm had received numerous letters from the ordinary soldier, and that he thought he could say at that moment that there was not a single service Member in the House of Commons who would not admit that the ration was the best form of food he had. As to that, again, they had the Report of the General Officer Commanding in South Africa, issued in a Parliamentary Paper, transmitting the opinions of a board of officers on certain supplies of meat and vegetable at Pretoria considered to be unfit for use. General Lyttelton said—
  "Consequent upon frequent complaints about these rations having been received from
  452
  the Office Commanding the Pretoria District, whose medical officer attributes to them the prevalence of diarrhosa amongst the men, an analysis was made by Major Beveridge, of the Royal Army Medical Corps, a copy of whose report is enclosed."
  The hon. Member then read the analyst's report upon one case, twenty-eight tins Maconochie's meat and vegetable rations, which stated that the sample contained heavy traces of iron, that seven tins out of the twenty-eight were blown and their contents decomposed, that the remainder showed commencing decomposition, that in each case the interior of the tin was blackened and corroded in places, thus accounting for the large proportion of iron in the meat, and, in conclusion, that if this was a fair sample of the consignment the whole should be destroyed, being unfit for consumption and a danger to health. He hoped that he had now put perfectly fairly the whole statement on both sides. The Public Accounts Committee made a statement on which he would not comment, but about which he would ask a Question. They said—
  "Your Committee feel it right to draw the attention of the House of Commons to Clause 9 of the contract signed by Messrs. Maconochie, namely, 'no Member of the House of Commons shall be admitted to any part or share of this contract or to any benefit derived there from.'"
  Upon that point the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire himself gave evidence. The hon. Member for North Norfolk directed his attention to this clause in the contract. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire said that his firm was a private limited liability company, and that he was a shareholder in it. The question was then asked—
  "You had no port or share in the profit, or any benefit derived therefrom?"
  The answer of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire was—
  "I presume, with regard to that contract, that anyone who takes any shareholding interest in any company that takes a contract gets

  453
  a benefit the same as any shareholder in a railway company that carries troops gets a benefit by his stock in the company."
  The contracts were entered into in 1899 and 1900. As far as he could gather the company was registered as a private limited liability company on September 29th, 1900. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire was managing director and, of the 100,000 shares, held 79,996. Two other members of his family held between them 20,000 shares. He dared say that was quite proper. He was not a business man and. offered no opinion on the subject. But he would allow himself to make this comment. He could not help thinking that the hon. Member, when he put it to the Public Accounts Committee that he was as a shareholder in a railway company, was not quite frank in view of the fact that he and two members of his family held 99,996 out of the 100,000 shares of the company. He desired to ask the War Office these two Questions: (1) Would the Government undertake that the whole of the incidents connected with the supply and condemnation of the emergency meat and vegetable rations to the troops in South Africa should come before the Royal Commission, and (2) if not, would they undertake, having regard to the condemnation which was set out in the Report, that the firm of Messrs. Maconochie Brothers should no longer remain upon the list of contractors to the War Office?
  MR. MACONOCHIE(Aberdeenshire, E.) said it did not often fall to the lot of a Member of that House to sit for two years under the pillory of the personal attacks of his political opponents. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Camberwell hid deliberately misstated the facts
  454
  of the case. [OPPOSITION cries of "Order."]
  DR. MACNAMARA: On a point of order, Sir, I am sorry there should be any heat introduced, but I ask you whether it is competent for an hon. Member to charge another hon. Member with deliberate misstatement of the facts of the case.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member is justified in using suck an expression.
  MR. MACONOCHIEsaid he withdrew the expression at once. He meant to convey that the hon. Gentleman had not the facts at his finger ends. He-thanked the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for withdrawing a statement which had certainly prejudiced him very much, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would carry out that simple act of justice by inserting his withdrawal in the Report.
  With regard to the emergency rations the statement of the hon. Member opposite that he was not a Member of the House was-perfectly true. He was pressed to undertake work that, he was given to understand, could be undertaken at the time by nobody else. The conditions surrounding the production of this article were very arduous, and the work had to be undertaken in a very short time. The article known as an emergency ration was composed of four ounces of pemmican and five ounces of cocoa paste in two tins joined together by band. He would specially call the attention of the Public Accounts Committee to the fact that they were totally misled when they understood that the rations were hermetically sealed

  455
  or that they were sterilised. Wherever they were exposed they were subject to deterioration in a very short time. What were the facts concerning this contract? The Department that had to do with it could not supply their requirements and could not obtain what they wanted elsewhere. His firm put on one side many thousands of pounds of their regular trade in order to supply them, much against their wish and to their great injury. Twenty-two months after they were delivered there was complaint made that they were defective. He then referred to the conversation the hon. Member had quoted, and explained that the firm had no responsibility, that the article did not bear their name, that it was manufactured for the Department, and that they took no responsibility, but that, being desirous of preserving their good name as it had always been, and he hoped to-night it would be reinstated, he said that they would replace the tins if the necessary material were supplied under rigid supervision to make them good, and that the firm would pay expenses incurred. This was done, and three years and seven months after the original order the goods were found defective, so that even if there had been a guarantee it had expired. However, it supported their contention that the article would not keep, and there was evidence which could be read in the Blue-book that, so far as the War Office was concerned, it was not an article of which they had had very much experience, and to a certain extent it was experimental.
  He did not think his firm had been treated in the matter very reasonably. It must have cost the firm £12,000 to £15,000—a good sum to pay for obliging the Department in time of stress and
  456
  trouble. The hon. Member omitted to state that the meat and vegetable rations had been lying out in the open exposed to frost, sun and rain and all the vicissitudes of weather out there, and it was no wonder that some proved defective. If tin goods were taken out of any grocer's shop and kept in an open field for twelve months how many of the articles would they find at the end of the period which were not defective? He repeated here, and he was not afraid to say it anywhere, that in every case, so far as the particular ration which they invented in 1898 was concerned, there had been great praise given. Every service Member of the House had personally testified to him that there never was any complaint made during the campaign about it. But no goods could stand the exposure in the open, as, for instance, that which those stored within 500 yards of the sea at Durban received. He did not see how they could have expected any article of food in any kind of vessel to stand the treatment to which those articles were subjected. Correspondents of experience had vouched for the excellence of the goods, and he need not refer to the work done by the firm over and above that for which they received pay. He felt that the Department had treated his firm in a way they would not have been treated if he had not been a Member of that House. He was not ashamed of anything the firm had done, and was not afraid to stand before any tribunal. He felt that the House would deal with the matter in a proper spirit and do him justice.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE(Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield) said

  457
  the hon. Member opposite had fallen into an error in confusing emergency and vegetable rations. It was necessary to bear in mind that they were different things. An emergency ration was a small tin containing pemmican and cocoa paste. Every soldier had to carry one, so that, he could fall back upon it in the event of his being cut off from his ordinary means of supply, but he was never to use it except in case of real emergency. In that case he was allowed to draw upon his emergency ration. It was, in fact, an insurance against the starvation of the soldier.
  At the beginning of the South African war a large quantity of these rations Was required. The Department had a difficulty in obtaining a supply, and the firm of Messrs. Maconcchie Brothers were asked to undertake this work. With the rations sent out to South Africa he had not to deal. They were probably exposed to some treatment in that country which explained why they went bad. But of the emergency rations remaining in this country 497,000 were found to be going bad. The contractors, under protest, agreed to replace them. They actually replaced 366,000 of the rations. When he came to the War Office they had yet to replace 131,000. As those emergency rations were perishable and it was doubtful whether they would last for two years, he thought it a more common-sense arrangement to get a sum of money down from the contractors rather than to ask them to replace the rations. It was estimated that it would probably cost the contractors £3,000 to replace the rations, and therefore he thought he was driving a good bargain for the public when he agreed to take £2,500
  458
  instead of the 131,000 rations which were not wanted and could not be used. He was perfectly satisfied in his own mind that so far as the public was concerned he did drive a good bargain, and that so far as the contractors was concerned it was perhaps rather a hard bargain.
  The hon. Member asked him whether he would remove the firm from the list. It was no part of his duty to defend the firm; he had enough to do to defend his own Department. He knew that the hon. Member would not willingly do injustice to any person under any cirstances. It was very doubtful whether it was possible to make emergency rations which would last for two years, and, therefore, so far as Messrs. Maconochie were concerned, he thought it would not be fair to strike the name of the firm off the list because they had failed to do that. No meat and vegetable rations went bad in this country. They went bad in South Africa, where they were subjected to treatment which made their going bad reasonable. He would point out that of the meat and vegetable rations supplied by other firms 16 per cent, went bad and had to he destroyed, while only 8 per cent, of those supplied by the Maconochie firm went bad and had to be destroyed. He thought, therefore, the House would agree that it would not be doing an act of justice if the firm were struck off the list. As to the suggestion that the matter should be referred to the Royal Commission, of course the Royal Commission could go into it if they desired; but as the whole question had been fully investigated by the Public Accounts Committee he thought that would be an unnecessary proceeding on their part.
  MAJOR SEELY(Isle of Wight) said the hon. Member opposite had made an appeal to the service Members of the House. He did not propose to deal with the financial aspect of the question. It was not his business to defend the hon. Member, but as the question of the quality of the goods had been raised he thought it was only fair to say that he had lived upon the emergency rations for some time in South Africa, and that they were very good indeed.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBEELAINsaid he desired to express his personal sense of the value of the work which was done by the Public Accounts Committee, and also of the courtesy and care which the light hon. Gentleman the Member for Walsall brought to bear in the discharge, of his duties as chairman.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, "That the four Reports of the Public Accounts Committee be now taken into consideration."—(Sir A. Hayter.)

  TRADE MARKS BILL
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill read the third time, and passed.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (FACILITIES) BILL [LORDS].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  MOTOR-CAR ACT (1903) AMENDMENT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  NATIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION (IRELAND) (SCHOOL COMMITTEES)
  Return ordered, ''showing the number of Schools under the National Board of Education where there is a School Committee recognised by the Board as patron of the School; the number of such Schools under the management of the Roman Catholic, the Protestant Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Methodist Churches respectively."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

  IRISH EDUCATION (AFFLICTED CHILDREN) [EXPENSES]
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament for Public Education in Ireland, of the Expenses of Education given to Afflicted Children, in pursuance of any Act of the present session to make better provision for the Elementary Education of Afflicted Children. in Ireland (King's Recommendation signified), Tomorrow.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock