Commons Sitting of 15 March 1905

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

  GREAT NORTHERN (IRELAND) AND MIDLAND RAILWAYS BILL.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert the following clauses—
  The Midland Company shall, within three months after the expiration of each calendar year, prepare and forward to the Board of Trade a return showing with respect to the Londonderry section—

  (1) The capital expenditure made by them for the period covered by the return.

  (2) The receipts from traffic of all descriptions, the proportionate receipts in respect of over-sea traffic being estimated where actual figures are not ascertained.

  2

  (3) The expenses incurred in working the railway, divided under the heads prescribed in Table No. 12 of the First Schedule to The Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, general or other charges applicable to the whole of the Midland Company's system being estimated.

  (4) A return of working stock as prescribed by Table No. 6 of the said schedule.

  (5) A mileage statement as prescribed by Table No. 14 of the said schedule.

  (6) A train mileage statement as prescribed by Table No. 15 of the said schedule.

  The first return made under this section shall cover the period of eighteen months ending on the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and six.
  The annual returns required from the company under Section 9 of The Regulation of Railways Act, 1871, and Section 32 of The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, shall distinguish separately the statistics relating to the Londonderry section, such figures as are not actually

  3
  ascertained being estimated by the Midland Company.—(Mr.Lough.)

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).
  Mr. AGG-GARDNER Mr. AGG-GARDNER reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Friday, at a quarter past Eleven o'clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  FAIR RENT COURTS.
  Petitions for establishment; from Hackney; and Woolwich; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Clifton; and West Bristol; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 13th March, 1905, granting to Walter James Cox, Sorting Clerk and Telegraphist, Coventry, a retiring allowance under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill and the objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158b]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
  ARMY (IMPERIAL YEOMANRY).
  Copy presented, of Training Return of Imperial Yeomanry for 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Belfast Reformatory and Industrial Schools—Reduction of Capitation Grant.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware
  4
  that the Belfast Corporation proposes to reduce the capitation grant of the local reformatory and industrial schools from 2s. 6d. to 2s.; and, if so, whether he will take steps to prevent its being adopted, more especially as the existent grant involves an extra rate of only one-eighth of a penny in the £.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Government has no information that the fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. An agreement by a local public body to contribute towards the support of children in reformatory and industrial schools is made with the managers of these institutions and does not come in any way before the Executive for approval, nor has the Executive any jurisdiction to interfere in the direction suggested in the Question.

  Water Supply of the Country.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the alleged prospect of a general failure of the water supply of the country; and whether the matter is engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Grant Lawson) There does not appear to be any prospect of a general failure of the water supply of the country. There was a deficiency of rainfall during the year 1904, and it was continued during the first two months of the present year. This has caused a shortage of water in some parts of the country where the supply is obtained from superficial sources; but the rain of the last few weeks may be expected to replenish these sources.

  Damage to Country Roads by Heavy Motor Traffic.
  MR. WILLIAM KESWICK: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the damage done to country roads by reason of the increase in heavy motor and similar traffic, and to the consequent increase in the local rates which the local authorities have to raise for the purpose of repairing such roads;

  5
  and whether he will consider the expediency of appointing a Commission to inquire and report whether such local authorities should not be relieved to some, and, if so, to what, extent from such extra expenses.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) It is no doubt the case that traffic of the kind referred to in the Question may do damage to country roads, and some complaints to this effect have been made to the Local Government Board. It would, however, be very difficult to ascertain to what extent the cost of road maintenance is directly attributable to this traffic, and I could not undertake to recommend the appointment of a Commission, as suggested.

  The Clarke Estate, County Cork.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state to whom the untenanted land 'acquired by the Estates Commissioners on the Clarke Estate, county Cork, has been allocated; and whether, after provision is made for the evicted tenants on the estate, preference will be given to the claims of evicted tenants in the immediate neighbourhood who are unable to obtain possession of their former holdings from the present occupiers.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Land Commission have no information as to the alleged proceedings to recover rent on the estate referred to, and no steps have been taken to initiate purchase negotiations in the case.

  Methylated Spirit Drinking in Londonderry.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the mischief wrought amongst the working classes in Derry city and county by the consumption of methylated spirit; and whether, in view of the consequences proceeding therefrom, he will take steps to have restrictions placed on the sale of this article, and to warn the people of the dangers arising from its use.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The attention of the Board of Inland Revenue
  6
  has been directed to the practice of drinking methylated spirit in Londonderry. It is an offence under The Spirits Act, 1880, to sell such spirit as a beverage. The officers of the Inland Revenue are using their best endeavours to procure evidence which will sustain proceedings under the Act in this respect, and the police have been instructed to afford them every assistance in the matter.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state how many certificates of exemption from vaccination were granted during the year ending December 31st, 1904, and how the figures compare with the two previous years.
  ( Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The returns made to the Local Government Board show the number of certificates of conscientious objection received by the vaccination officers during the year. This number may be taken as substantially agreeing with the number granted during the year. The returns for 1904 are not quite complete, but the number of certificates received during that year may be stated approximately as 39,750. The numbers in 1902 and 1903, respectively, were 33,632 and 37,259.

  Local Government Board's Boarding-out Orders.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Board have yet completed their revision of the Boarding-out Orders which have been some months under consideration; and, if so, when they will be published.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The new Order is in an advanced stage of preparation, and I hope that it may shortly be issued.

  Appointment of Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists in Dublin.
  MR. FIELD:To ask the Postmaster-General if he can state what is the average number of appointments made in Dublin annually to the position of sorting clerks and telegraphists; and can he say when he expects to be

  7
  able to appoint the large number of learners at present in Dublin.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The number of appointments made in Dublin to the position of sorting clerk and telegraphist fluctuates from year to year. The figures of the last four years are as follows:—

  Males.

  Females.

  1901

  44

  23

  1902

  60

  14

  1903

  38

  9

  1904

  11

  5

  I regret that I am unable to state when the learners now employed at Dublin may anticipate appointment, but I am now considering whether any measures calculated to improve the position of learners generally can be taken.

  Cost of Acquiring the National Telephone Company's Undertaking by the Post Office.
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, setting aside the questions of maintenance of the plant and the expansion of the system, the Government obtained any estimate of the probable cost of acquiring the undertaking of the National Telephone Company before entering into the provisional agreement; if so, what is the amount of any such estimate; and whether he will reconsider his decision not to enlarge the terms of the reference to the Select Committee.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) An estimate of the cost of acquiring the National Telephone Company's undertaking in 1911 on the conditions proposed in the provisional agreement would be of no practical value at the present time if the questions of the maintenance and of the expansion of the system in the interval were not taken into account, and I did not obtain such an estimate. I see no necessity for enlarging the terms of reference.

  Irish Ordnance Survey.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the clerical and other work appertaining to the ordnance survey in Ireland has been as far as possible transferred to England; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of having all this work done in Ireland under the charge of the Department of Agriculture.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The completion of some of the maps of Ireland has caused certain classes of work, particularly the engraving of hills and colour-printing, to fall too short to allow them to be carried out economically and efficiently in Ireland, and such work is now done at Southampton. But it would not be correct to say that the clerical and other work appertaining to the survey of Ireland is being, as far as possible, transferred to England, and there is no question of the adoption of such a course. The expenditure on survey work in Ireland has considerably increased in recent years, and now amounts to 42 per cent, of the whole. No change is contemplated in the existing arrangements for the conduct of the survey.

  Increase in Number of Commissioners in Lunacy.
  SIR JOHN TUKE (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities): To ask Mr. Attorney-General if his attention has been drawn to the application made in the Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor for 1904 for an increase to the number of the Commissioners on the ground that such addition is absolutely necessary, and is urgently needed for the efficient and satisfactory administration of the Lunacy Acts; and whether he can inform the House whether any steps are being taken to give effect to this application.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) Attention has been drawn to the application referred to in the Question, and the subject is now under consideration by the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury.

  Towing of Disused Warships to New Berths.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the

  9
  Secretary to the Admiralty whether commissioned cruisers were employed in towing to their new berths the less valuable warships recently set aside, and what amount of coal was expended by His Majesty's ships in so towing them; and why this method was adopted instead of hiring tugs.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. It is not possible to say, without calling for a special report, what amount of coal was expended by His Majesty's ships employed on this service, but 7,000 tons may be taken as an approximate figure. This method was adopted as the cost incidental to the hire of tugs, and also of labour for working anchors and cables in mooring the ships after arrival, would have been greater than the cost of the coal consumed. In addition, the towing of these vessels afforded a most useful experience for the officers and crews of the towing ships.

  Allowances to Clerks in the Office of the Registrar-General of Seamen.
  MR. REDDY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain why, in face of the Treasury reply to Mr. Cox, of November 19th, 1902, the allowances of £20 granted to abstractors (old class) in the General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen in 1898, have not been extended to assistant clerks (new class) as has been the case in the Custom House, seeing that they are doing the same work for which the allowances were granted.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The arrangement by which certain of the abstractors (old class) in the office of the Registrar-General of Seamen were given an advance of £20 within their scale was temporary and was never intended to be applied to the assistant clerks (new class) in the office. The case of the assistant clerks (new class) in the Custom House is not analogous.

  Promotion of Assistant Clerks (New Class) in the Custom House.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in
  10
  view of the fact that no second-division clerks are employed in the Custom House, he will state what prospects of promotion are provided for the assistant clerks (new class) in the same Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) Assistant clerks in the Customs are eligible for occasional promotion, on the ground of exceptional merit, to the classes of: (1) Port clerks, who now fill the places formerly held by second-division clerks; and (2) Junior clerks in the statistical office.

  Mountmellick Town Commissioners and Fines imposed at Petty Sessions.
  MR. DELANY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state what portion of the fines imposed at Mountmellick Petty Sessions go to the town commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The only fines imposed at Mountmellick Petty Sessions which are payable to the town commissioners are those for the offence of drunkenness committed within the township, contrary to the Licensing Act, 1872, Section 12. In such cases, where the town commissioners prosecute, the whole of the fine is payable to them; and when the police prosecute, half of the fine is payable to the town commissioners and half to the police.

  Fines Payable to Town Commissions.
  MR. DELANY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether fines recovered for offences committed within a township should go to the town commission in aid of local rates, irrespective of where the person charged resides; and whether the practice on this matter differs in an urban district.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) I shall be happy to give the hon. Member information on the subject if he will be good enough to give me specific instances of the cases to which the Question refers.

  India—Permission for Natives to bear Arms.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether soldiers of the native ruling chiefs in India are provided only with muzzle-loading rifles; and

  11
  whether, seeing that the Indian people are not allowed to provide themselves with firearms, and in view of the number of natives destroyed annually by tigers, lions, and wolves, he will state the number of lives so lost during the last five years, and say whether the Indian Government will permit the Indian people to bear arms for their protection.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) With the exception of the Imperial Service Troops, troops of the Native States are, generally speaking, not armed with breech-loaders. It is not the case that, as stated in the Question, the Indian people are not allowed to provide themselves with firearms. In India, as in this country, firearms are not allowed to be possessed without a licence; but such licences are granted, when required for the purpose of destroying wild animals or for the protection of crops, free of charge. The number of persons returned as killed by tigers in British India during the last five years is 4,925, and by wolves 1,966; no deaths are shown as due to lions, of which there are very few in India. The number of free licences for firearms issued during the same period was 46,857, of which 37,678 are reported to have been still in force in 1903.

  Ireland—Unprotected Railway Loading Banks for Cattle.
  MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the attention of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland has been directed by the Irish Cattle Traders and Stock Owners' Association to the unprotected loading banks for live stock at various stations in Ireland, thereby causing preventable suffering to the animals and loss to the owners; and whether the Department will take measures to compel the carrying companies to adopt a similar system of pens on cattle loading banks as at present in use on the Liverpool station of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the resolutions, passed at Irish Cattle Traders and Stock Owners' Association
  12
  last Thursday, complaining of the want of proper accommodation for live stock in railway transit, especially with regard to the defective condition of many loading banks; and whether he will communicate with the Department of Agriculture and cause inquiries to be made and improvements effected where necessary.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Department have not within a recent period received representations from the Irish Cattle Traders and Stock Owners' Association respecting the alleged unprotected condition of the loading banks at more than one Irish station, and in that instance the matter is at present the subject of correspondence between the Department and the owning company. The association's resolutions referred to in the second Question have not yet reached the Department. It would appear, however, from the reports in the newspapers that complaint was made at the meeting of the association on Thursday last of the unprotected state of the loading banks for cattle at seventeen stations on two lines of railway. The Department learn from their transit staff that thirteen of these stations are provided with certain penning accommodation from which animals can be loaded into the trucks. This accommodation is in addition to the loading banks which are open platforms. The majority of these loading banks are used for general goods traffic as well as for animals, and might not be suitable for all the purposes required if protected in the way suggested, i.e., by erection along the banks of a series of gates or a special system of pens such as obtains at the Liverpool station mentioned. There are, however, certain Irish railway stations at which a plan of this kind has been adopted at the suggestion of the Department. If specific instances of injury to animals due to the condition of any of the loading banks are brought under the notice of the Department inquiry will be instituted, and where the complaint is well founded representations will be made to the company concerned as regards the provision of a remedy. But no case for general compulsory action is deemed to arise. The principal companies have within recent years spent large sums of money in the improvement of their.

  13
  arrangements for the cattle traffic, and further improvements are being made gradually as circumstances admit.

  Ireland—Remuneration of Jurors for Loss of Time, etc.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in Ireland because jurors are compelled to attend on juries without any remuneration for loss of time or incidental or travelling expenses; and whether he will introduce legislation to assist in remedying the present state of things.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Representations to the effect stated in the first part of the Question have been received. The law is uniform in the three Kingdoms. The reply, therefore, to the second inquiry is in the negative.

  Passengers outwards.

  Passengers inwards.

  Balance outwards or inwards.

  British North America

  69,744

  18,397

  Outward

  51,347

  Australia and New Zealand

  13,762

  8,670

  Outward

  5,092

  Cape of Good Hope and Natal

  26,681

  27,651

  Inward

  970

  The destinations of the outward passengers given are the countries in which they contract to land, and not necessarily their ultimate destinations for purposes of settlement.

  Immigrants Refused Admission into Australia.
  MR. MARKS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the number of persons refused admission into the Commonwealth of Australia on the ground of being prohibited immigrants since the passing of the Immigration Restriction Act, 1901, the nations to which they belong and whence they came, and the grounds on which admission was refused.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have not at present the information which would enable me to fully answer

  Emigration of British, and Irish Subjects to the Colonies.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons of British and Irish origin have emigrated from the United Kingdom in the last thirty years to settle in Canada, Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, and South Africa.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The hon. and gallant Member will find figures with regard to the movements of passengers of British and Irish origin to and from British North America, Australia, and New Zealand, and Cape of Good Hope and Natal, from 1876 to 1903, on pp. 167–169 of the second series of Memoranda on British and Foreign Trade and Industrial Conditions [Cd. 2,337] of 1904. The corresponding figures for 1904 are:—
  the hon. Member's Question, but I will ask the Governor- General for the particulars desired.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Floating Mines in the Gulf of Pe-chi-li.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that floating mines in the Gulf of Pe-chi-li constitute a danger to shipping in Chinese waters, and cause much consternation amongst shipping firms at Tientsin; and will he communicate with the Commander-in-Chief of the British squadron on the China Station on the subject, or take such other action as he may deem necessary to secure the destruction of these mines.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood-bridge): The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. The Commander-in-Chief has already been communicated with and has reported several cases in which mines have been sighted by His Majesty's ships. As many as possible of these mines have been and will be destroyed.

  Anchorage for Disused Vessels.
  MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the names, tonnage, and description of the disused vessels sent, or to be sent, to the Clyde; and why is it that no suitable anchorage can be found for them except in the Kyles of Bute or the Holy Loch.
  MR. PRETYMAN: Thirteen ships either have been, or will be, sent to the Clyde, the names and tonnage of which I am sending separately to the hon. Member. I fear that I can add nothing to the replies already given with regard to the second part of the Question.
  MR. AINSWORTH: I shall take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to this matter.

  Portsmouth Church and Parsonage,
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the purchase of a church and parsonage at Portsmouth, originally provided under Vote 10 of the Navy Estimates of 1903–4, has now been charged to the Naval Works Loan Fund, what has been the amount paid, and to which sub-head of the schedule of the Naval Works Loan Act of 1903 has this been charged.
  *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE, Hampshire, Fareham): The purchase of the church and parsonage referred to, for which provision was originally made under Vote 10 of the Navy Estimates 1903–4, will be now provided for under the Naval Works Loan. It will be charged to the item "Portsmouth Naval Barracks," but the purchase has not yet been completed.
  MR. BUCHANAN: What was the amount?
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: About £5,000.

  Inspector-General of Forces—Report for 1904.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received the Report of the Inspector-General of the Forces for 1904; and whether he intends to lay that Report before Parliament.
  THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The Report in question has been received by the Army Council, but it is not intended to make it public.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House a summary of the Report?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir, a summary of the Report might be misleading, and will not be published, nor can a promise be given to publish the Report at a future time.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Then is this important Report never to be published in any shape or form?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The essence of a Report of this kind is that it should not be made public.

  South African War Irregularities.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state who were the contractors who supplied 1,350,816 tins of jam for South Africa, each tin containing 12 ounces of jam instead of 1lb. as per contract; who were the inspecting officials responsible for testing the delivery of the goods; whether the War Office has yet replied to the request of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of 26th April,1904, for further particulars on this and other cases of deficiency; and, if so, what is the date and nature of the reply.
  The following Questions germane to the subject also appeared on the Paper:—
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his

  17
  attention has been called to the statement at page xiii. of the Third Report (1904) of the Committee of Public Accounts, to the effect that, out of the total sum granted, £1,265,000, to the Imperial Yeomanry Committee during the South African War, it appears that for more than one-third, £460,000, no details or vouchers were produced; and whether, since the issue of the Report, 28th July, 1904, any of these vouchers have been forthcoming.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what answer, if any, has been sent to the query of the Comptroller-General, as set forth in the Army Appropriation Account, 1903–4, respecting certain large sales and repurchases of forage by one and the same contractor at the same station in South Africa, who bought oats from the Army at 11s. and sold oats to the Army at 17s. 10d. per 100 lbs
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what reply, if any, has been sent to the query of the Comptroller-General in his Report upon the Store Accounts of the Army, 1903–4, respecting 1,350,816 tins of surplus jam sold at Durban, South Africa, held on charge as containing 11b. of jam each and found short of weight by 4 ounces.
  MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Comptroller and Auditor-General that the Director of Supplies in South Africa from October, 1902, to December, 1903, disposed of stores which realised £474,000 to three firms, two of whom were forage contractors to the Army; what was the loss to the Government by these sales; who these contractors were; whether they are still on the list of Government contractors; why oats and oat-hay, which had been purchased during January, 1903, at 17s. 11½d. and 17s. 8½d. per 100 lbs., were sold to the same contractor who supplied this forage for 11s. and 10s. per 100 lbs. respectively between January and March, 1903; and whether the amount of £21,232 allowed
  18
  for deterioration was in respect of forage supplied by the self-same contractor; and why the contracts asked for in reference to these transactions have not been transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
  MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the requests made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General during 1904 for copies of certain contracts for supplies of stores, etc., for the South African War have not been complied with; and whether it is the intention of the War Office to supply copies of these contracts to the Auditor-General.
  MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Comptroller and Auditor-General that on the sale of surplus jam after the South African War 1,350,816 tins supposed to contain 1lb. of jam contained only 12 ounces each; what percentage of the quantity supplied is represented by the 1,350,816 tins; who were the contractors who supplied this jam; what steps, if any, have been taken to obtain repayment of the amount overcharged; whether these contractors are still on the list of Government contractors, if so, why have they not been removed from the list.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has addressed any reply to the letter of inquiry by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of Public Accounts, dated April 26th, 1904, as to the reported deficiency of 337,704 lbs. of jam supplied to the War Office for South Africa; and, if not, will he say why an answer has not been sent; and what is the name of the contractor concerned.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to refer the hon. Members who have put down Questions relating to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to the Answer which I gave yesterday† to the hon. Member for North Camberwell.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman did
  † See (4) Debates, exlii., 1370.

  19
  not give the names of the contractors yesterday. Why does he refuse to give the House this information to-day?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As far as I am concerned, I do not think if that is made a special Question I can possibly interfere with the discretion of the House in dealing with it, if I have notice of the Question.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: That is my Question on the Paper.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: That very Question is asked.
  DR. MACNAMARA: May I draw attention to the terms of my Question, which asks who are the contractors?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I rather regret these interruptions. I assure the House that there is no desire on the part of the War Office to hold back information. I shall be happy to give the information to the hon. Member.
  SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: Who are they? Read their names now.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask for the information now.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am afraid the only Answer I can give is that I have not at the moment got them with me. If the hon. Member desires to separate that part of the information desired from the rest of the Question I will gladly answer.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I will put it down again.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the part of my Question as to the name of the contractor, and also he has not answered why the War Office neglected to reply to the questions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of Public Accounts for many months, the Comptroller-General being the officer directly responsible to Parliament.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Delay in replying to the Auditor-General's in-
  20
  quiries has been caused by references having had to be made to South Africa in the matter, and pending inquiries which are being made with a view of ascertaining the best means of preventing such occurrences in future campaigns. The reply to the Auditor-General was delayed until this had boon decided.
  DR. MACNAMARA: My Question was: When was the reply made to the Auditor-General? Has it been made yet?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir, I think not.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: Nearly a year's delay! May I ask when a reply will be sent to the Auditor-General?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The whole of this matter has been under inquiry at the War Office. It is under investigation at this moment.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I understand that the War Office are now contemplating the proper measures to prevent a recurrence of these incidents. But we want to know whether proper measures are being taken to punish the guilty persons? I think that is a proper Question.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. That is a proper Question. It is a matter that has not been neglected by the War Office. The moment I became aware that there were any incidents of this character I ordered a strict inquiry to be made. That inquiry has been in progress for some time past—for four weeks. A larger question is that raised by the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. That, I understand, will be inquired into by the House. The House may rest perfectly assured we have not the slightest desire to shield any person, or any other desire than to make the most careful, full, and searching inquiry into all the circumstances of this case, which, apparently— although I do not wish to pronounce an opinion prematurely—have done no credit to the administration of this, campaign.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: We have not yet got the names of the contractors.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have asked permission to postpone that information till to-morrow. ["Why?"]
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Are we, then, to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that he only made an inquiry into this matter some four weeks ago? [Cries of "No" and "He said so."]
  MR. NORMAN: Will the Secretary of State for War also give the names of other contractors who are mentioned anonymously in the Auditor-General's Report?
  MR. ARNOLD -FORSTER: I must ask for notice.
  MAJOR SEELY: This is surely an unprecedented affair. [Cries of "Order."] A Question on the Paper has not been answered, and no reason has been given why it was not answered. [Cries of "No."] It is obvious from the Answer given that the right hon. Gentleman knows the names. He will not give the names. ["Order," and cheers.]

  Indian and Foreign Drafts.
  *SIR J. DICKSON POYNDER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of drafts, whose term of service will expire within the next two years, that have been sent to all stations, Indian and foreign respectively, within the past six months.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORKTER: It is impossible to state exactly the number of such men whose service expires in the next two years without reference to every unit concerned. The number who embarked during the trooping season just ended, with less than two years service to complete, was for India 4,610, and for the Colonies 965

  Pauper Soldiers' Pensions.
  *MR. McCRAE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private Willison, late 80th Regiment, was discharged in 1878 from the Army as
  22
  medically unfit in consequence of injuries received while on military duty, and is now an inmate in Craiglockhart Poor House, Edinburgh, and that under the Army and Naval Pensioners Act the whole of his pension is appropriated by the Poor Law authorities; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of permitting the Poor Law authorities to allow at least a penny per day out of their pensions to veterans so situated for their personal use.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: This matter rests entirely in the hands of the local authorities, who have a claim to the whole pension, as it is less than the cost of his maintenance. I am afraid, therefore, that I am not in a position to take the action suggested in the Question.

  Report on Egyptian State Railways.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the publication of the Report on Egyptian State Railways by Lord Farrer, Major le Breton, and Mr. Bury in an abbreviated form has caused dissatisfaction in Egypt, and will he consider the expediency of recommending the Government of Egypt to publish the complete Report, so that the people may have an opportunity of making themselves fully acquainted with the labours of the Commission?
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): No, Sir, no information of the kind has been communicated to us by the Egyptian Government.

  North Sea Incident—Cost of the Inquiry
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state approximately what were the British costs at the inquiry at Paris into the North Sea incident; by whom these costs will be paid; and whether any negotiations are now proceeding with Russia on matters arising out of the North Sea incident.
  EARL PERCY: It is impossible to give even an approximate estimate of

  23
  the British costs at present, as accounts from various quarters have not yet been received. The expenses of the presentation of the British case to the Commission will be borne by His Majesty's Government; and the expenses incurred by the Commission in organising its staff and in conducting the investigations will be shared equally by His Majesty's Government and the Russian Government in accordance with Article VIII. of the Declaration signed on November 25th, 1904. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: As re-regards the Answer to the last sentence in the Question, may I ask whether we are to understand that the Government regard the matter as being finally closed by the payment of the indemnity?
  EARL PERCY:Yes, as far as I am aware.

  Floating Mines in the Gulf of Pe-chi-li.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Affairs whether his attention has been called to the danger to British shipping in Chinese waters through floating mines, in the Gulf of Pe-chi-li; and can he see his way to co-operate with other Powers to secure their destruction.
  EARL PERCY: We are in communication with the Japanese Government on the subject.

  Lost Dogs in the Metropolis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of dogs removed by the police from the streets of the Metropolis during the year ending 31st December last, the number taken to the Dogs' Home, Batter-sea, the number restored to the owners by the police, and the number sold by the police; and is it the practice of the police to communicate with the owner when the name and address is given on the dog's collar.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): During the year ended on the 31st December
  24
  last 27,994 dogs were removed by the Metropolitan Police from the streets of the Metropolis. 23,261 of these were taken to the Dogs' Home at Battersea by the police; and the Home subsequently restored 1,092 of them to their owners. 4,181 dogs were restored to their owners by the police. None of the dogs seized were sold by the police. It is the practice of the police to communicate with the owner when his name and address is given on the dog's collar.

  Overtime Order No.6.
  MR. SHACKLETON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why, before drafting the Order No. 1,696, he did not ascertain directly from the operatives concerned what their views were; whether he is aware that the trade union concerned is opposed to the legislation of the overtime, and also that the Belfast Trades Council has passed a resolution against the Order; and that on an application being made by the non-textile members of the union concerned to the Secretary of State seven or eight years ago to abolish overtime for women altogether, one of the women factory inspectors was sent to Belfast to inquire, and that her report was in favour of further reduction.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Inquiries were made, and it was reported to me that the operatives immediately concerned would strongly object to the abolition of the practice, which was of many years standing. No complaint in regard to the practice has at any time been made to me, either by any of the operatives affected or by the Belfast Trades Council; and, as I stated in reply to the hon. Member's previous Question,† before the Order was formally made it was published in draft, as required by the Act, with a view to giving opportunity for objections to be made, but no objections were received. The inquiry to which I think the hon. Member must be alluding in the last paragraph of his Question was an inquiry into a different branch of the industry, and on quite a different matter, not overtime, but employment outside the factory or workshop.
  † See (4) Debates, exli., 470.

  Wages in the Post Office Factories.
  MR. SHACKLETON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that skilled mechanics have had to leave the employ of the postal factory through not receiving trade union rates, and will he take steps to ensure that where piece-work is insisted upon skilled men shall not receive less than the trade union rate of wages; and also, is he aware that at the present time skilled mechanics of many years service are not receiving the trade union rate of wages when working day-work.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I am not aware that skilled mechanics have left the Post Office factories because they have not received trade union rates of pay; and I am not prepared to take steps in the direction indicated by the hon. Member. The men employed in the factories work only forty-eight hours a week; they get holidays with full pay; and when sick they get "sick" pay. I believe that they regard the terms of employment as satisfactory, and there is no difficulty in getting good workmen to enter the service.

  The Post Office Factory at Holloway.
  MR. SHACKLETON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the cost of supervision, examination, and distribution in relation to the actual cost of production of instruments at Holloway Factory.
  LORD STANLEY: A large part of the work done in the factories is not production, but repair; and it would be difficult accurately to apportion the cost of supervision, while the cost of examination and distribution is common to both instruments made in the factories and those made outside.
  MR. SHACKLETON: Would it not be to the interest of the Department to know the facts I have asked for?
  LORD STANLEY: No, I do not think so.
  MR. SHACKLETON: Oh!

  Cape Mails.
  SIR CHARLES MCLAREN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the present arrangement whereby the outward Cape mail leaves Southampton about one o'clock on Saturday afternoon, while the incoming mail is delivered in London a few hours later on the same day is to be continued, whereby a week must elapse before answering letters can be despatched by the Post Office authorities; whether he has made inquiries to ascertain if the Union-Castle Company could accelerate speed so as to secure the arrival of the incoming mail on Thursday night or Friday morning were they required to do so; and whether he will make such arrangements as will improve the postal service in this respect.
  LORD STANLEY: The arrangement of the mail service to and from South Africa is not correctly described in the Question. The mails for South Africa do not leave London until 2.10 p.m. on Saturdays; and the Cape Mail Packets leave Southampton some three hours later. In the homeward direction, Packets are due at Southampton on Saturday morning; and on about three Saturdays out of four the mail from South Africa is delivered in the city of London early enough in the morning for replies to be sent by the outgoing Cape Packet on the same day. The service is performed by the Union-Castle Company under a contract with the Cape Government extending to the year 1910; and I am not aware that the Cape Government contemplates any change in it. Not being in a position to alter the service myself, I have not made inquiries on the point of speed referred to by the hon. Member; nor, so long as the stipulations of the contract are carried out, is there any ground on which I can press upon the Cape Government the arrangement of conditions more arduous for the contractors and, therefore, probably more expensive.

  West African Fishing and Curing Stations.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, as representing the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, whether his attention has been called to the success of

  27
  the French Mission for establishing fishing and curing stations on the West Coast of Africa, with the view of finding remunerative employment for French fishermen; and whether he, in conjunction with the Scotch Fishery Board, will consider the possibility of similar Missions for the benefit of British fishermen. May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his recent promotion?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. AILWYK FELLOWES, Huntingdonshire, Ramsey): I thank the hon. Gentleman. No information has reached me as to the French Mission to which the hon. Member refers, I will endeavour to obtain information respecting it, and communicate further with the hon. Member. I should doubt, however, whether the establishment of fishing and curing stations on the West Coast of Africa would be of much advantage to British fishermen.

  Registrar of Friendly Societies and Post Office Savings Bank Depositors.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Registrar of Friendly Societies is empowered to compel depositors in the Savings Bank to attend before him and answer for the means by which their deposits were procured; and further, seeing that this practice causes inconvenience and often expense to the depositors, will he take steps to have this alleged grievance removed, or, in the alternative, defray all personal and travelling expenses.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVEN-DISH, Derbyshire, W.): I understand that the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, when communicating with depositors in cases of dispute relating to Savings Bank deposits, informs them that they may give evidence by Statutory Declaration should they not desire to attend personally.

  United States Tariff—Concessions to France, Germany and Italy.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will state what were the valuable concessions in the tariffs of the
  28
  French, German, and Italian Governments which induced the President of the United States to admit certain French, German, and Italian articles of produce at a lower scale of duties than is levied upon the same articles when made in this country; if he will state what were the duties, if any, levied by this country upon the articles of American produce set out in the Reciprocity Treaties made by the United States with the French, German, and Italian Governments; and if he can hold out any prospect of this country obtaining the advantages of the most-favoured-nation clause from the United States Government under present conditions.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Black-friars): The concessions referred to are embodied in the commercial agreements between the countries referred to, which the hon. Member can consult at the Board of Trade. All the articles of American produce on which concessions are granted under these agreements are admitted free into the United Kingdom, except certain classes of dried fruits which are dutiable at the rate of 7s. per cwt. I am not in a position to answer the last part of the Question.

  "Labour Gazette."
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of trade if there is any objection to placing a file of the Labour Gazette in the Library of the House for the convenience of Members who wish to refer to it.
  MR. BONAR LAW: Copies of the Labour Gazette will be supplied in future to the Library and Reading Room.

  The German Tariff.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will grant a Return showing in parallel columns the rates of duty in the new German tariff, as originally drafted and as finally decided, upon the articles of special interest to British trade which were enumerated in the Report [Cd. 2044] of the Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence, so that it may be seen what concessions, if any, have

  29
  been made to the representations to the German Government recommended by that Committee.
  MR. BONAR LAW: A Return relating to the new German tariff, as amended by treaties, has been laid upon the Table and will, it is hoped, be in the hands of hon. Members in the course of a few days. This will afford the hon. Member the means of obtaining the information he desires.
  MR. CROOKS: And can we have in parallel columns the rates of wages and hours of labour of German workers?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Higher Education of Nurses.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the President will withhold his decision as to granting a licence to the Society for Promoting the Higher Education of Nurses until the Select Committee appointed by this House to inquire into the registration of nurses has reported.
  MR. BONAR LAW: The Board of Trade propose to hear both the applicants for, and the objectors to, the grant of a licence to the Society for Promoting the Higher Education of Nurses, and until after such hearing do not propose to come to any decision as to postponement or otherwise.

  Cost of Providing Books, etc- for Religious Instruction in Non-provided Schools.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, having regard to the promise given by the First Lord of the Treasury on October 17th, 1902, that as the education authority controlled only secular education it should not be called upon to pay for the books or other apparatus necessary for the religious instruction in non-provided schools, he will take steps to see that the terms of this promise are carried out in all cases brought to their notice.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM AXSON, Oxford University): No local authority has been called upon by the Board of Education to pay for books or other apparatus required for the purposes of denominational instruction given in voluntary schools, and the Board has offered no encouragement to managers to press for such payments.

  Secondary School Regulations.
  MR.YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board now propose to withdraw the particular regulations for education other than elementary which prescribe fees and restrict the proportion of free places; and, if so, whether this withdrawal is to be effected by Minute operating during the currency of the existing issue of the Board's book of regulations for such schools.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I think that the hon. Member is mistaken as to the character of the regulations. Regulation 23 of the Secondary School Regulations is of a very general character, and it prescribes no minimum fee. There is no regulation fixing a minimum number of free places. No modification of the regulations, therefore, appears to be necessary.

  Marylebone and Brompton County Courts.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the delay in the trial of cases at the Marylebone and Brompton County Courts; and, if so, will he say what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): The business at these two Courts is very heavy, and it is only by great care that the list is kept down. On account of ill-health of the Judge two deputies were appointed last month, and I am informed that there are now practically no arrears, as cases can be entered for trial within one month of the issue of the plaint—a period which cannot be considered unusually long.
  MR. WEIR: Then is it not intended to take any steps to deal with this?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Yes, two deputies have been appointed.
  MR. WEIR: Young inexperienced men.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I am told they are thoroughly competent.
  MR. WEIR: And I am told the reverse.

  Island of Lewis—Medical Inspection.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that no medical inspector from the Local Government Board has visited the Island of Lewis, will he state on how many occasions the medical officer of health for Ross and Cromarty has visited the island during the last five years; the time he spent in the island; and the names of the districts visited.
  *THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): The medical officer has visited the island four times since January 1st, 1900. On each occasion he stayed from twenty-four to forty-eight hours and saw all the local medical officers, but did not visit all the four parishes into which the island is divided.

  Crofter Holdings in Ross-shire.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether any land has been secured in Ross-shire for the creation of crofter holdings since the issue of the last Report of the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, will he state the locality, acreage, and the number of new holdings created or to be created.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

  Boat Cove, County Kerry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland can he state when work will be resumed at Boat Cove slips, county Kerry; and whether provision will be made for constructing a breakwater off the rocks outside it.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,N.): The Congested Districts Board have recently expended a sum of £361 on the extension of the boat-slip at Glen Boat Cove. It is not intended to incur any expenditure on the construction of a breakwater.

  Dredging at Kenmare.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, whether he is aware that, owing to the state of the channel at Kenmare, a vessel belonging to Messrs. Russell went aground on March 6th; and whether, seeing that a Government dredger is now at Fenit, arrangements can be made for utilising the dredger at Kenmare.
  MR. ATKINSON: On March 6th a, vessel grounded near the jetty at Kenmare. The engagements of the Government dredger are such as to make it improbable that she can be employed at Kenmare in the near future.

  Irish Cattle Industry—Unprotected Load ing Banks at Railway Stations.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the attention of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland has been directed by the Irish Cattle Traders and Stock Owners' Association to the unprotected loading banks for live stock at various stations in Ireland, thereby causing preventable suffering to the animals and loss to the owners, and whether the Department will take measures to compel the carrying companies to adopt a similar system of pens on cattle loading banks as at present in use on the Liverpool station of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.
  MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Member has an unstarred Question on to-day's Paper which deals with the matters referred to in this Question. It will be more convenient to give a printed reply to both Questions, and with the hon. Member's permission I will adopt this course. I have communicated to him a copy of the reply that will appear on the Votes Paper to-night.

  Outrages in County Galway—Costello's Case.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he is aware that, in October, 1904, four shots were fired into the house of Patrick Costello, at Ballymacward, county Galway; that, on the night of Sunday, February 26th, 1905, 650 yards of solidly-built walls surrounding Costello's grazing farm at Killivaun were thrown down by a party of men, thus rendering the farm useless for grazing purposes; that the cause of these outrages was that Costello had taken steps to have a judicial rent fixed in opposition to the wishes of the United Irish League in the district; and what steps the Government are taking to deal with outrages of this kind.
  MR. ATKINSON: Shots, apparently from a revolver, were fired into the house of Patrick Costello on the evening of the October 30th last. Costello stated that four shots were fired, but the police could only find traces of two. On the night of the February 26th, about 600 yards of a wall on the farm held by Costello were thrown down. The police are pursuing their investigations in the matter, and I am unable at present to make any statement in respect to the causes to which the outrages are attributed. The condition of this district is receiving the earnest attention of the Government.
  MR. REDDY: Did the hon. Member get his information from Lord Ashtown, the most notorious newsmonger in?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Am I to understand that none of the large party of men engaged in this outrage have been discovered?
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes.
  MR. ROCHE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a bailiff in the employment of the landlord was caught firing shots the other night?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Athenry Outrage.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he is aware that four shots were fired into the house of Thomas Curran, butcher, in the main street of Athenry, between seven and eight o'clock on the evening of the 6th inst., because he refused to obey the order of the local branch of the United Irish League to surrender some grazing farms held by him in the district; where was the police patrol at the time of the outrage; what steps did they take to bring the perpetrators to justice; and how many persons have been arrested in connection with the matter.
  MR. ATKINSON: Four revolver shots were fired at the house of Thomas curran on the evening of the 6th instant. The police extracted two of the shots from the wooden shutter of Curran's shop window and picked up a third bullet from the ground. Shortly before this occurrence he received a letter from the local branch of the United Irish League requesting him to surrender a grazing farm which he held. A police patrol was on duty at the time in another part of the town. No arrests have yet been made, but the police are using their best exertions to trace the offenders. I cannot at the present stage make any statement in reference to the motives attributed for the outrage.
  MR. DUFFY: Is it not the fact that an ex-sergeant of police was convicted some time ago of using fire arms in the dead of night?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I understand the hon. Member is now putting a Question a to some other offence?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: No, Sir, this is a Question which casts an aspersion on a whole district. It alleges a serious crime, and my hon. friend the Member for the district is asking whether recently an ex-sergeant of police was not convicted for this very offence.
  MR. ATKINSON: There is no foundation that he was convicted for this offence.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I meant similar offence.
  MR. ATKINSON: I have no information.
  *MR. STUART WORTLEY: Was it not on one occasion ruled by Mr. Speaker Peel that Question affecting private character could not be put without notice and under circumstances which afforded no immediate opportunity of answer
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: That is an aspersion on the decision of the Chair.
  A NATIONALIST MEMBER: And by a Deputy-Chairman too.
  The Question was not answered.]

  Moyvilla Outrage.
  *MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he is aware that on the night of February 23rd 1905, 500 yards of double walls were thrown down on a grass farm known as Moyvilla, in county Galway, belonging to Patrick Costello, because he refused to surrender it to be divided up amongst the surrounding tillage farms; whether the police have arrested any of the perpetrators of this outrage; and what steps the Government have taken, or intend to take, in the matter.
  MR. ATKINSON: It is the fact that on the night of February 23rd about 460 yards of a stone wall on the farm referred to were thrown down. Pending the further investigations that are now being made in the matter I am unable to ascribe a motive for this outrage. I am informed that shortly before this occurrence Patrick Costello received a letter purporting to come from the local branch of the United Irish League asking him to surrender the farm on May 1st next, and that Costello replied, declining to do so. No arrests have as yet been made. The police, however, are making every effort to detect the offenders, and the condition of the district is receiving the very careful attention of the authorities.
  *MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Arising out of these three Questions, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of
  36
  recommending the new Chief Secretary to put the Crimes Act in force in this district?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. LONSDALE: Will any effort be made by the authorities at Dublin Castle to suppress the United Irish League in this district?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that.

  Education of Chancery Wards.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state if the children of the late William John Loughrey, of Camnish, Limavady, county Derry, are still within the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery; whether, in view of the fact that the father and mother were married by a Catholic clergyman, that the father died in communion with the Catholic Church, and that the mother is a Catholic, he can state if the children are being educated as Catholics and in a Catholic institution, and whether the mother has access to her children.
  MR. ATKINSON: I am informed by the Registrar of the Court of Chancery that these children are still within the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor. I have no information as to the remaining statements in the Question, but I understand that the children are being educated, by the Lord Chancellor's order, in a Presbyterian institution. The matter is not one in which the Executive Government can interfere.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is that a matter over which the Lord Chancellor has control? Is it legal for children to be brought up in a different religion to that professed by the parents?
  *MR. SPEAKER: A mere question of law should not be asked.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I thought the right hon. Gentleman knew the law. I apologise for asking him.

  Newport Police Surgeon.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is

  37
  aware that Dr. Gill, of Westport, county Mayo, who until lately held the position of dispensary doctor and surgeon to the police at Newport, in the same county, was asked by the police authorities to resign the latter appointment on changing his residence to Westport; and can he state why he was compelled to give up the police appointment.
  MR. ATKINSON: Dr. Gill has been appointed dispensary medical officer at Westport, the duties of which will necessitate his daily attendance at the dispensary there. He could not, in the circumstances, properly discharge the duties of medical attendant to the police at Newport, Mulranny, and Glenhest, which are a considerable distance from Westport, and was consequently required to resign the latter position.
  DR. AMBROSE: Why was Dr. Gill asked to resign and a doctor in the same town not appointed to succeed him?
  MR. ATKINSON: They were different appointments.
  DR. AMBROSE: I am speaking of the police appointment.
  MR. ATKINSON: The new appointment at Westport necessitated daily attendance and he could not cover the police duty.
  DR. AMBROSE: Surely a police surgeon is bound to live within the district?
  MR. ATKINSON: I daresay.
  DR. AMBROSE: I will put another Question down.

  Irish National Education Rules.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to enforce Rule 127(b) as given in the revised edition of 1905; and whether, in view of the disapproval of the proposed rule expressed by managers and teachers and to the probable effect of such in replacing trained male teachers by women teachers, he will order its withdrawal.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Government are in communication with the Commissioners on the subject of this rule, and I would ask the hon. Member to postpone his Question until Monday next.

  Thompson-Orpen Estate—Threatened Evictions.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed unanimously by the Millstreet Rural District Council, protesting against the threatened evictions on the Thompson-Orpen Estate in that district, and requesting the Chief Secretary to refuse to lend the forces of the Crown in carrying out eviction proceedings; and what steps he intends to take in respect to the request of the local representative body.
  MR. ATKINSON: The resolution has been received. I have already informed the hon. Member that the Executive are bound in law to afford protection to the sheriff in the execution of the King's writs.
  MR. FLYNN: But is not this a case for administrative solution?
  MR. ATKINSON: We are bound by law to give the protection asked for.

  Lord de Freyne's Estate.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Congested Districts Board has purchased the estate of Lord de Freyne in the counties of Roscommon, Galway, and Sligo; and, if so, whether he can state the total purchase money and the number of years purchase for the different classes of tenants, also the particulars of the arrears, current rent, and untenanted land.
  MR. ATKINSON: I am not yet in a position to give the information desired. Negotiations are still proceeding.

  Irish Public Works Dredger.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the dredger, the cost of which was provided

  39
  out of the Development Fund Grant last year, has yet been constructed; and, if not, when it will be ready for use.
  MR. ATKINSON: The dredger has been constructed and is in use.
  MR. CLANCY: Where, and how long?
  MR. ATKINSON: I must ask for notice.

  Irish Railway System Reform.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the nature of the Canadian railway system on which it was suggested, in the letter of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland to Sir Antony MacDonnell, that reform in the Irish railway system might be modelled.
  MR. ATKINSON: I have no information in the matter.
  MR. HAYDEN: This information is important for the debate to take place to-night. It is within the power of the Executive Government to give it.
  MR. ATKINSON: The actual railway system is not stated in the correspondence.

  Valuation of Licensed Premises in Ireland.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that The Inland Revenue Act, 1880, Section 43, authorised, for the purpose of the assessment on licensed premises of Excise license duties, the addition of 20 per cent, as an addition to the valuation of such premises in Ireland alone as valued under The Irish Valuation Act, 1852; that such addition was authorised on the ground that such premises were not then valued under the Valuation Act on the same level as similar premises in England; that the recent decision of the Irish Court of Appeal in the case of Armstrong v. the Commissioners of Valuation will henceforth compel the valuation of licensed premises to be made on the same principles as in England, the Government will insist on the addition to the valuation for Excise purposes which is
  40
  authorised by the Act of 1880; and whether, if necessary, an amendment will be made in the law by which such addition may be made.
  MR. ATKINSON: This is not a matter for determination by the Irish Executive. But I am informed by the Board of Inland Revenue that in assessing license duty on public-houses, it is not the intention of the Board to add the 20 per cent., or any portion there of, authorised by the 43 Section(7) of the 43 and 44 Vict. cap. 20., to the Poor Law Valuation in the case of a new general valuation such as that made some time ago for Belfast, where the new valuation represents the true annual value of the licensed premises, and intimation to this effect has been given to the Commissioner of Valuation. It is not proposed to disturb the existing system in other cases. No change in the law is therefore necessary.

  County Down Deputy-Lieutenancy.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Marquess of Londonderry, as lord-lieutenant of the county of Down, has recommended the appointment, as deputy-lieutenant of the county, of Colonel Wallace, the Grand Master of the Orange Lodges of Belfast; and whether it is intended to accept the nomination.
  MR. ATKINSON: The appointment of persons to fill the office of deputy- lieutenant of counties is vested by the 30th Section of the Militia Act, 1882, in His Majesty's lieutenants of counties, subject to the approval of the Lord-Lieutenant. In the present, instance the Marquess of Londonderry appointed Colonel Wallace as deputy-lieutenant of the county Down, and the Lord-Lieutenant signified his approval of the appointment. I am not aware that Colonel Wallace is a Grand Master of the Orange Society, but in any case his connection with that society is not a statutory disqualification for the appointment.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is it not the fact that Lord Londonderry has refused to

  41
  appoint one Catholic magistrate for the whole of county Down?
  MR. FLAVIN: Is not this noble Lord the Minister for Education, and is he not supposed to hold the scales equally for all parties?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Post Office Liability for Undelivered Postal Orders.
  MR. EDWAKD MITCHELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that on the 14th September last postal orders amounting to £1 12s.6d.wers procured and posted in a letter addressed to a person in Belfast by a Miss Graham at Springfield Post Office, county Fermanagh, that the person to whom the orders were sent never received the letter, and that the orders were cashed in two different post offices in Belfast on the 17th September and the person's name to whom payable forged thereon; and if he will undertake to have the value of the orders refunded to Miss Graham.
  LORD STANLEY: I am aware of the case mentioned. The orders were enclosed in an unregistered letter, and the regulation printed on the face of the orders which requires the remitter to fill in the name of the payee was not complied with. In view of the want of precaution shown, I should not be justified in paying Miss Graham the value of the orders.
  MR. MITCHELL: Am I to understand nothing will be done to refund the money?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. Certain instructions are issued with regard to orders, and if they are not fulfilled I cannot see that any obligation rests on the Post Office.

  Ballyconnell Post Office Staff.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what is the constitution of the staff at Ballyconnell Post Office, county Cavan, and if a report has reached him of an insult to Catholic belief in this office on Christmas Day;
  42
  and, if so, will the matter be investigated and dealt with immediately.
  LORD STANLEY: No such report has reached me

  Postal Addresses in the Irish Language.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a number of postal officials in the London district have a thorough knowledge of Irish; and whether he will submit the original envelope, addressed by Mr. Thomas Murphy, to any one or more of such competent officials with a view to discovering the alleged error which caused a delay of four days in the delivery of the letter; or will he submit it to Dr. Norman Moore, a member of the Consultative Committee of the English Board of Education, who is a recognised authority on the Irish language.
  LORD STANLEY: I have no information as to the knowledge of Irish possessed by postal officials in the London district; and I trust the hon. Member will not think I am discourteous if I say that I am not prepared to waste the time of competent officials or of Dr. Norman Moore by asking them to examine Mr. Murphy's envelope.
  MR. BOLAND: But is it not the fact that the original defence of the noble Lord was that the address was incorrectly written in Irish? Will he not submit the matter to arbitration?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a letter, addressed in Irish, to the Secretary of the Dunleary Feis Committee, at 3, Lower George's Street, Kingstown, county Dublin, was delivered at 3, Upper George's Street and there opened by the occupier; that, although posted in Dublin on 6th March, it did not reach the person to whom it was addressed until 2 p.m. on 8th March; and whether, seeing that an elementary knowledge of Irish would enable an official to distinguish between the abbreviated forms ioch. (lower) and uach. (upper), he will

  43
  state what steps will be taken to prevent private letters, through the mistakes of postal officials, from being delivered into the hands of strangers.
  LORD STANLEY: I have no in formation as to the letter to which the hon. Member refers, and I am no prepared to undertake that letters addressed in Irish shall be delivered as certainly or as rapidly as letters addressed in English.

  Dredgers on the Irish Coast.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many dredgers are at present at the disposal of the Board of Public Works in Ireland; what steps are taken to ascertain the localities in which they are from time to time most urgently required, and in particular whether local opinions are consulted in the matter; and when may those persons interested in the harbours in the county of Dublin hope to have the services of a dredger.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The Board of Works have only one dredger at their disposal, which will be fully occupied this year on the West Coast. It is assumed that harbour authorities will make their wants and opinions known to the Board of Works.
  MR. CLANCY: Where is the one on the West Coast?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: At Tralee, I believe.
  MR. CLANCY: When may we expect dredgers in other parts of Ireland?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I cannot say.

  Railway Directors and Parliamentary Committees
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Wandsworth if he proposes to accept the nomination of the Committee of Selection to act as Chairman of the Committee upon Group 1, Railway Bills.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: While I am quite willing to answer, I should like to ask Mr. Speaker if such a
  44
  Question from one private Member to another is in order.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Question as addressed to a private Member comes extremely near the line of order, but, as the hon. Member is Chairman-elect or Chairman selected of a Committee appointed to sit on the morrow, I do not feel justified in refusing to allow the Question. As to answering it, that is a matter for the hon. Member's own consideration.
  *SIR HENRY KIMBER: My Answer to the hon. Member is this: neither in view of what took place yesterday, nor in any other view, can I find any reason why I should not perform the duties assigned to me, and in discharging those duties I believe I shall be acting in accordance with a well-established practice in the House. It is my intention so to act.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN:I will return to the subject on the Motion for Adjournment.

  Appointment of Director of the National Gallery.
  COLONEL STOPFORD-SACKVILLE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the term of office of Sir Edward Poynter, P.R.A., as Director of the National Gallery has been renewed since 8th May, 1904, or whether it then came to an end; whether it is in contemplation to make any changes in the conditions of the post; and whether any successor to Sir Edward Poynter, on his retirement, has been appointed.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to my hon. and gallant friend, I have to say that Sir Edward Poynter's term of office, after being twice renewed, expired on December 31st last. No other appointment has yet been made. The conditions of the appointment are under consideration.

  Mr. Chamberlain's Visit to South Africa.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes

  45
  to publish the Report or Memorandum by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham on his Mission to South Africa, undertaken when he occupied the position of Colonial Secretary.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware of any undertaking such as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers, nor do I think any such undertaking was made.
  MR. BLACK: Is it intended to suppress the Report?
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR'Sreply was inaudible in the gallery.

  Home-Service Army and the Volunteers.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Committee of Defence intend to proceed with the formation of a home-service Army together with the reduction of the Volunteers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it is within the functions of the Committee of Defence to deal with the subject to which the hon. Member refers, and I certainly can make no statement on the subject.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Are they not responsible for the general policy of the Army?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; the Secretary of State, for War is responsible.
  MAJOR SEELY: Is it intended to proceed with the formation of the home-service Army before the Estimates are discussed in this House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman will have a full opportunity of discussing the question; but I do not think it would be desirable to anticipate the discussion by Question and Answer across the floor of the House.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BRYCE: I have to put a Question relating to the Resolution which stands on the Paper in the name of the First Lord. I wish to ask
  46
  the right hon. Gentleman to explain the relation of Votes A and 1 of the Army Estimates to the rest of his proposals concerning the Supplementary Estimates, and what use is proposed to be made of the money he desires to have voted for the Army by eleven o'clock on March 30th.
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman will look carefully at the very instructive and interesting case which arose in 1894, when there was a difficulty in reference to the Supplies within the financial year, and Sir William Harcourt was, I think, Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will see the matter explained. I do not know whether it will be better for me to enter on that explanation now or later, when I have to move the Resolution, but the point really is this. Of course we should prefer to get Votes A and 1 of the Army Estimates in time to introduce the sums so voted into the Consolidated Fund Bill; that would be more convenient to the Government and save the introduction of two Consolidated Fund Bills. But that would further curtail the possibility of discussion of the Votes before the end of the legal year, and we have therefore abandoned that, though the more convenient, course. It is absolutely necessary to have the Vote in Committee and the Report before the end of the financial year, otherwise the Treasury will have no authority to pay any money to soldiers or for Army Estimate purposes. That really is the reason, which I think the right hon. Gentleman will consider valid. Of course, if it had not been for that we would much rather, and it would be more convenient to the Government if time were not against it, that the Votes should be allowed to run after the close of the financial year. We propose, however, to put down some Vote which will allow a discussion to be taken on Army policy. It would have been more convenient to allow the Votes to run on, but that is not possible.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the money granted by the new Consolidated Fund Bill for Naval and Civil Services will after April 1st be applicable to Army purposes?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Without Vote A and 1 we shall have no money to deal with for that purpose.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: But the money applied to A and 1 of the Army Votes will be that granted for Naval and Civil Services.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURassented.

NEW BILL.
  CHARITABLE LOAN SOCIETIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To further amend the Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) Act, 1843," presented by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; supported by Mr. Walter Long; to be read a second time upon Monday, 3rd April, and to be printed. [Bill 101]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY, ETC.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J BALFOUR,E.): Some of my critics last night said, and said truly, that no Motion of this kind has ever been brought before the House of Commons and I am not at all sure that on close examination this will be found in any way to condemn it. Leaders of the House from time to time for many years past have been obliged to propose exceptional measures for expediting the business of the House, but on every previous occasion that course was adopted in order that the Government of the day might deal satisfactorily with their legislative programme. When, for example, the Home Rule Government in 1893 closured the Home Rule Bill or the Evicted Tenants Bill, they did it, not in obedience to any demands of the law, but because they conceived it to be absolutely necessary in the interest of general Parliamentary business— thought rightly or wrongly; we thought wrongly—necessary to bring discussion to a close. In the same way when the Education Bill was under discussion a like measure was proposed, but it was because the session had gone on almost up to Christmas, and we believed it was in the interests of the dignity of the House, the health of Mem-
  48
  bers, and the progress of business that discussion should not be indefinitely prolonged, and every public interest required us to put an end to the stages of the Bill But in neither of those cases which are typical cases, drawn from the action of the Party opposite and of the Party to which I belong, nor in any previous case did the question of law come into account; it was a question of convenience, of propriety of debate, rightly or wrongly interpreted by those who were at the time responsible to the House for the conduct of business. But, as will be seen from the first words of it, the Resolution I propose to move is in order that the House may meet financial obligations thrown upon it by the law, and for the carrying out of financial arrangements which tradition, policy, and statute law commend to our respectful attention, and indeed to our obedience. The end of the financial year and the rigid close which that puts to a certain class of our debates on the Estimates has, of course, caused immense inconvenience to many of my predecessors. An Opposition can always prolong debate on Supply—there is no difficulty in doing that, no great ability or ingenuity is required—and by such a proceeding can drive any Government, in ordinary times, into a position of great difficulties, into difficulties which do not affect Government business only, which do not affect the credit of the Government, but difficulties that affect the credit of the House, and it is to protect the credit of the House as a House that I have proposed this Resolution.
  What will the Resolution, if passed, accomplish? It will provide that each Vote and each financial Resolution which is necessary in order to bring the financial work of the year 1904–5 to an end at the legal time shall be passed at the very latest moment at which it is possible for it to pass in order to obey the law. It will further provide that Votes A and 1 of the Army, which are necessary not in order to bring to a conclusion the financial business of 1904–5, but which are necessary in order to carry on the business of the country during the early period of 1905–6, shall be passed in time to enable the Paymaster of the Treasury to issue the necessary funds for carrying on Army purposes. I do not think anybody

  49
  who has examined this rule will for a moment deny that the claim I make for it is an adequate claim, and it will not be denied that I have deferred until the very last moment—
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Calling Parliament.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman did not follow me. I will come to the calling of Parliament directly. Taking the financial situation in which we find ourselves, I do not think any critic will deny that this Resolution puts off to the last possible moment the decision of this House upon every financial stage necessary to bring the financial work of the year to the legal and proper termination. I believe I might go further and say that in passing the last stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill as late as the 30th, I am passing it later than it has ever been passed before, and that I am inflicting considerable inconvenience on the Treasury. I would like to say that I hope no successor of mine standing in this place will take it as a precedent. I think it would be convenient that the Bill should pass at an earlier date than the 30th. I only mention the fact as showing that we have given hon. Gentlemen every opportunity for discussion consistent with the obligations imposed upon us by Parliamentary and Treasury traditions backed up by statute law. That seems to me to differentiate this case from all other cases; it differentiates it strongly in favour of this Resolution. In other cases, no doubt, the two sides of the House might be, and were, bitterly opposed as to the propriety of passing the measure whose passage into law was accelerated by the closure Resolution. We wished to go on discussing the Home Rule Bill, and hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to go on discussing the Education Bill, and there was a clean cut division in the House as to what was desirable from the point of view of Parliamentary legislation. I should have hoped and should almost have expected that all sides of the House would have agreed in this—that it is desirable and even necessary for the proper conduct of the financial business of this House that we should carry out what has invariably
  50
  been regarded by every Chancellor of the Exchequer and every Government in succession as an integral and constitutional portion of our financial system. But I am afraid I cannot count on that unanimity. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite will boldly get up and say they desire the law to be broken.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: We throw the responsibility on you.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; and the responsibility would have been upon me, if I had not proposed this Resolution. The hon. Gentleman's policy would be to force, as far as he was able, a breach of the law, and then get up and abuse me for it. [OPPOSITION cries of "Withdraw."] I think hon. Gentlemen will recognise that I have said nothing that is in the least offensive. If we were provisionally to agree that the law is to be maintained, and I shall be interested to hear whether that modest proposition is denied or is not denied, how is that end to be attained?
  *MR. McCRAE: Dissolve.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot help thinking that in that interruption there was perhaps a commentary upon the preceding interruption. I do not know whether to take the two as in any way logically or practically connected. A dissolution might have many advantages, but it would not conduce to keeping this particular law. Putting that aside, how is the law to be maintained? I can think of no other method than the one which was suggested by an hon. Member in a warm conversation which we had between a quarter past twelve and one o'clock last night. I am not sure whether it was not the hon. Member for Waterford who advised the Government to take all the time of the House
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I suggested that you should suspend, if necessary, the twelve o'clock rule on one or two occasions, in accordance with the practice of many years past.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I accept the correction of the hon. Gentleman. The suggestion was that the twelve o'clock rule should be suspended and that we should endeavour to get through the Parliamentary business by that method. I will not disguise to the House that I do not think that would have been, or could have been, successful. How far an all-night sitting may compel a reluctant minority to give way I do not know, or how many all-night sittings would have been required in order to carry through the mass of business which is detailed in the lengthy Resolution which I am going to propose to the House. If hon. Gentlemen will look through that I Resolution they will see the number of divisions which it involves and the opportunities for prolonged debate which it offers.
  MR. CHANNING: All on your own side. You put up a dozen men to waste time.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! These constant interruptions are not desirable.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My point was that the opportunities for prolonged debate were so great. I do not believe that the method suggested by the hon. Gentleman would have succeeded, I do not believe it would have been an effectual method, and I am sure it would not have been so much for the dignity of the House as the method I propose. I have seen as much of all-night sittings as the rest of the world. I have engaged in them in opposition, I have engaged in them as a member of the Government. I have seen them from both sides, and both sides are seamy sides. I do not deny that they are sometimes necessary. I think it is probable that most Gentlemen here will have to undergo the rather sordid toils which they impose upon a Member of Parliament before they quit Parliamentary and public life. But surely they should be avoided if possible. Nobody can pretend either that the discussions which take place during an all-night sitting are discussions which contribute to the elucidation of topics, or that the feeling engendered between the two sides is a good or useful feeling, or that the spectacle of bedraggled Mem-
  52
  bers of Parliament going home after sitting up all night at half-past eight, or half-past nine, or half-past ten in the morning is one which is calculated to raise the reputation of the House in the eyes of the country. And observe, if you are to carry out that system you would have to do more than arrange for a series of all-night sittings. You would have to take away private Members' time.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I did not suggest all-night sittings.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hon. Gentlemen who have read the Resolution are aware that it preserves the Parliamentary time which by Standing Orders is allocated to unofficial Members. Those who call to mind the prolonged debates which we had upon the modification of the rule will remember that the Government of that day pointed out that the preceding system, under which private Members had an immense amount of time at their disposal by Standing Orders, but were invariably deprived of their time by a Government in difficulties, was not a good plan either for the Government or for private Members. We suggested as the most advantageous alternative that the amount of time nominally at the disposal of unofficial Members should be curtailed, but that such time as was left should be, in so far as was possible, given to them under a secure tenure. Their nominal income was to be so much smaller, but the income they had was to be paid regularly. I still think that is a sound system; and during the years in which the new rules have been in force private Members have had, three times every week before Easter, and twice every week between Easter and Whitsuntide, their opportunities of bringing forward abstract Resolutions or Bills as the occasion and the day served. I should have been very sorry to have departed from that plan. I believe that by depriving unofficial Members of that time we should have started a precedent which would have found many followers, and the result would have been that all the benefit gained from the new rules so far as unofficial Members are concerned would have been wasted, and the authors of those rules would themselves have been

  53
  responsible for the destruction of their own work. I, for my part, could not contemplate that with serenity, and I have been most careful in the Resolution which I have laid before the House, at considerable inconvenience to the Government, to preserve absolutely intact the rights of unofficial Members of this House.
  I think that is an adequate defence of the proposal which I lay before the House. Of course, I do not deny that it carries with it, or that the state of Supply carries with it, because I do not think the Government are responsible, this great disadvantage, that the amount of time given to Votes A and 1 of the Army will be curtailed, as I think, beyond what is convenient in the interests of discussion in this House. I do not say that the time is unprecedentedly short. There are plenty of precedents for getting through them as speedily as they will be got through under the drastic compulsion of this Resolution. But I do not think it is desirable, and I am very sorry it has to be done. The evil, however, will, I think, be a slight one, for I at once acknowledge that an opportunity without delay should be given for a continuation of the discussion analogous to that which might have taken place on Votes A and 1 in which my right hon. friend might be cross-examined as to his policy, and in which he might have a full opportunity of laying that policy before the House in reasoned argument. I shall make it my business immediately after the close of the present financial year, and before we proceed to other business, to give an opportunity for dealing with the problems connected with the Army. I hope, therefore, the House will see that, much as I regret the curtailment of debate on Votes A and 1, it does not carry with it any curtailment of the discussion of Army questions.
  I was interrupted earlier in my statement by an hon. Member who indicated that all these evils had come upon us because the Government called Parliament together too late. Even supposing that we are open to that charge, which I do not think we are, I would venture to say that it does not alter the necessity of passing this Resolution, that it does not make it less needful for us to make provision for obeying the
  54
  financial law. And although I should be ready to apologise and to stand in a white sheet, if that were necessary, if I thought we were to blame in asking Parliament to meet too late, it would not, by one hair's breadth, alter the policy which I am now asking the House to adopt. That policy has nothing to do I with the past; it has solely to do with the future—with the future of this I financial year and with the maintenance of that unbroken tradition which has, up to the present time, always governed the action both of the House of Commons and of successive Governments. But is it true that we have given too little time, an unduly small space, to the discussion of the necessary Supply of the year? I do not think it is at all true. May I remind the House that, so far as Supplementary Estimates are concerned, it is really impossible for any Government accurately to foresee their amount and number at the time the decision is taken as to the date at which Parliament should meet? Supplementary Estimates may, and do, become necessary at any time up to a late period in the financial year. If I remember aright, the decision that Parliament should meet on February 14th was taken at the Cabinet which was held late in December, and at that time it was quite impossible to foresee the exact number or character of the Supplementary Votes. Again, I may say that the Supplementary Estimates this year are excessive neither in number nor in character. They do not involve great topics of discussion; they do not raise vast questions. They have been enormously surpassed by the Supplementary Estimates of preceding Governments—Governments to which I have belonged and to which I have been opposed. If these Supplementary Estimates are below the average, how stands the number of days we shall have given to the Supply of the current year before the current year comes to an end on March 31st? The thirteen days which we will have spent before the end of the financial year, though not the highest, is decidedly above the average. And though, no doubt, Parliament has often met earlier, the Government that called it earlier together has commonly tried to do other business than financial business between the summoning of Parliament and the end of the financial

  55
  year. We have made no such effort. The whole time of Parliament since we met has been devoted to giving opportunities to hon. Gentlemen opposite to criticise the Government and to discuss the Supplementary Estimates or Votes A and I of the Navy. Not one hour, nothing, I believe, beyond the ten minutes occupied by my right hon. friend the Lord-Advocate, has been devoted to Government business or Government legislation. I think, when all these facts are taken into account—the relatively unimportant character of the Supplementary Estimates, the relatively long period we have devoted to them, and the self-denying care with which we have abstained from entering into the domain of legislation at the cost of the time which the House might desire to spend on the Estimates—they will wholly absolve us from any charge of having either called Parliament too late or of in any other way hampered the due consideration of our financial business.
  I remember a year, and so will right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in which the difficulties of the then Government were very much greater than our own in regard to the Estimates. At the beginning of 1894 the session of 1893 was still in progress. I am not going to revive ancient debates as to who were responsible for so abnormal, so unsatisfactory a state of things. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I imagine, put it down to the obstruction of the Unionist Party.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: Their prolonged discussions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Their prolonged discussions. Yes, Sir, but considering that the measures were the Home Rule Bill, the Evicted Tenants Bill—
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid that the Evicted Tenants Bill was not then before the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, considering that the measures were the Home Rule Bill and the Parish Councils Bill, I do not think that was at all surprising. But I notice that whenever, by prolonged discussions, as the right hon. Gentleman euphemistically put it, the present Government has got into difficulties, it is
  56
  because they have mismanaged business; and whenever, by prolonged discussions, hon. Gentlemen opposite in past times have got into difficulties, it is because they have got to deal with an unscrupulous Opposition. I do not know why these different measures should be meted out to different Leaders of the House. But it is not to discuss or to weigh in the balance the relative responsibility of the Government or the Opposition eleven years ago that I have mentioned the point. What I want to remind the House of is what took place. The House met on March 12th for the first time. On March 15th the Supplementary Estimates were agreed to. On March 16th the men and pay of the Army were agreed to and the Supplementary Estimates were reported. On March 19th the debate on setting up the Committee was begun but not concluded, and the Army Report was taken. On the 20th the Speaker was got out of the Chair, and the men and money for the Navy were voted, all on one night; and on the 21st the Civil Services Vote on Account was agreed to. There was a short debate on the 22nd on the Report of the 21st, and the Consolidated Bill was read a first time and was carried through on the 29th.
  AN HON. MEMBER: It was done by the voluntary act of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was done by the voluntary act of the House. I was then the Leader of the Opposition, and I have been referred to a statement which I made on that occasion. I said "that the last thing the Opposition desired was to drive the Government into any illegality or to drive the Departments into extreme inconvenience," and the Government acknowledged the consideration shown by the Opposition in the transaction of business in difficult circumstances before the close of the financial year. The Opposition of that day thought that from the arena of Party conflict might, at all events, be excluded the debates necessary to carry out the law and the traditions of our financial business. I do not think a similar claim will be made by hon. Gentlemen opposite at the present time. If they say, and I am sure they will be ready to say, that this Government is peculiarly wicked and peculiarly

  57
  weak, and that it has not behind it the support of the country, hon. Gentlemen who carry their minds back to 1894 will hardly pretend that the Opposition of that day held any very different view of the Government.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: And they turned out to be correct. The cases are parallel.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with our estimate of the then Government. I say it really in no agressive spirit, and without any desire to provoke controversy, but I think it will be admitted that, if we compare the Opposition of that day with the Opposition of this day, in this particular the comparison is altogether in favour of the Opposition of 1894. But I admit, and for years experience of this House has forced me more and more to admit, that as time goes on it becomes less and less possible to rely upon the ancient conventions which used to regulate, in the absence of positive provisions, the debates and procedure of this House. Divisions are now taken on subjects which by immemorial tradition were always regarded as outside the necessity of taking a division. I have heard it said—I do not know whether it is true—that hon. Gentlemen opposite consider themselves justified in using in the circumstances of this year special means for embarrassing and hampering the ordinary conduct of public business. Exactly; and what does that mean? It means that things which by convention used to be left outside the domain of Party politics are now brought into Party politics. It means that neutral territory is being invaded now by the forces of both sides, that belligerency is being carried over far wider areas than it used to be in former times; and if that is being done by the Opposition it is inevitable, and will be found inevitable by every Government, that it should be met by corresponding provisions on the part of the Government. I am not saying this, and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen will recognise that I am not saying this, in any controversial spirit. I am merely indicating a tendency which I honestly say I regret, but which I admit to be inevitable, and over
  58
  which, being inevitable, I am wise enough not to waste tears and groans. The old easy-going plan by which our forefathers conducted the business of the country without difficulty and without friction is becoming more and more impossible; but it is clear that as that disappears it will involve increased stringency in the character of our Standing Orders, and that such a Motion as that of my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Essex, a Motion limiting the duration of speeches, should be seriously considered as a practical necessity to which we shall have to submit shows how widely we have departed from the old ways, and how new are the conditions under which we have to carry on our work. Those perhaps are general reflections which are a little outside the narrow scope of the Resolution; but as regards the Resolution itself I would defend it not upon these broader considerations or upon any wide issue; I am content to rest it upon these considerations, that the law should be obeyed, and that there are only two conceivable ways of getting it obeyed, one by sacrificing all the rights of private Members and having these prolonged sittings night after night, the other by the plan which I have proposed, which involves no long sittings, which sacrifices no rights of private Members, and which brings business to a conclusion at the appointed time. That one of those plans must be adopted if we are to retain our ancient practices nobody can doubt, and that of those two alternatives we have chosen the right one is a question which I submit with the utmost confidence to the judgment of the House and the country. I beg to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in order to comply with the Law the proceedings necessary to dispose of any Supplementary Estimates and Vote A and Vote 1 of the Estimates for the Navy, and of the Ways and Means Resolutions consequential thereon, shall, if not previously disposed of, be brought to a conclusion in the manner hereinafter mentioned.
  "At half-past Five of the clock on the 21st day of March next, the Chairman shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Vote then

  59
  under consideration, and shall then forthwith put the Question that the total amount of the outstanding Votes for the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates be granted for the services defined in those Estimates, and shall also forthwith put every other Question necessary to dispose of those Votes.
  "As soon as the Resolutions so disposed of are reported to the House, the House shall forthwith resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means, and the Chairman shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of any Resolutions proposed in that Committee.
  "At Ten of the clock on the 23rd day of March next, the Speaker shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Report of the Resolution then under consideration, and shall then forthwith put the Question that the House doth agree with the Committee in all Resolutions reported in respect of the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, and shall then put a like Question on the Resolution reported with respect to the Supplementary Estimates for the Army, and on the Resolutions reported with respect to Vote A and Vote 1 of the Estimates for the Navy.
  "On the consideration of the Report from the Committee of Ways and Means, the Speaker shall forthwith put the Question that the House do agree with the Committee in the Resolutions reported.
  "And that at half-past Eleven of the clock on the 27th day of March next, the Speaker shall forthwith put any Question necessary to dispose of the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill; and at Seven of the clock on the 30th day of March next the Speaker shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Third Reading of that Bill.
  "And that the proceedings on going into Supply on the Army Estimates, and in Committee, and on Report, of Vote A and Vote 1 of those Estimates shall, if not previously disposed of, be brought to a conclusion in the following manner:
  "At half-past Six of the clock on the 28th day of March next, the Speaker shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Motion
  60
  that the Speaker leave the Chair on going into Supply on the Army Estimates.
  "At half-past Six of the clock on the 29th day of March next, the Chairman shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of Vote A and Vote 1 of the Army Estimates in Committee.
  "At Eleven of the clock on the 30th day of March next, the Speaker shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Report of the Resolutions with respect to Vote A and Vote 1 of the Army Estimates.
  "Until the Business to which this Order relates is concluded the consideration of the Business of Supply at any sitting at which Government Business has precedence shall not be anticipated by a Motion for Adjournment, and no dilatory Motion shall be received on proceedings on that Business, and the Business shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order.
  "Until the Business to which this Order relates is concluded no Business other than Business of Supply shall be taken at any sitting at which Government Business has precedence."—(Mr. A J. Balfour.)
  MR. ASQUITH: Mr. Speaker, the House is accustomed under the Leadership of the right hon. Gentleman to an encroachment upon its powers, its authority, and its freedom, to which there has been no parallel in its past history. Master of paradox as the right hon. Gentleman is, nothing amused or amazed me more in the speech which he has just delivered than his statement that he brought forward this Motion to protect the credit of the House. I do not know that this Motion will take first place, but I think that it certainly ought to rank very high, even among the achievements of the right hon. Gentleman, in the art which he has made peculiarly his own. I cannot help thinking also that he might now, at any rate, begin to dispense with these conventional expressions of reluctance and regret with which he still seems to think it seemly to preface each successive inroad upon our liberties. Let the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge, and frankly

  61
  acknowledge, that he has now in the course of a number of years supplied precedents for the suppression of debate for every conceivable emergency to which the business of this House can be brought either by the mismanagement of the Government or the slackness of the majority. The step now proposed, as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, is entirely without precedent. No Government until this year 1905 has found any difficulty in so conducting proceedings in Supply that the Royal Assent has been obtained for the Consolidated Fund Bill before March 31st; and this proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, this absolute innovation on the unbroken course of our procedure in the past, is presented to us to-day under conditions—I am going to use strong language—under conditions as unseemly and as discourteous to the House of Commons as to constitute an equally bad precedent, with the Motion itself. Here we have in this proposal which you, Sir, have read from the Chair a long and complicated Motion which, I find, has no less than twelve distinct paragraphs, which bristle from the first line to the last with contentious matter both in principle and in detail, and it appears for the first time on the Notice Paper to-day, on the morning of the assembling of the House. Even if the right hon. Gentleman's case in other respects were as strong as I am going to show it is weak, it would be no conceivable justification for this indecent hurry; and it is to indicate the sense of the House on that point—to endeavour, at any rate, to elicit it—that I propose to conclude the observations which I am going to make by moving the adjournment of the debate.
  Sir, every fact which the right hon. Gentleman has stated in his speech to-day was within his knowledge and that of his friends and colleagues to whom he could go. He knew, for instance, that Parliament assembled this year on February 14th, twelve days later than last year. He knew also, at any rate, it was a matter of common knowledge—and it can hardly have escaped the right hon. Gentleman—that March 31st is not a movable feast, but a fixed date in the calendar. Why, then, with all the facts, as I have said, capable
  62
  of ascertainment quite as easily three or four days or a week ago, did not the right hon. Gentleman show to the House of Commons that consideration which I think it has a right to expect from those entrusted with the conduct of business, and give us, at any rate, two or three days time in which to consider the nature of a proposal which will so largely curtail our freedom of debate?
  Now I should like to put a Question suggested by the right hon. Gentleman's speech. What is the cause of the situation in which we find ourselves, and what is the proper remedy? The cause is not far to seek. The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to coerce us into accepting this proposal by alleging that if we do not do so we shall be violating the law of the land. But whose fault is it that we have been brought within a measurable distance of the violation of that law? Parliament did not meet until February 14th. The discussion of the Supplementary Estimates did not begin in Committee until March 2nd, a date by which last year I think five days had already been devoted to their discussion, and the Speaker had been got out of the Chair on the Navy Estimates, and, if my memory is accurate, both Vote A and Vote 1 of those Estimates had been passed. The right hon. Gentleman did not endeavour to make out a case on the ground of obstruction. If he had, it would have been easy to show that, except during those hours of the day when the attendance of the Party opposite was insufficient, there had been nothing in the nature of undue prolongation of debate, or of tedious repetition. [Cries of "Oh."] Well, when did it happen?
  *COLONEL LEGGE: Over and over again.
  AN HON. MEMBER: He is one of them.
  MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Member is evidently referring to some performance of his own. I am speaking of the conduct of Gentlemen on this side of the House. Take the Army Supplementary Estimates. They included a very large Vote for Somaliland which was deliberately excluded from the regular Estimates, and no one who listened to the

  63
  debate on that most important item, and who remembers that the debate on the other items—many of them important—was closured, can say that the Government have any reason to complain of the facilities they have had. As to the Navy Estimates, not only has the Speaker been got out of the Chair, but the Government have obtained both Vote A and Vote 1. So far there has been nothing abnormal except the lateness of the date on which the Estimates were presented to the House, which was itself a consequence of the lateness of the date on which the Government deliberately chose to open the session of Parliament. If anyone is responsible for a possible breach of the law, it is not the House of Commons but the Executive. But by far the most flagrant case—that which is responsible for the difficulties in which the Government find themselves—is the case of the Army Estimates. Those Estimates were not circulated to Members until yesterday morning. Now that we have them in our hands we see that they not only involve a considerable addition to the expenditure on the Army, but that in point of form they are entirely novel and unprecedented. Why were they so long in seeing the light? Who is their real parent? What is the military policy, or want of policy, that they embody or are intended to embody? Those are questions which, up to this moment, have been wrapt in impenetrable obscurity and to which this House is not only entitled but bound to demand an answer under conditions which will make discussion operative and ensure the fullest explanation.
  What does the right hon. Gentleman propose under this Motion? I hope the House has paid due attention to the concluding paragraph. After three hours and a-half's discussion on Tuesday, the 28th, the Motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair is to be put. After another three hours and a-half's discussion on the 29th, every Question necessary to dispose both of Vote A and Vote 1 in Committee is to be summarily got rid of; and after another two hours discussion on the evening sitting of the 30th the Report of the Resolutions on these two Votes is to come to an end. I say that that ap-
  64
  proaches the dimensions of a Parliamentary scandal. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that out of his benevolence, when the Votes have passed out of our control, he will give us some other opportunity for discussing Army policy. But these are the Votes for the men and the pay of the Army.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is more time than was given to them in 1894.
  MR. ASQUITH: In 1894 we had not a heaven-born War Minister proposing a revolution in the Army. We had not Estimates of £30,000,000. We had not Estimates in an entirely new and unprecedented form; and we had not the best reason to suspect that the persons nominally responsible for the Estimates had not got their heart in them at all. The conditions in 1894 were as dissimilar from those of to-day as those of any two years which could be selected since the beginning of the Christian era. Whether you have regard to the conduct of the Government in the late presentation of these Estimates, due to remissness, or indecision, or dissension, and in course of time we shall find out which; or whether you have regard to the magnitude and novelty of the issues of military policy which are involved; or whether you have regard to the vital necessity of this House being in a position at the earliest possible moment to pronounce after full discussion its determination on those issues—I say that this proposal to give three hours and a-half on two days, and two hours on a third, to their discussion is as great an outrage as has ever been offered by a nominally responsible Minister to a nominally deliberative Assembly. The Government have difficulties, but they are difficulties of their own creation. They are not of the creation of this House, upon whom, with a zeal for vicarious punishment of which this is not the only example, the Government propose to inflict the penalty. The right hon. Gentleman threatens us with the terrors of the law, and asks whether we are to be parties to the breaking of it. There is no reason whatever why the law should be broken if this Resolution were not carried. There is not the least reason to suppose that the

  65
  many expedients which our reformed procedure gives would not be perfectly ample to secure compliance with the law. The right hon. Gentleman might suspend the twelve o'clock rule, and move the closure on successive items; and, if the zeal of his supporters would have allowed, the right hon. Gentleman might have held Saturday sittings. The Government have in their hands powers which hitherto have been found sufficient to meet the necessities of the case. Why should we give them more? Everyone knows the real reason. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of many things; but he never approached that which every man on both sides knows to be the occasion and the necessity. The real reason for the Motion is that Government cannot persuade their majority to attend. At certain well-known hours of the afternoon and the evening the Government can only be kept in office by the friendly and opportune loquacity of the talkers-against-time. That throws a very heavy burden on those well-meaning gentlemen; and, however skillfully the operation may have been conducted, there have been moments when the situation has been of very great anxiety to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who so admirably discharges the exceptionally arduous duties of Whip to the Government Party.
  The question arises, How ought we to deal with this matter? I say the Motion is unfounded in fact, and absolutely unnecessary in point of law. I confess when I first heard what it was to be, and took consultation with my friends, I was rather inclined to think that the best plan would be to move the previous Question. And I will tell the House why. I thought it would have been a good opportunity to redeem that time-honoured Parliamentary weapon from reproach by putting it to worthier purposes than those for which it has recently been used. For if we had moved the previous Question to-day, it would have been employed, not to burke and to boycott, but to assert and preserve the practice of free debate. But, on the
  whole, having regard to the circumstances under which this Motion has been presented to the House, it seems to me that the wisest and most dignified course is at once to move the adjournment of the debate. We have not had the opportunity which we are entitled to demand of considering this Motion soberly, wisely, and at leisure. But before I move, I will again emphasise the point with which I began by saying that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, strange and unprecedented as it is, is not a mere isolated affair. It is a step in a series. It is another stage on the journey which has marked, and is marking, the degradation of the House of Commons—I speak in all seriousness—from a deliberative to a dependent body, and which, if it is allowed to go on, will transform the House into a mere automatic machine for registering the will of the Executive of the day. This is not a Party question. Majorities and Ministries come and go. Before very long we may be sitting on that side of the House and the Party opposite on this. But there is one thing which hitherto, at any rate, has always remained behind and above all as a constant and continuous factor in our constitutional life—and that is the authority of the House of Commons. That authority, many outside observers tell us, in these days is dwindling. Sir, the House may be certain that it cannot survive, and that it does not deserve to survive, habitual acquiescence in humiliation such as this. We are here as representatives and spokesman of our constituents. We are here also, most of us, zealous and faithful Party men. But we all share, in whatever quarter of the House we sit, in the responsibility of a higher and a larger duty—the duty of preserving and perpetuating the unbroken identity of a free Parliament. I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Asquith.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 206; Noes, 266. (Division List No. 51.)

  AYES

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Aisworth, John Stirling

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Benn, John Williams

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rea, Russell

  Black, Alexander William

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Blake, Edward

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Reddy, M.

  Boland, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brand, Hn. Arthur G.

  Johnson, John

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

  Brigg, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Jones, Wm.(Carnarvonshire)

  Roche, John

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Joyce, Michael

  Rose, Charles Day

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Runciman, Walter

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

  Russell, T. W.

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Cameron, Robert

  Kitson, Sir James

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lambert, George

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

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lamont, Norman

  Shackleton, David James

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Langley, Batty

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W

  Sheehy, David

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Slack, John Bamford

  Crean, Eugene

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Levy, Maurice

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Crombie, John William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Crooks, William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R.(Northants

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lundon, W.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Delany, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Crae, George

  Tomkinson, James

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Kean, John

  Toulmin, George

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

  Ure, Alexander

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.)

  Waldron, Laurence, Ambrose

  Edwards, Frank

  Mooney, John J.

  Wallace, Robert

  Elibank, Master of

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Ellice, CaptEC(S Andrw'sB'ghs)

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Murphy, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone

  Norman, Henry

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N.E.

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Wills, Arthur W. (N. Dorset)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N

  Wood, James

  Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B.

  O'Malley, William

  Woodhouse, Sir J T.(Huddersf'd

  Harwood, George

  O'Mara, James

  Young, Samuel

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Parrott, William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Partington, Oswald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Perks, Robert William

  Causton.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  68

  69

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

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

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Lockwood, Lieut,- Col. A. R.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Fison, Frederick William

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Fitzroy, Hn Edward Algernon

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Forster, Henry William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Balcarres, Lord

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, SW

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds

  Garfit, William

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gordon, Hn. J. E(Elgin & Nairn

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Bathurst, Hn. A. Benjamin

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Beckitt, Ernest William

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriessh're

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bigwood, James

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredk. G.

  Bill, Charles

  Gretton, John

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Bingham, Lord

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hain, Edward

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bond, Edward

  Hall, Edwasd Marshall

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Bowles, Lt.-Col HF(Middlese X)

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG (Midd'x

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Campbell. Rt Hn. J A. (Glasgow)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Myers, William Henry

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Heath, Sir James(Stafford S.NW

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Peel, Hn. Win. Robert Wellesley

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A.(Worc.

  Helder, Augustus

  Percy, Earl

  Chapman, Edward

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H(Somers't, E.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Horner, Frederick William

  Purvis, Robert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pym, C. Guy

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Randles, John S.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Denny, Colonel

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

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlets

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dimsdale, RtHn Sir Joseph C.

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

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

  Seely, Chales Hilton (Lincoln)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  70

  71

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Smith H.C.(North'mb. Tyneside

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Williams, Colonel R. Dorset)

  Spear, John Ward

  Tuff, Charles

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Stock, James Henry

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E H (Sheffield

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

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  Stroyan, John

  Walrond Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Wylie, Alexander

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

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

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDmoved an Amendment, declaring that the proposal submitted by the Prime Minister was a violation of the constitutional rights of the House. He said the speech of the Prime Minister emphasised, if possible, the grave importance of the step which the House was asked to take. The right hon. Gentleman used certain phrases in moving the Motion which showed that, whoever else was under misapprehension as to the grave step he was asking the House to take, he himself entertained no such misapprehension, because he spoke of "drastic compulsion." He admitted, what of course he was obliged to admit, that no Motion such as this was ever before proposed in the whole history of the British Parliament. Having admitted the gravity of the step, the right hon. Gentleman was under the obligation, of course, of proving to the House a case of absolute necessity to justify the proposal. Unless he was in a position to show that the Government had no alternative, and that it was in such a position that it must propose this course, then he could put forward no really adequate justification for this "drastic compulsion" and absolutely unprecedented Motion. What was the necessity which compelled the Government to propose this Motion? Was there any necessity? He had been looking at the facts and figures connected with this matter for the last seventeen years. The House of Commons, it was true, in most of these years met a little earlier than it met this year, but in the whole of the seventeen cases the Government had no difficulty whatever in obtaining necessary Supply before March 31st, and no difficulty in allowing an adequate, or a fairly adequate,
  72
  number of days for the discussion of Supply. Taking these seventeen years he found that the average number of days allowed had been about twelve or thirteen. This year already there had been some six days devoted to Supply, and, in the ordinary course, before March 31st there would be five, six, or more days still, so that the average number of days discussion before March 31st could be afforded this year, notwithstanding the fact that the House met late.
  It was true, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech, that in recent years the Government had been obliged before the end of the financial year to ask for certain special powers. He would ask the House, to consider the circumstances of some of those years, and the kind of powers the Government asked. During some of the years to which he was alluding what was called obstruction was rampant in the House. No Government within the last few years had ever had to face anything like the obstruction and the vigorous opposition which Governments had to face in the years he was alluding to. What were the expedients which were found sufficient by those Governments to overcome the circumstances with which they were faced? The ordinary expedient was the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule. The Prime Minister, in his allusion to him (Mr. Redmond), had quite unintentionally misrepresented what he suggested last night. He never suggested a succession of all-night sittings. During the past seventeen years the twelve o'clock rule had been suspended in about twelve of them on two or three nights. How many all-night sittings had there been? Very few. When the right hon. Gentleman felt himself in difficulty he had come to the House and asked for special powers.

  73
  He had asked the House to suspend the twelve o'clock rule on two occasions, and what was the result? All-night sittings? Nothing of the kind. On those two occasions the House never sat later than one o'clock. The power of suspending the twelve o'clock rule, coupled, of course, with capable management of the business of the House with a spirit of consideration and conciliation and of give and take on the part of the Leader of the House, had in the past enabled Governments, which had to face greater difficulties than the present Government, to get through their Supply in time.
  What had suddenly happened to change the circumstances? What had suddenly happened to compel the right hon. Gentleman to discard the expedients of past years and to come down and make this startling proposition to the House? Allusion was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife to the fact that the House met late this year. He did not base his argument on that at all. The House met late, but he thought it was more or less irrelevant to enter into a discussion whether the right hon. Gentleman was right or wrong in summoning Parliament a week later this year than last. The fact that it met late this year was not a justification for the position in which the Government found itself, and no justification for this Motion. He found, in looking through these years, that there had been several occasions on which the House met even later than this year, and that, notwithstanding the extraordinary difficulties with which they were faced, the Government of the day was able to complete Supply satisfactorily by March 31st. In 1889, the House did not meet until February 21st and fourteen days were devoted to Supply—far over the average—and yet Supply was completed by March 31st by the simple expedient of suspending the twelve o'clock rule one or two evenings. In 1901, the House met on February 14th, and sixteen days were occupied by Supply before March 31st. The Government got the business through then without any extraordinary Resolution of this kind. In 1903, the House did not meet until February 17th and twelve days were allotted to Supply, which was completed by March 31st. What was the reason why the expedients which were sufficient
  74
  during the last twenty years, and even when the House met later than it did this year, were not sufficient now? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife had stated what was the only reason for this change. Was it not treating constitutional questions and the position of Parliament in a somewhat trivial and unworthy manner for the, Prime Minister to come down and propose an absolutely new precedent which might be quoted through all time in future against the liberty of debate in this House, simply because his Whips told him that he could not get his followers to attend in their places? The right hon. Gentleman felt that if he suspended the twelve o'clock rule and discussion went on till one or two in the morning, his followers might not attend. The right hon. Gentleman thought it was safer in his desperate effort to prolong the life of this Government to run no risk of that sort, but to propose a radical change in the rules of the House. The Prime Minister, who was Leader of the House, and was supposed, above all men in it, to be the guardian of its rights and liberties, and in a special way of the rights of the minority in this House, came forward, regardless of the danger of proposing a new precedent, and proposed that the immemorial constitutional practice of the House should be violated.
  The rule which the right hon. Gentleman proposed was far more extraordinary and unconstitutional than the original guillotine rule passed a few years ago. The original guillotine rule was proposed under entirely different circumstances. Formal notice of it was given on February 21st, and it was not discussed until April 11th. The House of Commons had two months notice of the rule before it was called upon to discuss it. Four days were given to the discussion of the rule, and yet it was less drastic than the one the right hon. Gentleman now proposed. In the first place the guillotine rule provided that it could not come into operation at all until twenty-three days had been devoted to the discussion of the Estimates. There was no proposal in the new rule at all with regard to the number of days. As he understood the rule, the right hon. Gentleman, if he carried it to-day,

  75
  might cease to put down Supply for discussion except upon the occasions when the guillotine was to fall.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think not.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he did not think he was wrong. That was one strong argument why they ought to have had notice of this Resolution. The Resolution, unless amended, provided for no discussion of the Estimates at all. It provided that on March 27th the guillotine was to fall. There was nothing to say that the Supply on which the guillotine was to fall need be set down for discussion before March 27th. In that way it did not provide for any discussion of those Estimates except upon the occasion on which the guillotine was to fall. Therefore, it was more drastic than the original rule which provided for twenty-three days discussion of the Estimates before it came into operation. But it was far more drastic, inasmuch as it provided for the guillotine falling on the Second and Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. Now, the Consolidated Fund Bill had always been regarded as one of those occasions on which hon. Members were entitled to exercise their constitutional right of discussing various grievances. Private Members had had their rights of discussion curtailed, and the one opportunity remaining for discussing the various matters in which they were concerned was on the Second and Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. That was to be guillotined at a certain hour on March 23rd. No discussion was to be allowed except for two or three hours. He had been watching for twenty-five years the distinct decline in the efficiency of the House of Commons, and its steady decline in the estimation of the public outside. Year by year he had seen the rights of private Members trenched upon and filched away; and now, under this rule, it might be taken as true that their rights had ceased altogether. "Expedient" was an ominous term. The closure and the guillotine had been borrowed from Continental Parliamentary practice to destroy freedom of speech here, where freedom of speech used to be a cherished boast. The right of ventilating griev-
  76
  ances had always been held to precede the right of voting supplies. That was a fundamental right which had been won by the fortitude and heroism of their forefathers; and now, casually, at six or eight hours notice a Prime Minister of England came down, and, for no other reason than that his own Party would not attend so as to enable him to continue in office, proposed this Resolution which filched away the fundamental rights of private Members. This was done by a Minister who knew perfectly well that he had lost the confidence of the country; and by a condemned House of Commons which was waiting for the hour of its extinction to chime.
  He did not attribute the whole of the situation in which the House found itself to the right hon. Gentleman or to his Government. If the Government changed to-morrow and a new set of Ministers took their place, he knew perfectly well that they would feel the pressure of the new conditions which had arisen. The plain truth was, and he had said it over and over again on recent occasions and in past years, that the House of Commons was physically unable to perform one-tenth of the important duties which the changed conditions of the Empire had thrown upon it. They had heard much recently of devolution, of Home Rule all round, and of Home Rule for Ireland as he and his colleagues understood it and as the demanded it. He knew that he could not discuss that question now; but, after all, in his opinion, this was in its essence a Home Rule debate, if, such a proposal as this was—he would not say necessary—but was even discussable in the House of Commons, it meant that there was no alternative between, on the one side, lightening the load of this House, or, on the other side, destroying, past recovery, this Parliament, and lowering it to the level of an Assembly whose only duty was to record the pre-arranged decrees of a clique of Gentlemen who, for the moment, were in possession of office, but who knew themselves that they did not possess the confidence of the electorate. That was a position of contempt and degradation for the House of Commons to be in. That was the position which the House of Commons would have to face in the future—and increasingly in the future, whatever Government held

  77
  the reins of power—unless the other alternative was adopted, which he knew would eventually be adopted, of lightening the load of this Assembly and confining its operations to the great matters affecting the welfare of the Empire. For these reasons he begged to move the Motion standing in his name.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was very glad indeed to be permitted to second the Motion made by the hon. Member for Waterford. It was a Motion moved by the hon. Gentleman with great propriety, because every Member of the House of Commons would realise that the Party to which that hon. Gentleman belonged had, consistently and with hardly a break for a great number of years, defended the freedom of debate and discussion in this House. And he would venture to express the hope that that Party would not weary from their labours in the cause of freedom of debate even though a general election were to result in a change of Government. They were now asked to participate and to acquiesce in another blow at and abridgment of the liberties of the House which had been so frequent in recent years, and which had so greatly distinguished the existing Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had never changed his Party; but he had often changed his opinions. They were now witnessing, in his treatment of the House of Commons, a conversion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to the extreme Radical doctrine of twenty or twenty-five years ago. He was reading the other day in a book a speech made by the hon. Member for Northampton in 1882, in which that hon. Gentleman was expounding the democratic creed, as interpreted in those days. The hon. Gentleman's view was that there ought to be very frequent elections; certainly once every three years; that certain measures should be presented to the people at these elections; that they should be submitted to a plebiscite, and, if the people approved of them, that then they should pass, the Ministry having thereby received an imperative mandate, and, representing a majority, discussion was, therefore, useless. Now, he did not agree with these doctrines, and he thought there were a great many in
  78
  the House who were called advanced politicians who would not be inclined to use the argument in that form; but, even if they had all the advantages of triennial Parliaments, even if they had these special mandates, and even if they were dealing with a measure of which the country was in favour, he did not think they ought to assent to a doctrine which was absolutely subversive of all the fundamental principles of the English Constitution and prejudicial to the discussions in the House. How much less ought they to consent to the abrogation of the liberties of the House when there was no mandate whatever; for the proceedings of the Government; and whereas, instead of having triennial Parliaments, this Parliament was entering on its fifth year, and when the Govern-itself did not pretend to claim that they had the confidence of the country in what they were doing. Why should they accept this abrogation of their liberties even if proposed by a First Lord of the Treasury, who represented the Constitutional and Conservative Part?
  The right hon. Member for East Fife had said that this Resolution did not stand alone; that it was a step in a series, and part of a regular policy. Surely hon. Gentlemen who had been listening to the debates of this and last session would remember the discussions on the Licensing Bill. There was almost an exact parallel between the conduct of the Prime Minister in regard to that important measure and his conduct in regard to Supply before Easter. The plan was a very simple one. Parliament was called together very late, or the Government Bills were introduced very late. No care was taken of debate in the earlier stages. The Prime Minister never attended in his place; he never condescended to give the House the benefit of his guidance at any stage of these proceedings. He never used his persuasive and dialectical arts to get business forward, and to make those arrangements which enabled the minority to take part in the government of the country. Then, all of a sudden, in the privacy of his room, the right hon. Gentleman was told that Supply was in arrears, or that the Licensing Bill would take too long to pass. And, on that ground, and

  79
  that ground alone, the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House of Commons and proposed a special Resolution; and the guillotine Resolution was enforced. He should like to know what conceivable species of Parliamentary business could not be arbitrarily curtailed and closured by this simple plan? Now, because the Administration could not make up their mind as to their Army policy, the Army Estimates were just presented to the House. The Supplementary Estimates, which were fertile in the possibilities of unexpected divisions, had been postponed, and the Navy Estimates, on which the Government had a majority, had been put very prominently in the forefront. He had listened to all these debates, and he could tell the right hon. Gentleman that there had been just as many speeches made from his own side of the House as from that side; and he would also tell the right hon. Gentleman that, though probably he had not heard them for himself, sometimes for two hours at a time there had been a continuation of obstructive speeches from the Government benches. Could the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"]
  *MR. CHURCHILLsaid that now they saw why the right hon. Gentleman took such care to be very seldom in the House. It was in order that when he was asked a very awkward Question he might pretend that he knew nothing about it. As to the debates on the Navy Estimates, the Secretary to the Admiralty very courteously occupied twice or three times as much time as any other Member of the House. But he understood the right hon. Gentleman did not put forward any charge of obstruction. What, then, was the unusual cause this year which made this extraordinary procedure necessary? What had been the feature of the debates? Empty benches opposite. On numerous occasions he had observed only a dozen hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were sick at heart. Although they were ready to vote they did not pay any attention to the arguments used in debate. Even on the debate on the Navy
  80
  the hon. Member for Northampton moved a count because only fifteen Members were present. They were asked to dwell on the unprecedented virtues of the Government. They heard a good deal about March 31st, for the right hon. Gentleman liked these laws with respect to dates. He was very respectful of the law of August 12th—anything which marked a period when he could get away from the House of Commons and discussion seemed naturally sacred in his eyes. After all, the law of March 31st existed on the authority of Parliament and the House of Commons, and were not the laws and procedure of that House also of some sanctity and value? Why should they always be brushed aside? The ordinary remedy for getting through this business would be to sit up late. The right hon. Gentleman threw great scorn on that practice, which was not very satisfactory or comfortable. But an elaborate procedure was the only method by which a minority could defend itself and assert its influence in the government of the country, so that the doings of Parliament should have a national character—an elaborate procedure which gave the minority an opportunity of questioning the proceedings of the majority at many stages, and imposed on the majority certain obligations of exertion and even sacrifice in order that they might show the earnestness of their convictions. The present proposals were foreign to the traditions of the Conservative Party, which for many years inveighed against this sort of procedure. Moreover, that Party would not always be in the majority, and invasions of the procedure of the House were very rarely recovered. Why should they not sit up a few nights? He was not sure that an all-night sitting caused bad feeling in the House, sometimes a feeling of comradeship sprang up which afterwards remained and made the course of business thereafter somewhat easier. Large blocks of business were invariably got through after an all-night sitting had taken place.
  What was the new fact this year which impelled the Prime Minister to make these proposals? It was that there was a complete demoralisation of the cohesive forces in the Unionist Party, who would not consent to make any real sacrifice of their convenience or comfort to keep the

  81
  Government in power; and the more discredited the Government was in the country the more desperate and revolutionary was the procedure which it was compelled to resort to in the House of Commons. What did the Government represent? He did not attach much importance to the mandate, but every one knew that the election was fought on the specific issue of the war. The Prime Minister himself had become Prime Minister by methods by which only a very small minority of Prime Ministers had ever succeeded to that great office. He had never come forward and led his Party to victory at the polls; he received his great office as a private inheritance, and his title was going to be contested in the high court of appeal. The Government did not represent the country, nor even their own Party—not its traditions, which were represented by men like the right hon. Member for Bristol, not its ideals, which were represented by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, not its appetites and ambitions, those were represented on the third bench below the gangway by the right hon. Member for Birmingham. They did not represent even the talent of their Party; they were a Government of Undersecretaries and of private secretaries.
  *MR. SPEAKER: This is not the occasion for a general indictment of the Government on all grounds.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the Prime Minister knew perfectly well that the object of all these manœuvres was merely to retain in power for a few weeks, or it might be months, an Administration which feared to face the verdict of the country. He did not dispute the power of the right hon. Gentleman. When Gladstone and Disraeli formed Governments they had to make accommodation with many distinguished men who shared and divided the authority of their chiefs, but the present Prime Minister, on the other hand, was absolutely supreme. There was not a single right hon. Gentleman in the Cabinet who would venture to stand against him for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman could dismiss his colleagues in droves and batches and fill their places with others without the public service suffering in
  82
  the least or the reputation of the Government being in the slightest degree diminished. The right hon. Gentleman had brought forward a Motion which fitted in with the general scheme of his new procedure rules. Those rules were framed in the interests of those who were most seldom there, who were most frequently wearied of debate, in the interest of men of leisure and of pleasure who liked to belong to the House of Commons because it invested them with a serious character they would not otherwise possess. The injury which the Prime Minister had thus done to the House of Commons would, he ventured to say, be remembered long after even the extravagance of his Administration had been forgotten by the country. He did not think the Opposition would be great losers, whatever might be the result of the division. Although, as he had pointed out in the previous session, it was in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to remain in office so long as his majority would vote with servility on general occasions, did the right hon. Gentleman think he would be much better in the end? The very Parliamentary manœuvres by which the right hon. Gentleman retained himself in power would be one of the principal reasons why numbers of voters would be induced to transfer their allegiance to the Liberal Party at the next election. He calculated at the end of the last session that the Conservative or Unionist Party paid as the privilege of being represented by their leaders a rent of about one thousand votes each Parliamentary day. That was mounting up to a considerable figure. The Opposition had no reason, from a partisan point of view, for regretting any Parliamentary manœuvre, however ingenious, however discreditable, however revolutionary, which the right hon. Gentleman might see fit to introduce. It was not purely from a Party point of view that this Motion had been discussed. It had been discussed in the interests of the House of Commons as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman had adjured the House to support the proposal in the interests of the dignity of the House of Commons. If he (Mr. Churchill) had to choose between the interests of the dignity of the House of Commons and its freedom, he would pronounce for its freedom. It

  83
  could not enjoy real dignity unless its debates were free. He was certain that the Motion of the hon. Member for Waterford, whatever fate it might meet with here, would receive earnest approbation in the country, and when the opportunity came—as come it must—the nation would testify its gratitude to all who had endeavoured to vindicate the liberties of Parliament.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House declines to sanction any proposal to further arbitrarily curtail discussion of Supplies and of the various stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill as a violation of the constitutional rights of the House."—(Mr. John Redmond.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'in order to' stand part of the Question."
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER(who spoke amid great interruption and loud cries of Wanklyn) said that the hon. Member for Oldham had occupied some considerable time, but after all what had he said? After all his oratorical efforts, after inveighing against the Prime Minister, the hon. Member told the House with tears in his throat that the 31st of March came every year, and that where there was a Government there must always be an Opposition. The speech of the hon. Member might be described as a plot of platitudes and a lot of attitudes. He, himself, had no desire to prolong the debate, but he thought that if the hon. Member curtailed his observations he would find that his audience on the Unionist benches would gradually grow larger and that there would be more time to discuss those questions which the hon. Gentleman himself considered to be of such vital importance.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he had only a few Questions to put to the Government. First of all he wished to know whether when this Motion was passed it was the intention of the Government to abolish the dinner hour as established by the new rules. The second question was whether they intended to pass a rule with regard to the limitation of speeches. And the third was whether, if this rule was passed, the House was to
  84
  conclude that it was the winding-up order of this Parliament; whether, havingc on-eluded these measures of Supply by March 31st, it was the intention of the Government to appeal to the country to see whether it still approved of the plans of the Government for the carrying on of the business of the country. If this procedure was proposed in order to hasten the dissolution of this Parliament that would be a good reason for not opposing this rule. Those were the Questions he desired to put to the Government, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not reply to them at once he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would give a serious Answer to them before the debate concluded.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)interjected an observation which did not reach the gallery.
  MR. BROADHURST: Then we shall oppose you.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Of course.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he took a very serious view of the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and on the previous night or early that morning he called attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not, even think it worth while to read the terms of his Resolution to the House. Had it not been for the fact that the hon. Member for Oldham had obtained a copy of the Motion from the Clerk at the Table, the House would have been in complete ignorance as to its terms until that morning. As it was, hon. Members were called upon at five hours notice to discuss what must be described as a revolutionary change in the rules of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had had to acknowledge that this was the first time that the closure of debate had been proposed in connection with the Supplementary Estimates. If there was one debate in this House which ought not to be curtailed it was the debate upon the Supplementary Estimates. What were the Supplementary Estimates?

  85
  They might represent two things, either a new set of events demanding a new expenditure, to which nobody could object, or they might represent, which was mostly the case, gross miscalculation on the part of those who framed the financial statements of the country. It was true that the Supplementary Estimates this year were rather lower than they were in the previous year, but that only showed that such a Resolution as that before the House was not necessary. In 1893–4 the Supplementary Estimates were only £592,000; in 1894–5, they were £655,000. But since that date the Supplementary Estimates had never been under £2,000,000, and on one occasion, in the year 1903£4, they reached £4,610,000. A Supplementary Estimate of nearly £5,000,000 was to all intents and purposes a second Budget, and ought to be subjected to the same severity and length of criticism as a Budget. Therefore the House was now in this position, that the Prime Minister was leaving to any future Finance Minister an opportunity for proposing a second Budget in one year in the shape of Supplementary Estimates, and at the same time depriving the House of Commons of the right of full discussion, which lay at the very basis of its history and institution. While he felt bound to speak with some severity of the policy of the Prime Minister, he did not wish to speak with any severity of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The Prime Minister by his charm of manner had been able to get this House to do things which a less popular Minister would have been stopped from even proposing. The right hon. Gentleman reminded him of four lines of his illustrious countryman, Sir Walter Scott—
  "Like the bat of Indian brakes,
  His pinions fan the wound he makes;
  And soothing thus the sufferer's pain,
  He draws the life-blood from the vein."
  By his personal courtesy and easy-going and affable manner the Prime Minister had been able to get the House, session after session, to surrender some of its most valuable principles and traditions. What had been the result? He had already referred to Supplementary Estimates; he would now take Votes on Account. When he first entered Parliament, before that Assembly had been demoralised by the Prime Minister, Votes
  86
  on Account were seldom for more than six weeks, and rarely for a larger sum than from £3,000,000 to £5,000,000. But in 1897 the Government obtained a Vote of Credit for £10,300,000, and covering four months of Parliamentary time, while on one occasion there was a Vote of Credit for no less than £21,500,000, and covering a period of five months. In other words, Votes on Account, which were always discussed and decided in one day of Parliamentary time, had risen to such a point that nearly one-fourth of the entire revenue of the country was allowed only one day's discussion. The right hon. Gentleman was also responsible for the guillotine which followed the twenty-three days of Supply. Did the House realise—he was confident the country did not—that in every session of Parliament millions of money were voted without a single hour's discussion?
  Reference had been made to the embarrassments of previous Ministries with regard to legislation and those of the present Government with regard to finance. Embarrassments with regard to legislation were important only if the legislation was important. But the importance of legislation was infinitesimal as compared with the importance of finance. One Minister could propose legislation in one direction, and his successor in another; but expenditure outlasted Parliaments and Ministries, and went on for ever. The proper control of expenditure was the main and supreme function of the House of Commons, and any attack upon its power in that direction was far more serious thin any attack upon its liberty of discussion with regard to legislation. In four sessions of Parliament £116,000,000 had been voted without a single hour's discussion.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member will be in order on this Motion in reviewing the general effect of the Supply rule; his observations must be confined to the Amendment.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid his contention was that this Motion was only a part of a general policy for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible and which he had relentlessly pursued. From that policy there had naturally followed want of supervision, which meant want of

  87
  economy. In the last ten years the revenue of the country had increased from £107,000,000 to £177,000,000; Army and Navy expenditure had risen from £36,500,000 to £86,500,000; and the liabilities of the State had swollen from £738,000,000 to £948,000,000. Those figures showed that the curtailment of debate for which the Prime Minister was mainly responsible had led to an appalling increase in the burden of the nation. What would be the result if the House were precluded from discussing Supplementary Estimates? It was only necessary to look at the fate of another Empire. He could foresee a time, if this policy was continued, when an Alexieff of the Treasury bench would lead this country into the same morass of blood and bankruptcy into which another Minister had led another Empire. Whenever he was in the smallest difficulty the Prime Minister laid his hands upon immemorial traditions and usages of the House. He had failed to give any reason whatever for this Motion. With the least tact, conciliation, and conference, the right hon. Gentleman could have got his necessary Votes before the legal day, probably without a single all-night sitting. It had been suggested by some Members that the Motion was rendered necessary by the delay in the Army Estimates caused by dissensions, while others declared it to be due to the reluctance of the supporters of the Government to tear themselves away from their social amusements. Whatever the real reason might be, was it not too bad that the Leader of the House, the custodian of its liberties and traditions, should not hesitate to propose a rule such as no Prime Minister Had ever proposed before. The right hon. Gentleman seemed really not to care what happened, so far as Parliament was concerned. After him, the deluge. It he was in a difficulty, his idea was to smash this rule, break this tradition, violate this law, or curtail that liberty. He seemed to think that nothing mattered in this world. Immersed in the metaphysics of his native country, the Prime Minister seemed to regard all sublunary affairs as unworthy of consideration. There was once an invasion of this House by a monarch. Charles I., when he attempted to arrest the five Members, probably thought he was doing as
  88
  simple and as easy a thing as the Prime Minister apparently imagined he was doing in abolishing the control of Parliament over Supplementary Estimates. The record of that transaction as set forth by the then Clerk of the House was—
  "His Majesty came into the House and took Mr. Speaker's Chair. 'Gentlemen, I am sorry to have this occasion to come unto you—'"
  and then the record ended. That Clerk of the House of Commons was a Gentleman entirely after the Prime Minister's heart. Whatever changes might take place in the rules and traditions of this House, the Prime Minister was perfectly satisfied, knowing that in about six weeks or six months in the cold shades of opposition his responsibility would have entirely ceased.
  MR. WANKLYNsaid he had been invited by hon. Members opposite to give his reason for supporting the Government on the present occasion. He found those reasons in speeches delivered during the recess by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Northumberland and the junior Member for Oldham. He did not intend to digress into any personal issue between the hon. Member for Old-ham and himself; that could be settled elsewhere than in the House of Commons. But on this question of procedure, in more than one speech the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Member to whom he had referred had stated that it was the duty of the Opposition to block all Government business in that House from the first meeting of Parliament, on the ground that His Majesty's Ministers had exhausted their mandate. Probably the Opposition and himself would not agree as to whether the Government had exhausted their mandate, but they would doubtless agree that Ministers had a mandate to bring about a settlement of affairs in South Africa, and he suggested that affairs there would not be settled until representative government had been granted. There was the case of the Licensing Bill last year, when the Opposition questioned the right of the Prime Minister to introduce the guillotine as he was now doing. He was within the recollection of the House when he said that the Licensing Bill was obstructed

  89
  until the guillotine was introduced, and not until then did they really get to business. Why was that Bill obstructed? It was said that the Licensing Bill would put into the pockets of the brewers £300,000,000, whereas they knew that since the Act had come into force every brewery share in the country had dropped. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh," and "No, no!"] He was not going to be silenced by clamour, and he was only replying to what had been said by the junior Member for Oldham. When all-night sittings were advocated how far did they contribute to the dignity of the House? Great writers in the leading magazines had asserted that this House was losing respect in the country, and why? Because of the scenes which arose at all-night sittings. Those scenes were amongst the causes which contributed to this loss of respect. As he had said before, so far as the business of this House was concerned no good work could be done after twelve o'clock at night. He begged to thank the Opposition for the courteous way in which they had listened to observations which they themselves had asked for.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he did not think many hon. Members had realised the very stringent character of the Motion of the Prime Minister, and he doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman himself was aware of the wide terms or the possibilities that might arise under the Motion. The hon. and learned member for Waterford stated that under this Motion it would be possible to put down new Votes in Supply on the very day the guillotine was to fall, and nobody could doubt I that that was a fact. But there was an even wider power than this involved in the Motion. It spoke of "any Supplementary Estimates," therefore it was not confined to Supplementary Estimates now before the House. It would be possible for the Government to introduce on the first day of the guillotine an entirely new Supplementary Estimate, which might not up to that time have been within the purview of the House, and then call upon the House to pass it without any consideration and without a word of discussion. He trusted that an ample
  90
  opportunity would be given to the House of considering the drafting of Amendments, because there were two or three points which he was sure were never intended by the Prime Minister when he gave instructions for the drafting of his Motion, which might bring about an entirely unexpected and unanticipated state of things unless they were allowed to examine the wording and purport of the Motion. He thought the Prime Minister could not deny that the real reason that had induced him to make this stringent Motion was the fact that he dare not face the country or the House of Commons. He was endeavouring to take away the last remaining right of the House to criticise the expenditure of public money. That was the reason why he was afraid of all-night sittings. The fact was the right hon. Gentleman knew that he could not command the support of hon. Members sitting behind him unless they were allowed to come down at stated times. They had seen enough this session of the way the right hon. Gentleman had had to put up hon. Members time after time in order to avoid coming to a decision when the House was ready to do so, and that had contributed to the waste of time during the present session. Was it not time that the Prime Minister should go to the country and cease carrying on this farce my longer?
  MR. BRYCEsaid he had been listening with interest to the debate, and had expected to hear some defence made of this proposal. Only one defender, however, had spoken, and,hat was the hon. Member for Central Bradford. If the House thought that he had strengthened the case for the Government they would no doubt express that feeling in the division lobby.
  MR. WANKLYN: Hear, hear!
  MR. BRYCEsaid this proposal was unlike any which the Government had made before in two respects: in the first place, it related to money, and in this respect it was a stricter proposal with regard to the Estimates. In the second place, it had not been supported in his opinion by any substantial arguments at all by the Prime Minister. The

  91
  Prime Minister had endeavoured to take advantage of his own wrong doing, for he had brought them into a difficult position and now turned round and asked them to give him an advantage. This reminded him of the story of a mountain guide who led his party to a dangerous point and then turned round and said that they must double the pay for his services because they had got into a difficult position. This difficulty was entirely caused by the First Lord of the Treasury, and it was entirely the right hon. Gentleman's fault that they found themselves in their present position. In every other previous case of this kind something like obstruction had been urged as a reason for such a Motion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am always careful never to allege obstruction unless I am driven to it. But do not let the right hon. Gentleman suppose that I do not think that there was obstruction.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that a more uncandid way of putting it he had never heard.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If by the Parliamentary expression "uncandid" the right hon. Gentleman means to say that I was ambiguous, I now proceed to make it unambiguous and I say that there was obstruction. [OPPOSITION cries of "When?"]
  MR. BRYCEsaid that what he meant to express was that the right hon. Gentleman was not at liberty to take refuge in that phrase, and if he thought there had been obstruction he was bound to state it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg pardon.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that when the Prime Minister avowed that there was obstruction he was bound to give his reasons for that statement.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I am not bound to do so.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had a right of reply on this Motion, and he hoped that he would endeavour to collect instances of obstruction from those of his supporters who had been more frequently in the House, and perhaps
  92
  that would give him an opportunity of fortifying the statement which, to his (Mr. Bryce's) great surprise, he had just made. Speaking for himself he had never seen any obstruction except that which proceeded from hon. Members opposite in their endeavour to avert dangerous divisions. He was not aware of any single case of an hon. Member obstructing except with a view of keeping off a division. It would have been perfectly easy to have finished off the Supplementary Votes in Supply before March 31st without this Motion. Even admitting that the House meeting on February 14th gave too narrow a margin, why did the right hon. Gentleman not bring the House together before that date? Surely it would have been much wiser to have met earlier. He invited the Prime Minister to give them a single case in which a Minister of the Crown had ever appealed to the House to be allowed to comply with the law where that request had been refused. They all remembered how long the debate on the King's Speech had lasted, and how remarkable it was that the Government had made no effort to abridge the debate on the King's Speech. That debate lasted fourteen days, and it would have been quite possible to have curtailed it, because the Government even then had before them all the difficulties which they now alleged as a reason for bringing forward this proposal. What was the motive which induced the Prime Minister to call Parliament together so late, and why had he allowed the, debate on the King's Speech to go dawdling on? The only explanation he could see was that the Government were not then ready with their Estimates. That was the most probable explanation, and it was confirmed by the fact that they had not produced the Army Estimates until yesterday morning. The Army Estimates had not been produced so late for a long time, and if there were any particular Estimates that ought to be produced early they were the Army Estimates. They contained not only an additional sum of money, but, what was more important, were changed in form and raised many difficult questions which required more debate than in ordinary years, and, therefore, there was every reason why

  93
  the House should have had those Estimates at the earliest possible time. He was perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman would not traverse that fact. He did not attribute any particular blame to him. He did not know where the blame lay, but that there was blame attaching to the Ministry for not producing the Army Estimates until yesterday no one could deny. The right hon. Gentleman had offered an opportunity for the discussion of Army policy upon another date, but that was not the same thing as a debate upon the first two Votes. There was unreality about discussion after the Votes were passed. It was not the opportunity the House had a right to expect.
  There were other methods of getting through business in time. The use of the ordinary closure might have been sufficient if applied with tact and judgment, and when it was rendered necessary because Members opposite had wasted time to postpone a division. Saturday sittings to expedite business had in old days frequently been resorted to. Personally disagreeable such sittings were to Members, but they were a far less evil than the measure now proposed. By an exchange of the Wednesdays after Easter the Government might have secured time within the financial year. There was no precedent for asking the House to adopt such a Resolution without allowing time to formulate Amendments, nor for curtailing discussion of the Estimates in this manner, except at the end of the session. A mixture of recklessness with indolence in Leadership had brought about the present difficulty. The First Lord of the Treasury had used a remarkable expression in his speech that night, namely, that they could not go back to the easy-going methods of old times. The methods of old days were not easy-going; the Leaders of the House of thirty, forty, or fifty years ago were not easy-going men; they took pains, they looked ahead, they were not caught by the tide of time, they used their opportunities, they had their supporters ready, and had time for any important unexpected question that might arise. It was because forethought, care, and use of opportunities had been neglected during recent years of Leadership that the House found itself in this difficulty.
  94
  The country generally probably did not understand the complicated procedure of the House, and therefore there was the more reason that the House should have a scrupulous regard for it. A change of procedure of this kind amounted to change of constitution; it removed a safeguard for debate and proper conduct of business the wisdom of previous Parliaments had thought necessary. Changes hitherto made had been justified by undue prolongation of debate, but no such defence could be made of the innovation now attempted. The Prime Minister, on a previous occasion, when making another revolutionary proposal in regard to their financial debates—when the Votes were being slumped—quarrelled very much with him because he ventured to say that it was by control over finance that the privileges of the House were originally established, that it was by being the guardian of the public purse that the House gave protection to the ratepayers, and that every change in their privileges which affected money was a question of the utmost gravity. The right hon. Gentleman had said that conditions were now quite different. It was true that the forms in which the danger appeared were different from age to age, but it would generally be found that the substance and principle remained very much the same. The control of money, and the responsibilities attaching to Supply, had always been a vital and central point in the powers and duties of the House, and wherever they were being affected the House ought to be doubly watchful. He did not suggest that the dangers now were such as in old days the House had to contend with; but there was grave danger to economy and efficient administration if the House cultivated a habit of negligence and blind obedience to the Government of the day, abrogating thereby its first duty. Every proposal which tended to weaken the interest of the House in financial matters and subjected its voting to abnormal conditions tended to destroy its sense of responsibility and duty to secure economy and prevent the imposition of unnecessary burdens on the nation, and was an injury to the Constitution.
  The hon. Member for Oldham had said that this was not a Party question.

  95
  He himself did not desire to treat it as a Party question, and he wished to make an appeal to the Party opposite. Bad habits were easily formed, and surely no one would deny that it was a bad habit to become reckless in the voting of money. At the present time the Conservative Party considered itself in a special way the guardian of property, restraining any undue taxation of the rich, and all the dangers that might follow therefrom. He could imagine that a time might come—although the older Members of the House might not live to see it—when there would be a Party in that House very anxious to impose heavy taxation on the rich, and to employ the resources of the State for the benefit of the masses in a way which the property-holding classes would greatly resent. Would it not be a great danger if there should be in those days a tyrannical Ministry, or a majority, anxious to carry out proposals with a high hand and to stifle the voice of criticism, and if they were able to cite this precedent set by a Conservative Government for shortening debate, for diminishing the opportunities of discussion, and making it easier to carry strong and tyrannical measures? He hoped such a condition of things would not arise, but if it did the property-holding classes would have grave reason to regret the policy of the present Prime Minister. He believed the present proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was another step, and a great step, towards the degradation of the House of Commons and the restriction of its powers in the performance of important functions. Those who would have most reason to regret the change were those who valued the traditions of the House, and who knew how precious were the traditions of liberty.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the First Lord of the Treasury was very difficult to satisfy. If they talked on the proposals which were made he charged them with obstruction, and if they were silent they were guilty of a manœuvre in order to get a snap division. Which was it that the First Lord wished? If he would daily put out a list of those whom he desired to speak they would do their best to satisfy him. They could not be both silent and speak. What was
  96
  the real aim of the Motion? The right hon. Gentleman said that it was necessary to get through certain business before March 31st. It was quite conceivable that the House should get through that business without any charge of obstruction being made. The real reason of the proposal was to be found in the speech which the First Lord of the Treasury made last July at a private dinner given downstairs by certain of his own supporters. At that dinner the First Lord of the Treasury used these remarkable words—
  "The results of the by-elections were not the most serious dangers in the path of the Unionist Government. The most apparent danger was want of loyalty on the part of some of the Unionist Members."
  And then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he would not unduly burden his followers even in that session or in the next; and in return—let the House observe this—he expected from them that loyalty in the division lobbies—that loyalty which would enable the Government to carry their programme to a successful issue. The right hon. Gentleman was fulfilling to the letter that pledge not to be a burden on his followers, and demanded in return that high loyalty in the division lobbies which he had asked for last year. The right hon. Gentleman had had his experience in the division lobbies, and had told his followers that neither their pains nor their joys could be prolonged. Then the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House with a following 260 strong—he had never had his followers 260 strong before—at an early hour, and had kept them there in order to exercise his brutal mastery over the Opposition. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman believed that the future dignity of Parliament was to be maintained by these methods, but he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman was destroying all true interest in the working of the House of Commons. He had been in the House for ten years and could say that in the course of the last few years there had been no inducement to any Member to undertake any sort of serious work, and at that moment the position was worse than ever. Day by day they were waiting to see this Government fall to pieces. It was only by

  97
  the most extraordinary exertions that the right hon Gentleman had been able to keep together a Party composed of discontented free-traders and discontented protectionists. He had only kept them together by coercing a minority, and had now in this last effort achieved the triumph of his purpose. The right hon. Gentleman had brought down his large majority, and they were receiving the reward for their pains by enjoying to the full the humiliation of the minority.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid he must agree with some of the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in saying that there was much in those rules that he did not like. It was a very hateful necessity that such measures should be introduced at all. But was it not really a farce that hon. Gentlemen opposite should say they were keenly anxious to discuss the Supplementary Estimates, while they were wasting the whole of that day and probably to-morrow. If hon. Members could only be reasonable for once there would be other two days on which to discuss the details of the Estimates, the discussion on the principles having already taken place. Certain Members on the other side of the House were determined to put every difficulty in the way of passing Government measures. In 1894, when he took some interest in the Opposition of the time, they always allowed these matters to go through because they did not involve questions of Party politics, but rather of routine. This the Opposition of that day did, although the Government was weak and had not the mandate of the country as was proved very soon afterwards. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were keen to discuss every shilling on these Estimates there was ample time to do it even if the Resolution was passed. Even if the Opposition gained a Party advantage by these discussions, the country did not care for them. It only desired the House to get through with its business in a reasonable manner.
  *MR. JOHN ELLISsaid that the hon. Member who had just sat down had trotted out the proceedings in 1894, and he noticed that his remarks were cheered by some hon. Members opposite. But the conditions in 1894 were entirely
  98
  different from those now existing, when a great revolution was being promoted in the Army and the Resolution of the Prime Minister would affect discussion on the Army Estimates. He had been for many years sitting opposite the First Lord of the Treasury, and had watched him very carefully all that time. He had always admired the right hon. Gentleman, but that afternoon the Prime Minister had surpassed himself. When the right hon. Gentleman gave notice last midnight of this Resolution he had ventured to interject the word "unprecedented." In the course of the very warm conversation which followed the right hon. Gentleman stated that he could brush that word aside, and produce precedents for this Resolution; but he had entirely failed to do so; at any rate he had made no attempt to bring forward any precedent for this Resolution. At Question time yesterday the right hon. Gentleman used the following words: "I cannot at the moment give the terms of the Resolution which I shall move, though I hope to announce them to-night before the adjournment of the House." At midnight, instead of reading the terms of the Resolution, he merely laid it on the Table, and then they witnessed the unseemly spectacle of an hon. Member having to go down to the Table and get the terms of the Motion and read them out. That was unworthy of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman read out the terms of the Motion to the House as he specifically promised to do? And why were they not, in the usual manner, supplied elsewhere? Why should they have this sort of elusiveness, the real reason of which everybody knew? All the great Leaders of the House had been frank and open with the House, from Mr. Disraeli downwards, except the right hon. Gentleman.
  This Resolution was most unprecedented in the way in which it was introduced; and the right hon. Gentleman had admitted, by his silence, that it was unprecedented in its nature. The Resolution was a very wide one, and went very far. He did not know how many hon. Members had made themselves masters of its whole scope. He freely

  99
  confessed that, though it was his business to look into such matters, it had taken him a good deal of time before he realised the whole scope of the Resolution. It had fifty-two lines to begin with. It dealt not only with Votes in Supply, but with all the stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill. Every one knew that the stages of that Bill offered a very wide and open door for discussion of various matters. He maintained that to adopt a drastic procedure on the Second and Third Readings of the Consolidated Fund Bill—the first that came before the House during the session—was to closure the House in a way which was perhaps only imperfectly realised. Worse than that, while the business to which this Resolution appertained was under the consideration of the House nothing else could be raised. There could be no Motion for adjournment, or Motion to report Progress, or Motion that the debate be adjourned. It was, in effect, a blocking Motion of the most drastic character. The House of Commons was for ten days at the entire mercy of the Executive Government. Not a single question could be raised either on foreign or domestic matters while this Resolution remained in force.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is quite incorrect.
  *MR. JOHN ELLIS: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is incorrect because private Members' rights are not interfered with, and the adjournment of the House can be moved.
  *MR. JOHN ELLISsaid that that was no answer to his argument at all. So far as Government time was concerned the Motion would operate exactly as he had stated. It was a matter which concerned the House of Commons at large. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite would not give him credit for sincerity when he stated that he viewed the Motion primarily from that aspect. He had sat on both sides of the House, and it had been his lot on occasions to differ from his Leaders, and if they brought forward a Motion of this kind he should certainly differ from them. It was not
  100
  a question of Party; his objection to the Motion was rooted in the conception of what the functions of the House of Commons should be. Lord Palmerston, who was one of the most successful Leaders the House of Commons ever had, once used the following language—
  "But this House has another function to discharge, and one highly conducive to the public interests—namely, that of being the mouthpiece of the nation; the organ by which all opinions, all complaints, all notions of grievances, all hopes and expectations, all wishes and suggestions which may arise amongst the people at large, may be brought to an expression here, may be discussed, examined, answered, rejected, or redressed."
  That was as important a function as either legislation or criticism of the Estimates; and it was because this Motion trenched on that function that he opposed it so resolutely. He was glad the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich was present. The noble Lord had made brilliant contributions to their debates, and he had a distinguished future before him. He recently expressed the opinion that the House of Commons was losing respect for itself. Many hon. Gentlemen opposite in their heart of hearts would vote for this Motion with a great deal of searching of heart. What right had the Government to bring forward a Motion of this kind? They did not represent the opinion of the people at large. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said that the dissolution had no terrors for him. The dissolution had no terrors for himself; but there were many hon. Gentlemen opposite in a different position. They, at all events, had no authority to pass such a Resolution. The Amendment might be defeated, the Resolution might be carried, but they on that side looked forward with confidence to the time when the present House of Commons would be buried and a new House of Commons would proceed with legislation for the welfare of the people of these islands.
  *MR. McCRAEsaid he wished to know what were the reasons underlying this attack on the privileges of the House of Commons and the freedom of debate. The Prime Minister stated that if this drastic rule were not passed soldiers would not be able to get their pay. It was sickening and revolting that our soldiers

  101
  should be dragged in as pawns in this Party manœuvre. The Secretary of State for War advanced that argument a few days ago, but it was unworthy of the Prime Minister to follow that example. As a matter of fact, the soldiers would not be paid out of the Army Votes at all. If the Army Votes were to be used for Army purposes they should be put into the Consolidated Fund Bill and all the dates would have to be changed. Instead of the Speaker being out of the Chair on the 28th he would have to be moved out on the 20th. If the right hon. Gentleman desired to comply with the law he should got the Army Votes through and get them included in the Consolidated Fund Act before March 31st. That was not proposed. The right hon. Gentleman was proposing to take money voted for the Civil Service and the Navy in order to discharge expenditure on the Army. What was the only reason for this Motion? It was a confession that with all his large majority the right hon. Gentleman was not able to carry on the business of the country. They repudiated the charge of obstruction which the right hon. Gentleman had made and challenged him to justify his allegations of obstruction by giving an instance when it occurred. His principal reason for rising was to put these points to the right hon. Gentleman and to point out that what the right hon. Gentleman was going to do was, not to comply with the law but, to use the Civil Service and Navy Votes for Army expenditure. If the right hon. Gentleman was unable to carry on the business of Parliament the only alternative consistent with his self-respect and the dignity of Parliament was to appeal to the country.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister intended to reply, but as he had been challenged with regard to his statement as to obstruction of the Liberal Members it was to be hoped he would give some instance where that obstruction had occurred, because the impression was that all the obstruction had come from the Unionist benches, and that it had been organised by the Government Whips. Everyone would admit that there might, be occasions when Government was bound to get
  102
  certain business through the House by a certain date; whether that was the position at present he did not intend to discuss, but it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman always adopted the short and lazy way instead of the more legitimate and difficult way which a Prime Minister ought to adopt. There were two alternatives, the expedient of all-night sittings or the other expedient, and he was more in favour of the Leader of the House being always in his place so that he might exercise his judgment and where, in his opinion, there was a prolonged and idle discussion going on, propose the closure. He should not propose such a closure as that set down in this Resolution, which did not discriminate between those discussions which were of no value and those which were of public importance. The hon. Member for North Islington had said that the result of this closure Motion being accepted would be to enable the House to get through certain routine business. The routine business was the discussion of the Army scheme. The right hon. Gentleman had said earlier in the day that there were precedents for the quick discussion of the Army Votes A and 1. That might be so, but was there any precedent for an Army scheme like that before the House being forced through in this way? It was true that the right, hon. Gentleman had said he would give time afterwards for discussion on the Army question, but what he was asking the House to do was to consent to the scheme first and to discuss it afterwards, which was analagous to executing the man first and trying him afterwards. He appealed to those eighty Members of the House who were retiring at the end of this Parliament, who might say to themselves, "What does it matter to us? We shall not be closured," to pause before giving a vote on this question, which was likely to change the whole procedure of the House, and think once more of the rights and privileges of the House they were so soon to leave.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid he intervened in the debate with some diffidence, he having only been a Member of one Parliament, but rather than lay himself open to the charge

  103
  of remaining silent at such a crisis he would occupy the time of the House for a few moments. When he heard the hon. Member for Oldham read the Resolution they were now discussing, on the previous evening, he asked himself whether this House had any inherent rights at all? All representative assemblies from parish councils upwards had some rights either in themselves as a body or in their chairman. In the course of his thirty years experience of local representative bodies he had on more than one occasion felt it his duty as chairman to refuse to put motions which he knew were approved by the majority because they interfered with statutory or other rights. But what was the position in the House of Commons? The Prime Minister seemed able to shorten the duration of the session to any extent he pleased, and in the shortened session to curtail the liberties of debate to whatever extent he could get a servile majority to sanction. There was practically no protection for the minority. They had certain supposed rights, some inherent in the House itself and others vested in Mr. Speaker, and in times past Mr. Speaker used often to be called upon to protect the liberties of the House. He could not express in Parliamentary language his opinion of the gravity of the present situation. If he called the Prime Minister a traitor to the country and the constitutional rights of this House he would probably be called to order.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not at all.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid he had found a passage in a history of the English people by a well-known historian, which so exactly described the present position that he would venture to read it. The writer, in describing the position of impotence in which a democratic representative Assembly might find itself, said—
  "Even now a Minister might avail himself of the temper of a Parliament elected in a moment of panic, and, though the nation returned to its senses, might simply by refusing to appeal to the country govern in defiance of its will. Such a course would be technically legal, but such a Minister would be none the less a criminal."
  Those words were written by John Richard Green. It was difficult to find in
  104
  history a parallel to the position of the Party opposite. In his early political life Unionists used to boast of being the great Constitutional Party, but he ventured to say that for generations past no Party had done so much to wreck the constitution of the country as the present Government under the leadership of the Prime Minister, who, now that his end seemed to be near, was aiming another blow at the liberties of Parliament as though he would bury himself in the ruins. Samson, with sight destroyed, pulling the idol temple about his ears, was a noble object as compared with the Prime Minister at the present moment. Blindly the right hon. Gentleman rushed on to his fate, each step apparently bringing greater disaster than the last upon the usages and constitution of the House. Whom the gods destroyed they first made mad! It might be thought that for a young Member of the House he used strong language, but he felt compelled to do so because of the crisis in which they found themselves. He had been only five years in Parliament, but all his life he had taken a deep interest in politics. Until he entered Parliament, and for some time afterwards, he looked upon the Prime Minister as a gentleman of consummate ability and the highest honour, who would hold the traditions of the House in the greatest reverence, and be prepared to protect them to the utmost extent. But as year by year passed away that beautiful vision had declined, until now only a very small shadow of it remained. Members were bound to ask themselves where this course of procedure would stop. Each session placed an additional curb on the liberties of the House, and there was nothing to prevent still further encroachments. Whatever might be necessary, in his judgment, to get through the business he chose to put forward the Prime Minister would force upon the House. No doubt as Leader of the House the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to have the disposal of tie Parliamentary time largely in his hands, but surely there were other ways of transacting business than by constantly curtailing the liberties of the House of Commons. If they went on at the present rate it would soon be an absolute

  105
  farce to call the House of Commons a representative Assembly at all.
  It was consummate mockery to say that this Resolution was moved in the interests of public business. The fact was that the Prime Minister had determined at all hazards to hold on to office, and two things were necessary to enable him to do it. The first was to hide a great deal of the mismanagement, which none would dispute, in connection with the great public services, the Estimates for which were to come under discussion. These were matters which ought to have the fullest discussion, and if they did have the fullest discussion they would certainly very seriously damage the reputation of the Ministry. Therefore full criticism must be avoided at all hazards. A second thing which the Prime Minister must achieve was to get his followers to the House in order to help him in the division lobby. It was necessary to maintain a watch on the followers of the right hon. Gentleman which it seemed impossible for his gallant Whips to attain, and, therefore, they had decided to appoint the times at which divisions would be taken. The times would be duly notified to the Government supporters, and there would be no opportunity of taking divisions other than at those particular times. He knew that that suited hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it was not consistent with the liberties and privileges of the House. It did not suit them to have full discussion upon vastly important questions of policy, and the details of the Estimates. In order to accomplish this double purpose the House was humiliated by having submitted to it the proposition which they were now discussing. It would not be consonant with his position in that House to make any appeal to the Prime Minister at that stage of the discussion, but surely there must be some Members opposite who regarded the liberties and privileges of the House of Commons as of more value than mere allegiance to Party. Their first concern should be freedom in representative institutions, and he regarded that as the very life of the House of Commons. If this method were continued he was bound to say that they might be driven, as they had been driven before, to meet brute force by brute force, cries [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, Oh!"] He
  106
  thought they would be unworthy of the name of public representatives if they parted without a most vigorous struggle with their birthright, and if they allowed themselves to be overridden by a majority which paid no regard to the liberties and traditions of the House of Commons.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid he could not help thinking that if the First Lord of the Treasury had been a little more conciliatory he would have got his Estimates through in good time. In the debate the other day his hon. friend below the gangway asked a question with regard to the, Vote of £10,000 for deferred pay, and he asked whether it was not possible to estimate the amount exactly. If the Secretary of State for War had given a satisfactory explanation he had no doubt that his hon. friend would have withdrawn his Motion and the Vote would have been passed before 7.30; but some hon. Members on the opposite side were, put up to talk the debate out. He could not understand why it was necessary to propose a Supplementary Estimate for deferred pay. He had asked the opinion of some military officers and they had told him that in their opinion it was quite possible to estimate the amount required to within one single penny. They were now engaged wasting the best part of a day considering how they could best expedite business. If the Prime Minister had made an appeal to them and told them that these Votes must be passed before March 31st, in order to comply with the law, he had no doubt that he would have got them through; or he might have suspended the twelve o'clock rule for one or two nights. The present mode of dealing with the Estimates was a most unfortunate one. Hon. Members were allowed to go on talking time after time, and he had often wondered why the Minister in charge did not move the closure. Certain matters were discussed ad nauseam and other Votes were never discussed at all. He trusted that such a Motion as this would never again be made in the House of Commons.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought that at any rate the Prime Minister might have replied to the speeches which had been made on the opposite side of the

  107
  House on this Amendment. An Amendment had been made by the Leader of the Irish Party, and he thought it was entitled to some reply. What was the right hon. Gentleman's proposition? He had made a proposal which he acknowledged himself to be absolutely unprecedented. He thought he was right in saying that before such a revolutionary change was made there ought at any rate to be some extraordinary reasons of emergency. What did the Prime Minister say? He did not say it was a question of Parliament not having been summoned earlier. Nothing of the sort. The fact was that the Prime Minister had got into the habit of first of all blundering into a certain position and then calling it a Parliamentary emergency. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to say that. It was all very well for him to say that he was prepared to apologise and stand in the white sheet of repentance, but that was not the point. Those blunders ended in fixing upon the procedure of the House what he was afraid might become a permanent restriction upon the liberty and freedom of Parliamentary debate. That was an abdication of the right hon. Gentleman's position. The right hon. Gentleman was asked in the course of the debate whether he brought a charge of obstruction against Members of the House. He was asked that because there was no other justification for so complete a reversal of the practice of the House with reference to Supply. He did not say in his speech that there had been obstruction, but in reply to an interjection he said there had. When was the obstruction? He had listened to the debates on Supply, and he ventured to say that there had been nothing in the nature of outrageous prolongation of any debate. Would the Prime Minister point to a single debate which he could so characterise, except one. It was a debate which commenced in the afternoon and the Opposition were prepared to take a division upon it at half-past seven. It referred to a small matter. There was no particular grievance they wished to raise upon it. It was a matter of £10,000 for deferred pay, and there was a Motion to reduce it by £100. Hon. Members on the other side of the House deliberately got up one after another to prevent a division being taken,
  108
  and time was wasted up to half-past seven, and afterwards the whole of the time from nine to ten o'clock. That was deliberate obstruction, but it was not conducted by Members on his side of the House. This was done by the right hon. Gentleman's own Parliamentary supporters. Was it fair, when there was obstruction on his own side of the House for the purpose of keeping him in office, that their liberties of discussion and criticism should be restricted in this wholesale fashion? But that was not the whole story. The Prime Minister delivered a speech on the night referred to. The right hon. Gentleman's attention having been called to this deliberate wasting of the time of the House, he, though responsible for getting through the business of the House, encouraged it, defended it, and invited it. He said it was perfectly justifiable and practically said, "I hope the same thing will happen again." Could the right hon. Gentleman give a single case where there had been obstruction on the Opposition side of the House? When a Parliamentary offence of that character was charged against the whole of the Opposition, the least that the accuser could do was to give particulars of the charge. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the complaint against the Opposition was not that they had prolonged debate, but that they had been too anxious to take divisions. That was true, but that was a very different thing from charging them with obstruction.
  Last year before March 15th they had fourteen days debate in Supply; this year they had had seven days up to the present, and yet the right hon. Gentleman came down with this Motion. The real reason, and the right hon. Gentleman knew it perfectly well, was that he dare not summon Parliament before. If it had been summoned one week earlier it would have served the purpose. They would have had three or four days extra discussion, but because the Parliamentary machine was ineffective they must criticise the Estimates less. The Parliamentary majority had become incapable of fulfilling their functions, and therefore they were to have less criticism. Since 1894 the Estimates had been increased by £50,000,000, and the Army Estimates, which were now to be closured, had been

  109
  almost doubled. The motto of the Prime Minister was that "the more you increase expenditure, the less you ought to criticise it." If hon. Members would look at the Motions introduced by the Prime Minister during recent years they would discover that the increase in expenditure had just kept pace with the decrease in facilities for debate. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the Army Estimates this year were totally different from those of former years. His hon. friend the Member for the Northwich Division had referred to the Army scandals revealed by the Auditor-General. When were they going to discuss these? He heard the Secretary of State for War pledge his honour and his position that there were going to be very considerable reductions in the Army Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not stand at the Table again if this reduction was not given effect to, for he was not going to outstay his welcome. Where were the considerable reductions? There was an increase of hundreds of thousands of pounds, and Parliament was not going to be allowed to discuss it, except for a few hours. There never was a case in which they ought to have more discussion, and that was the reason why the Prime Minister was going to give them less.
  Why was this restriction of debate being imposed? It was because the Prime Minister had not the confidence of his supporters to the extent that he could induce them to give him constant support. The Government were never tried of saying that the Empire depended upon their remaining in office. If that was so, how was it that the great Imperialists could not come down and support the existence of a Ministry on whom the fate of the Empire depended? It was because they did not believe it. The Prime Minister was very adroit in getting out of difficulties. He ought to be, for no man had provided himself with greater practice. But, after all, it did not prove his skill as a Leader of the House. One of the worst types of business men was the man who was the most skilful in preventing insolvency from drifting into bankruptcy. He was always fertile in resources when that stage was reached, but what puzzled any one in contemplating a man of that
  110
  kind was: Why was this fertility of resource not utilised to prevent him from arriving at that stage? In these Parliamentary tangles the Prime Minister never considered beforehand what he ought to consider—namely, what was the fair amount of time to be apportioned for the discussion of these questions. What the right hon. Gentleman did consider, however, was the amount of discussion that his supporters would stand. The right hon. Gentleman forgot not only that he was the Leader of a Party, but also that he was Leader of the House. He was establishing precedents which were dangerous; he was dealing with a purely temporary and Party difficulty by enforcing a permanent restriction of debate. The Prime Minister did not represent the majority in the House, and knew it very well. His supporters supported him not because they trusted him, but because they disliked each other. The right hon. Gentleman was a kind of buffer State; they preserved his sovereign independence because each wanted to prevent the other from annexing him. Point by point the Prime Minister had actually destroyed the liberty and the freedom of the House, and he had set precedents that could not be followed without materially impairing debate. The absence of great and independent Parliamentarians like the right hon. Member for West Bristol and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was a serious thing, for they might have been able to give guidance and to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the time had come when these things should come to an end. The Prime Minister was defending a Ministry from which he had lost every distinguished colleague. He was intrenched behind a rampart of fallen comrades. It might be that all these colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman had resigned for different reasons, probably for opposing reasons, but they had all this one impulse in common—and it was an honourable one—they were unable to follow the Prime Minister in staking the interests of the country on the Parliamentary gaming-table in order to wait and see whether something was going to turn up to retrieve the broken fortunes of the Ministry. The country was paying a high price for the Prime

  111
  Minister's position. One liberty after another in Parliament was disappearing just to save the Ministry for a few more months; one high tradition after another of public life which constituted the glory of British statesmen had gone. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] The expenditure of the country had enormously increased; there was a corrupt bargain with the brewers [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Question!"] to buy a few more months of respite, and the country was paying a high price for the dregs of the right hon. Gentleman's Premiership.
  MAJOR SEELYwho spoke amid constant interruption, said that the Prime Minister had told them that morning that he would endeavour to give the House time to discuss the Army
  Estimates. The First Lord proposed to take the Consolidated Fund Bill on March 23rd, but Vote 1 of the Army Estimates was not to be taken till March 28th, and therefore it could not be put into the Bill. It had nothing to do with complying with the law.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the business.
  Whereupon Mr. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 249; Noes, 213. (Division List No. 52.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Grenfell William Henry

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Gretton, John

  Allsopp, Hon. George

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

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hain, Edward

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

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

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hamilton. Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Harris. F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Haslum, Sir Alfred S.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Balfour. Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Chirstch.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Holder, Augustus

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford. W

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Denny, Colonel

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Beach. Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hornby. Sir William Henry

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hoult, Joseph

  Bigwood, James

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Bill, Charles

  Dyke. Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bond, Edward

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hutton, John(Yorks, N. R.)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Boulnois, Edmund

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Bousfield, William Robert

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

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Bull, William James

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Butcher, John George

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Keswick, William

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

  Forster, Henry William

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Laurie, Lieut.- General

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J, Eldon

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh(Greenwich)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (monm'th

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A (Worc.

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

  Chapman, Edward

  Greene, W. Raymond, (Cambs

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

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Percy, Earl

  Spear, John Ward

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stock, James Henry

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stroyan, John

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pym, C. Guy

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th

  Randles, John S.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Tuff, Charles

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Reed, Sir E. James (Cardiff)

  Turnour, Viscount

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Renwick, George

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

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

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton and Lyne

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

  Morgan. D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wilson, John (Glasgow

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Samuel. Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos. Myles

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Simth, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Viscount Valentia.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Smith, Rt. Hn. J. P. (Lanarks)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Caldwell, James

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cameron, Robert

  Emmott, Alfred

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Allen, Charles P.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fenwick, Charles

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Bell, Richard

  Crean, Eugene

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Benn, John Williams

  Cremer, William Randal

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Black, Alexander William

  Crombie, John William

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Blake, Edward

  Crooks, William

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Boland, John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Delany, William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Brigg, John

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Doogan, P. C.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Harwood, George

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Duffy, William J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Dunn, Sir William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Edwards, Frank

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Burns, John

  Elibank, Master of

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Ellice, Capt. E. C (S Andrw's Bghs

  Higham, John Sharpe

  114

  115

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sheehy, David

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Newnes, Sir George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Norman, Henry

  Slack, John Bamford

  Johnson, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

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

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Sullivan, Donal

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Dowd, John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E)

  Labouchere, Henry

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

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

  Lambert, George

  O'Malley, William

  Tillett, Louis John

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Mara, James

  Tomkinson, James

  Langley, Batty

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Toulmin, George

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Parrott, William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Ure, Alexander

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Perks, Robert William

  Wallace, Robert

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Levy, Maurice

  Priestley, Arthur

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Reddy, M.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Lough, Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lundon, W.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  M'Crae, George

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Roche, John

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  M'Kean, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rose, Carles Day

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Runciman, Walter

  Young, Samuel

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Russell, T. W.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Mooney, John J.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Herbert Gladstone and

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

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

  Mr. Causton.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Shackleton, David James

  Murphy, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Question put accordingly, "That the words 'in order to' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 251; Noes, 211. (Division List No. 53.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Carson, Rt. Hon, Sir Edw. H.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Cavendish, Y. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Bigwood, James

  Chamberlain. Rt. Hn J. A (Worc.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bill, Charles

  Chapman, Edward

  Auhrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bond, Edward

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

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

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Ceilings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Colomb, Rt Hn. Sir John C. R.

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

  Bull, William James

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen)

  Butcher, John George

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Campbell, Rt Hn. J A. (Glasgow

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

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

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Keswick, William

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm

  Renwick, George

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Denny, Colonel

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dewar, Sir T R (Tower Hamlets)

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)

  Roberston, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Diekson-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks. N. R

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Legge, Col. Hn. Heneage

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  Long, Col Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sandys, Lieut. -C'ol. T. Myles

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lowe, Francis William

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lucas, Col Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Forster, Henry William

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Macdona, John dimming

  Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Smith, H. C (North'ml). Tyneside

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Smith, Rt Hn. J, Parker (Lanarks

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Gorst. Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Spear, John Ward

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

  Green, Waiford D (Wednesbury

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stock, James Henry

  Gretton, John

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

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

  Stroyan, John

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Maxwell. W. J. H. (Dumfriessh'e

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Hain, Edward

  Milner. Rt Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Talbot, Rt Hn J G (Oxfd Univ.)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxtoth)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hasdam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tuff, Charles

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Tumour, Viscount

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Mount, William Arthur

  Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H (Sheffield

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords, N. W

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Henderson. Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Parkes, Ebcnezer

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Percy, Earl

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Purvis, Robert

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wylie, Alexander

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Randies, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. Denbigh)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

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

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carno

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Asquith. Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bell, Richard

  Allen, Charles P.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Benn, John Williams

  118

  119

  Black, Alexander William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Perks, Robert William

  Blake, Edward

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pirie, Duncan Y.

  Boland, John

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Brigg, John

  Johnson, John

  Reddy, M.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Joicey, Sir James

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th

  Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson Edmund (Dundee)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Burns, John

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Roche, John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Caldwell, James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cameron, Robert

  Labouchere, Henry

  Runciman, Walter

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lambert, George

  Russell, T. W.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lamont, Norman

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Cawley, Frederick

  Langley, Batty

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shackleton, David James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sheehy, David

  Crean, Eugene

  Levy, Maurice

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Crombie, John William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Slack, John Bamford

  Crooks, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lundon, W.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Delany, William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Scares, Ernest J.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  MaeNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Crae, George

  Tennant, Harold John

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Kean, John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

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

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

  Tillett, Louis John

  Elibank, Master of

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tomkinson, James

  Ellice, Capt E C (S Andrw's Bghs.

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Toulmin, George

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Emmott, Alfred

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Ure, Alexander

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Morley, Rt. Hn John (Montrose)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wallace, Robert

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Murphy, John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norman, Henry

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norton, Capt Cecil William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Dowd, John

  Wood, James

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, K.

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Harwood, George

  0'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

  Young, Samuel

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Mara, James

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Parrott, William

  John Redmond and Mr.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Churchill.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

  Original Question again proposed.
  And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow

EVENING SITTING.

  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS.
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence from this Evening's Sitting of Mr. Speaker and of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  Whereupon Mr. JEFFREYS, the Deputy-Chairman, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  NORWICH UNION LIFE INSURANCE (STAMP DUTIES).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That, in lieu of the Stamp Duties which would have been payable upon the deeds or assurances which, in case the Bill had not been passed into an Act, would have been required to pass to and vest in the Society certain property, there be charged a Stamp Duty of five pounds, and such duty shall be impressed upon the copy of the intended Act to be delivered to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies under the section of this Act the marginal note whereof is "Copy of Act to be registered."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  TRANSIT (IRELAND).
  *MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid he rose to call attention to the condition of railway and general transit in Ireland and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, excessive railway rates and defective transit facilities generally constitute a serious bar to the material advancement of Ireland, and should receive immediate attention from the Government with a view to providing a remedy therefor." He did so with the greatest diffidence, and would have much preferred that the duty of so doing had fallen upon one of his colleagues with greater knowledge of this question than he possessed. He trusted that the debate arising out of the Motion would have greater effect on the Government
  122
  than previous debates had had, although he was bound to confess he was sceptical about it. No one in Ireland, save, perhaps, the directors and managers of the railways, would deny that a change was required. Royal Commission after Royal Commission had inquired into this matter and had reported in favour of a change, but those Reports had been shelved. They were little better off than they were in 1867, when the Devonshire Commission sat, and when Sir Rowland Hill and the right hon. H. W. Monsell reported in favour of the State purchase of Irish railways. The glaring defects of the transit system from which Ireland now suffered were, first of all, high railway rates. They were higher in Ireland than in any other civilised country in the world. The rates for agricultural produce in Ireland were six farthings per ton per mile; in the United States of America and Canada the rates for the same kind of produce were one farthing, whilst the Continental rates were about two farthings per ton per mile. The rates in Ireland were higher than in England and Scotland. The average rate per ton carried by railways in England, Scotland, and Ireland had been calculated, and the calculation showed that in 1880 the rate in Ireland was 21·83 per cent, above the English and 27·13 per cent, above the Scotch rate. In 1890 it was 22·75 per cent, and 29·22 per cent., and in 1900 37·14 per cent, and 33·97 per cent, above the English and Scotch rates. Was it any wonder that Ireland was not prosperous? Not only was her Parliament taken from her by force and fraud, not only had she a bad land system, but she had the worst transit system in the world. It was a wonder Ireland existed at all.
  With regard to preferential rates he complained that the rates given by competing lines operated seriously in the matter of business against neighbouring towns not receiving a preference, and that the through rate given to foreigners gave them also a preference over the home producers. There were too many directors and managers on these railways—there was a director to every ten or twenty miles of railway, and the railways were worked in a narrow spirit with the view of squeezing out big dividends for the shareholders. If the rates were

  123
  reduced 50 per cent., as was recommended by Mr. Childers' draft Report with regard to the Financial Relations, and the lines worked on a better principle, with the view of promoting and encouraging home industries, he did not think any loss would result to the shareholders, but rather the gain to them eventually would be very great indeed, on account of the increased traffic which undoubtedly would follow, but as he recognised that it would be very difficult for private companies to make a move in that direction without assistance from the State, they would have to look for a remedy elsewhere.
  Then in comparison with foreign countries there was great delay and carelessness in transit on the Irish railways when carrying goods and live stock. No provision, for instance, was made for feeding and watering stock, no matter how long they might be detained in the wagons. In America each beast was separated and such provision was made. He also complained of unprotected loading banks for cattle. Those were some of the principal defects in the transit system of Ireland, and it would, in his opinion, be mere waste of time to go further into detail. Since he had been in the House he had frequently asked questions dealing with the transit of butter, tea, and eggs, and the high rates for their carriage and delivery, and he did not propose to cover the same ground again. He would just read what Mr. Mulhall had said in his report on Holland, written for Sir Horace Plunkett's Recess Committee—
  "The Dutch farmer can send his butter, eggs, and cheese from Groningen to London at a less cost than a Tipperary farmer can send his to Dublin."
  Then staring them in the face they had the fact that the Canadian beef, New Zealand mutton, and American bacon were not only competing with Ireland in the British market, but the home market as well, and he ventured to say that also was due in a large degree to the high rates on Irish railways. Now-a-days they heard a good deal about preferential treatment for the Colonies, but they heard not a word about justice to Ireland in the matter of transit facilities to enable the people to compete with the foreigner. The reason that foreign rates were so low was that the
  124
  State took an interest in the railways, which were a national asset. The State either owned them or subsidised and controlled them, so that they ware worked in the interests of the nation. The real remedy for this state of things was either nationalisation of railways and canals in Ireland by State purchase, or by the establishment of a popularly elected railway committee, responsible to Parliament, with large powers, to regulate traffic and to make companies work as one service. Under the existing circumstances he should not think State purchase advisable, though, with an Irish Parliament in existence, he should strongly support it. He was afraid if there was State purchase the profits made would go, like the financial relations money, into the British Exchequer. He, therefore, set aside State purchase. Then there was the proposal of Mr. Charles Smith, which was that the State should aid the railway companies to lower the rates without interfering with the management of the railways by directors, the theory being that the increase of traffic would eventually counter balance any loss which might arise in other ways. But he wished to state clearly that in any change that might take place at any time they did not want to injure the shareholders in any degree. On the contrary, whenever a change took place the Irish Party would see that their interests were safeguarded.
  So far as the canals and navigable rivers of Ireland were concerned, they were, for the most part, a negligible quantity. It was sad to see the splendid rivers in Ireland flowing idly by to the sea which could be made to play a most important part in the industrial life of Ireland. The Irish railways had killed the canal traffic. In the course of the last debate which took place upon this question they heard a great deal about individual enterprise, and motor traffic and State assistance was more than hinted at. In his constituency a motor service was to run, and the first time the car carrying goods ran it broke down, and they had never heard anything more about it. Such a thing was trifling with this great question. What was wanted was some drastic measure of reform. The two sections of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction Act dealing with this question had been practically useless, and he wanted to know what the

  125
  Government were going to do. Were they going merely to give a sympathetic answer or were they going to tackle this question. If the Government were not prepared to effect a remedy at once, he urged them to appoint a Viceregal Commission to inquire into the whole question of railway and canal traffic in Ireland, so that there might be some concise information on the matter. He trusted that when the hon. Gentleman replied he would give a plain answer to these questions, as they could no longer be put off with equivocation. He would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman now Chief Secretary rose above Party politics in this matter and inaugurated his Chief Secretaryship with a large scheme of railway reform. If he did, his name would be remembered in Ireland with respect long after he had passed away. This was a great national question, and anything that would reduce the transit rates of the country in conformity with its needs would unquestionably be of great national benefit. It would promote and encourage Irish industries, help to turn the land from grass to tillage, and it would be the means of giving more employment to the people and prevent them from migrating to foreign lands in order to get a living. That would be a great national gain, and with that object in view he begged to move the Resolution standing in his name.
  MR. MOONEYsaid that before the adjournment that evening there was one of the largest Houses that had assembled that session, but then they were only discussing a Motion for the extinction of the private Member, and that naturally would be a subject of great interest to all hon. Members of the House. At this sitting they were discussing a Motion calling attention to the condition of the railways and general transit in Ireland, and urging upon the Government the immediate necessity of taking some steps to meet the present condition of affairs. This was a much bigger question than the words of the Motion would lead one to imagine. He might be considered somewhat unorthodox, but in his opinion the mismanagement of the Irish railways was one of the greatest causes of the depopulation of that country, of the decadence of the national industries,
  126
  and the backward position which Ireland held amongst the nations of the world. The empty state of the House that evening was an indication of the amount of interest which British Members took in the affairs of Ireland. At the present moment there were only six British Members in the House, and amongst them was the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham. No doubt they would hear more of the hon. Baronet that evening, for he remembered that upon the last occasion when they discussed this question he read to them about six pages from an Australian handbook upon railways, which would have been interesting had it not been for the fact that it had nothing whatever to do with the subject. He did not intend quoting many statistics. His position was that the grievances under which the people of Ireland suffered were notorious. Attention had been directed to this question ever since the year 1837, and it had been constantly brought forward ever since that time. The Irish railways appeared to exist primarily for the benefit of the directors, secondly for the benefit of the shareholders, and the general public did not enter into the scheme at all. The Irish railways were subject absolutely to no competition, and they dictated their terms to the inhabitants, with the result that every industry in Ireland had been strangled. Two years ago a small company was formed to link up two small towns in the North of Ireland, and a most violent opposition was met with from the existing railways. In the course of the hearing of the case, with great difficulty they got the Great Southern and Western Railway Company and the directors of the Great Northern Railway Company to produce a copy of a secret agreement they had entered into delimiting their spheres, and agreeing that they would not allow anybody else to compete with them in their areas, and that if either of them made arrangements with any new railways they would pay damages to the other company. The question of dumping was very prominently before the country at the present time, but what did the House think of an agreement of that character? He did not know whether the hon. Baronet the Member

  127
  for Peckham was a pure Balfourian or a "whole-hogger."
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I am a "whole-hogger."
  MR. MOONEYsaid he hoped the hon. Baronet would turn his attention to the wholesale dumping of English produce into Ireland from England. It was cheaper to send goods from the middle of England to the West of Ireland than it was to send them from the West of Ireland to the East of Ireland. There was the case of the Galway distiller who used to buy all his barley in Ireland, but the railway charges were so heavy that he now purchased his barley from this country. They were all aware of the fact that the large breweries in Dublin, instead of sending their goods direct by rail to the North of Ireland, sent them by a circuitous over-sea and land route owing to the extraordinarily prohibitive rates charged by the railway companies. He was afraid that the Government would not move in this matter because it would reflect upon the policy adopted by Dublin Castle. They had had Commission after Commission, deputation after deputation, and debate after debate upon this question, and the only result had been that every promise which had been given to do something to remedy this state of things had been broken, and deputations had always received one stereotyped reply that the time was not yet opportune for making any changes. When they brought up specific complaints they were always referred to the Railway Commissioners, but what did the unfortunate peasant know about that body? What did the Irish peasant know about the Railway Board in England?
  They were told that they were going to be given a brand-new Board of Agriculture. A deputation went the other day to see the Vice-President of that body, and he gave them a most sympathetic reply. They were getting accustomed to these sympathetic replies in Ireland. They discovered that the Board of Agriculture had no transit department. They had a highly technical and complicated system, but the transit arrangements were handed over to a branch of the road organisation department. The House would
  128
  scarcely believe that the man appointed to look after the question of railway rates and charges in Ireland by this body was a veterinary surgeon. He wished to know whether that was a joke or not. Was it the Attorney-General's idea that the question of railway transit in Ireland should be placed in the hands of the Veterinary Department of the Board of Agriculture. The latest Report of this extraordinary body was for the year 1902–3, and the only thing he could find that they had done under the heading of railways was that they had received resolutions from local bodies expressing dissatisfaction with the charges for carriage of their produce, and suggesting that there should be an inquiry into the question of the charges made by the railway companies for conveying Irish and Continental produce to the markets. He found that this Board issued a Valuable circular in January, 1903, referring to the use of fertilisers and the question of adulteration. There was a remarkable paragraph dealing with the conveyance of eggs to the market, stating that if they had large eggs they should pack them in a large box and if they had small eggs they should be packed in a small box. That was about the sum total of the work done by this beautiful Board, which was going to inquire into and smooth over all the difficulties connected with railway transit in Ireland.
  The Chief Secretary had written about certain reforms which were to take place in connection with Irish Railways upon the Canadian model. When the Attorney-General was questioned upon this point he replied that he had no information upon the subject. If the Chief Secretary thought there was some necessity for making a change, from whom did he get the information? Was it obtained from the Irish Executive, or was it the result of his own inquiries? Somebody must know something about it, and the information at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman ought to allow him to answer that Question. Were they to believe that because four county councils in Ireland had refused to meet the promoters the whole scheme had been dropped? They wanted to know where the opposition to any scheme which would effectively deal with this question came from. He was inclined to believe that

  129
  the opposition to any reform in Irish railways came from the same section who drove the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover out of the office of Chief Secretary. A couple of years ago a gentleman connected with the railway interest in Ireland got a baronetcy, but that gentleman was largely responsible for driving out of this House the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture, Sir Horace Plunkett. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Motion or fall back upon the stereotyped reply that the time was not opportune. If it was not opportune now he wondered when it would be. They were told in former years that owing to the riots and agitation in Ireland the Government were unable to consider this question at all, but such an argument could not be advanced now because Ireland was more peaceable at the present moment than she had been for many years. He understood that the Treasury this year was in a most prosperous condition, and he was, under these circumstances, very anxious to hear what the Attorney-General would say in reply to this demand. He begged to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, excessive Railway rates and defective transit facilities generally constitute a serious bar to the material advancement of Ireland, and should receive immediate attention from the Government with a view to providing a remedy therefor."—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)
  MR. T. L. CORBETTcongratulated the hon. Member for West Limerick on his action in bringing a matter vitally affecting the future prosperity of Ireland before the House. He agreed with almost every word of the Resolution and he would have pleasure in supporting it if it went to a division. But the one thing on which he could not congratulate the hon. Member was the seconder whom he had chosen for it, because he thought that that hon. Gentleman's remarks had introduced into the debate a spirit which was not introduced into it by the mover himself, and would lead to a feeling of controversy which he
  130
  thought was entirely foreign to the, subject.
  MR. MACVEAGHthought that the hon. Member for Dublin County South did not refer to Scotchmen at all.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTreplied that his own constituents were perfectly satisfied with his nationality and his conduct in the House and he hoped the hon. Member, when he went back to his constituency, would find that those whom he represented were as entirely satisfied with him as he believed his (Mr. Corbett's) constituents were satisfied with his conduct. His object was to try to get away in dealing with a large question affecting Ireland as a whole from a spirit of Party bitterness. It was so often their fate to differ very strongly from Nationalist Members that he for one was only too eager to grasp the opportunity, in which there was all the charm of variety, of agreeing with a Resolution moved from the other side of the House. In this case there ought to be no difference among those who knew the facts of the case. Ireland was essentially a pastoral and agricultural country, and there had lately been great efforts made to improve the technical training of the farmers and to bring science to their aid. Well, that was good, but it did not go far enough. As the hon. Member for West Limerick eloquently pointed out—and he hoped very convincingly pointed out—their produce must not only have a market, but must find means of setting to that market. He wished to say nothing harsh about the management of the railways in Ireland, but he thought those who knew much about the railways of Ireland felt that their rivalries and jealousies were very short-sighted and disastrous in their results. Their charges for freight were simply enormous. He thought their system of collecting produce was most primitive and unbusinesslike. He had always believed that the best piece of work for Ireland would have been that the railways should have been purchased by the State fifty years ago. That would have done more good for Ireland than many of the controversies which had engaged so much of the attention of the people both of

  131
  Ireland and of this country during past years. He was not sure that even now it was too late to entertain that idea. He was glad that the hon. Member had also alluded to other means of transit, and he entirely agreed with every word he said about the development of canals. There was also the question which was almost daily opening up in regard to the future possibilities in the use of motorcars. The scheme of Lord Iveagh had been referred to, and he hoped they would go on with that scheme, which might do much good for Ireland. Failing that, he thought the Government ought to take it up. He hoped the motor-car system would be taken up by others or by the State and fully developed. He thanked the hon. Member for bringing a matter of such great importance before the House. He regretted that the new Chief Secretary was not present, for he felt sure that if he only took this question up with earnestness and energy he would do much to solve the question and help on the future destinies of Ireland.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNGthought that this was one of the most important questions that could come before their attention. Quick and cheap transit must certainly be necessary for the development of the resources of a country, and without it a country could not become prosperous or rich. He knew Ireland when there were no railways at all there. At that time the country was ramified with macadamised roads, and the only cost in connection with them was for their making and keeping in order. There were no syndicate profits. They were delighted then at the news that there were to be railways in Ireland, and they read the news with as much wonderment as when now-a-days they heard that in Mid.-Atlantic the passengers were able to have newspapers giving all the news of the two hemispheres. Those railways were built, but they found that they had a seamy side. They were owned by syndicates and shareholders; they ran through the richest and most populous parts of the country and left the parts perhaps most requiring facilities without any means of transit whatever. He represented a constituency which had no railways at all. There were two or three termini
  132
  on the borders of the county, but no railways ran through it, and they might travel eighteen miles one way and twenty miles the other and wonder whether there was no Government to think of the well-being of the country. There was no hope if they started creameries or industries in that county, for they could not get to the market with their produce. If railway directors were asked to extend their railways through the county they simply declared that it would not pay to do so. The remedy for this condition of things was nationalisation of the railways. The German system was very different. In 1879 Prince Bismarck commenced to reform the system that existed in that country in the interests of the people, and by adopting State ownership he increased the industrial wealth to an enormous extent, adding to the mileage, increasing the traffic, and reducing freight charges, besides earning some £11,000,000 which went in relief of taxation. Under this new system the freights were uniform, and were as well known to the people as postal charges for letters in this country. It contributed to the well-being and vitality of the German nation. The railways in that country were worked fox the benefit of the people, and not, as in this country, built on commercial principles and run for the benefit of the shareholders. Bacon said 300 years ago that "Fertile soil, busy workshops, and easy conveyance for men and commodities from one place to another were necessities for a land wishing to prosper," and that was true today. It was a question that touched the heart of a nation. They ought to devote more time to building up their country and attending to its material wants. Then they would succeed better than by spending money on matters which, in comparison, were light as air.
  SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid he had failed to hear any suggestions of a practical character put forward by the supporters of this Motion. He had had from time to time to look into the statistics of railways in all parts of the country, and he found there was no point of the United Kingdom where the difficulties of railway administration were so acute as in Ireland. The Irish

  133
  railways paid the lowest dividends of any railways in the United Kingdom, a circumstance which he attributed very largely to the fact that they carried a small quantity of goods and earned very little from the travelling public. He thought that if hon. Members opposite had been versed in the practical working of railways they would not have indulged in such sweeping condemnation of the Irish railways. With a population of less than 5,000,000, the amount earned was under £4,000,000 a year, while in Scotland, with a somewhat similar population, the total earned was £12,000,000. To secure greater economy in railway administration and to lower the rates it was necessary to increase the traffic.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked whether there were any baronial guarantees in Scotland.
  SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid he did not see the relevancy of the interruption. His point was that to secure better results there must be more traffic on the railways. The difficulty under which Irish railways worked was that while they brought produce to the coast for shipment to England they were able to secure very little return traffic, and that added very considerably to the cost of administration. He hoped hon. Members opposite would bring more clearly before the House the practical grievances of which they complained and the remedies they proposed. The Resolution did not suggest the State purchase of railways; it called for a remedy, but it did not state what that remedy should be.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that if he thought the House of Commons as a body was like the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken he would not trouble to bring any matter before it. If the hon. Member had listened to the speech of the mover of the Motion and yet declared that no practical suggestions had been made, he must be singularly incapable of taking in a plain statement as to matters of fact—a quality not wanting in Scotchmen generally. Bat perhaps the excuse was that he happened to be a railway director. It was not the business of Nationalist
  134
  Members to make practical suggestions. If they were in power and able to redress grievances it would be their duty to bring forward remedies, but, inasmuch as this Parliament insisted on governing Ireland against the people's will, all their representatives had to do was to state their grievances and leave it to the Government to devise the remedies. Where the power was, there also was the responsibility. If Irishmen were given the power they would not hesitate to accept the responsibility. But it was not true to say that no practical suggestions had been made. More eminent men than his hon. friend had suggested that the Irish railways should be managed by the State. In the draft Report of the Financial Relations Commission the late Mr. Childers suggested that an annual grant should be given to enable Irish railways to reduce their charges. His hon. friends had been taunted with want of knowledge on this subject. But it was not necessary to be a railway director to know something about railways. One could acquire by reading some knowledge about good and bad management of railways, bogus companies, and inflated dividends. He agreed with the hon. Member opposite that what was wanted was a greater production, but before they could secure that it was necessary to remove those causes by which production was hampered and almost extinguished. An interesting lesson in this matter might be drawn from Belguim which, until its independence, was full of discontent, with bad means of transit, and almost all the evils with which Ireland was now afflicted. But since it had enjoyed the inestimable blessing of governing itself it had got rid of all those evils, and had become a formidable competitor with England herself in many directions. It was true that that improvement was not brought about solely by railway reform; it was largely due to another reform to which the hon. Gentlemen opposite would doubtless not consent in the case of Ireland.
  The Attorney-General was able to assert many things, but he could not deny that, in the words of the Resolution, railway rates in Ireland were excessive and transit facilities defective; and he did not think he would deny that those facts constituted a serious bar to the material ad-

  135
  vancement of Ireland. If those points were admitted, was it not the duty of the Government to give the matter the immediate attention for which the Resolution asked with a view to providing a remedy? If the existence of grievances was admitted, what else was a Government for but to provide remedies? In conclusion, he desired to ask what had become of the Iveagh-Pirrie scheme. The announcement of that scheme had been made, and had aroused great expectations throughout the country. He ventured to say that there was not a better field in the whole of Ireland than North Dublin for such an experiment as this scheme of Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie. The Government had been asked when anything was going to be done to realise the hopes and expectations held out by the Chief Secretary in the speech to which he had referred, but nothing at all had been done in connection with the Iveagh-Pirrie scheme. He wished to know what had become of that scheme? Were they going to hear anything more of it? If it was going to be dropped, what other programme was going to take its place? He did not know whether the Attorney-General would be able to answer those Questions, but he hoped he would be able to say something on that subject, even in the absence of the Chief Secretary. The Attorney-General was able to say a good deal about Sir Antony MacDonnell in the speeches he delivered in the North of Ireland, in which he asked who was at the bottom of the devolution scheme, who baptised it, and who drafted it? If he knew so much about that subject independently of the Chief Secretary why could he not reply upon this?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,N.): I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I knew no more than he did about the devolution scheme; but I made certain surmises, which seem to have been very accurate. [Ironical NATIONALIST cheers.]
  MR. CLANCYsaid the Attorney-General had quite confirmed what he had stated. Why could he not tell them something about the Iveagh- Pirrie scheme? Why could he not give them
  136
  some information upon this point when he was able to surmise all about the MacDonnell incident? Surely Lord Iveagh had visited Dublin Castle in connection with the Sir Antony MacDonnell incident, and they ought to have some definite information as to whether this scheme was all humbug or not. He was inclined to think that it was more humbug than anything else.
  Why had the Agricultural Department not done something in this matter? That body was established for the ostensible purpose of benefiting the agricultural industry in Ireland. As far as he could see the only thing it had done up to the present was to provide £90,000 in salaries for certain persons, amongst whom was the son of an Earl who was content with a salary of about £200 a year. He presumed that this official rendered proportionate service. Why was this Department endowed with £250,000 a year? Surely it was intended that that sum should be devoted to the promotion of agriculture, and he should have thought that one of the objects to which that money would have been devoted would have been to find out better means of transit for agricultural produce to the market. What had been done by the Agricultural Department to achieve this object? As far as he could gather, nothing whatever had been done. He was aware that a very considerable amount had been added to local taxation, but nothing in the nature of a scheme for improving transit facilities had yet been heard of. He would like the Attorney-General to state what the Agricultural Department had done; whether it had done anything, and if it had not done anything what was the reason for it?
  He thought English Members were pursuing a very shortsighted policy by being absent upon occasions like this. They had been taunted from time to time with being impractical and sentimental, but these charges were generally made by men who were drawing very considerable salaries from the public purse. This Motion dealt with a question which was intimately and closely connected with the welfare of Ireland and nothing else, and nobody could contend that any political object could be gained by bringing forward this

  137
  subject. If anything, the remedies they were proposing would not benefit Nationalist supporters but Unionist shareholders. English Members on both sides of the House had carefully abstained from attending the debate upon this question, but speaking from his own Party point of view this was all the better for the Nationalist movement, and he did not expect anything else from English Members. He confessed that if the English benches were filled, as far as Ireland was concerned the effective power would be about the same. English Members either would not understand or were incapable of understanding Irish questions, and they had the curious idea that their duty was to ridicule Irish Members and their opinions and make out that Ireland had no grievances. That was a very discouraging state of affairs, but it was instructive to Ireland. It taught Irishmen to trust to themselves alone and place no faith in the good sense or the fairness of English Members. It was only the fear of the inconvenience that Irish Members could put them to that made them realise the necessity of doing something for Ireland.
  *MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he could not congratulate the hon. Member who had just sat down upon the tone of his speech.
  *MR. CLANCY: I should be very sorry if you could.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the speech of his hon. friend the Member for Renfrewshire was a most temperate and excellent contribution to the debate. [An HON. MEMBER: He fulfilled the arrangement and then left the House.] The manner in which the hon. Member opposite had treated this question was entirely wanting in taste. He wished to congratulate the hon. Member who moved the Motion upon the temperate way in which he brought the matter before the House, for there was very little in his speech to which any hon. Member could take exception. He had hoped that the debate would have been carried on in the same manner. So far as he was concerned he agreed very largely with the
  138
  terms of the Resolution before the House No doubt transit facilities in Ireland were defective, but the blame for this should not be laid entirely upon the railway companies. Most of the speeches had been directed against the railway companies, but it was only fair to give to those companies the credit which the deserved. The question before the House that night was whether they were of opinion that the whole system of transit in Ireland should be taken over by the Government, by acquiring the absolute ownership of railways and canals, or whether they should by means of subsidies help the various railway companies to earn what hon. Members opposite agreed they deserved—a fair return for their money, and, at the same time, to enable farmers and traders to send their goods from the place where they were produced to the markets in England at a more reasonable figure than they could do at present. When they came to compare the rates which producers and farmers in Ireland had to pay in sending their goods to English markets with those which were paid by traders in other countries, the comparison, he took leave to say, was fallacious. It was quite clear that where railways were owned by the State, and where the taxpayer paid the freight instead of the producer, the producer would not have so much to pay. Whether the Government of Great Britain was prepared to seriously consider the question of either subsidising Irish railways or buying them up altogether he did not know, but he imagined the question was a much larger one than hon. Members opposite seemed I to think. It seemed to him that if Irish railways were to be nationalised a demand would be forthwith made for the nationalisation of the English railways, and that hon. Members would admit was a bigger undertaking than the present Government would undertake.
  He had found that the comparisons put forward between Irish railways and other railways were misleading, inasmuch as in many cases the sea carriage was included in the through rate. When they introduced the sea carriage they upset the whole of their calculations. There was no possibility

  139
  of comparing railways in America with those in Ireland, because in America 90 per cent, of the traffic was "car load" traffic or commodities of, say, twenty tons and upwards. In Ireland only about 5 per cent, of the whole traffic came under this class, the remainder of the traffic being in small parcels. Where a railway was subsidised by the State it was quite clear they could not compare its freights with those of the Great Northern or Great Southern in Ireland. He had been moved to speak because he thought it proper that at least one Irish Member of the House should make it clear that he did not share some of the views entertained by hon. Gentlemen opposite regarding Irish railways. He admitted that the facilities were perhaps not as they should be, and he was almost inclined to agree that the railways should be made the property of the State. Certainly he went so far as to say that everything that could be done to subsidise railway companies so as to make it possible for them to give cheaper freights than they did at present would have his support.
  DR. AMBROSEsaid that some two years ago a pamphlet was issued by the Foreign Office upon the best means of transit in Continental countries, showing how the canals were managed, and what effect they had upon the railway system and the seaport towns. If instead of lecturing them the hon Member for South Antrim had read that pamphlet he would have derived far more information from it than the knowledge which he had presumed to give to the House as his own experience of railways. There were in France 10,000,000 miles of canals, and the cost had been borne by the State. During Grattan's Parliament Ireland supplied at least £1,300,000 for the making of canals, with the result that no country on the face of the globe made such rapid strides in commerce, arts, and literature as Ireland did during that period. Grattan's Parliament devoted its energies to the development of the resources of Ireland, but the English Parliament had never devoted one penny to the development of the canal system. In the seven years following the Franco- 140
  Prussian War France spent £9,640,000 on improvements connected with waterways, harbours, and maritime ports, but what had England spent upon Irish canals and ports? There was a great flutter a few years ago about the expenditure of £100,000 all over Ireland, and £70,000 of that sum was to be devoted to Westport. It was a fact that not a single sod had been turned there yet to develop a harbour, which the late Chief Secretary, who had been sacrificed upon the altar of bigotry, said would transform the province of Connaught from a congested district into a paradise. Not a penny of that sum had been spent up to the present. Recognising that one of the chief causes of prosperity in a country was the facility with which produce could be brought to market, the French Government had in recent years expended£27,000,000 upon canals and waterways, and had made provision for a further expenditure of £21,000,000 within the next sixteen years. In Ireland there had been a grant of £100,000, and even this had not been expended. He only wished he could get a sum of £1,000 or £2,000 voted for a harbour in Clare Island, but the excuse given for not granting this request was that there were only some 500 people there, He wished to know if those people were to be permanently locked up there without any proper transit facilities simply because they happened to be six miles from the mainland. On the French canals there were no tolls, and they were all free. That was one of the greatest incentives to the French peasant to develop his farm and the resources of his country. He could give similar instances in Germany, Holland, and Belgium, showing how the provision of proper transit facilities had enabled those countries to make rapid strides in the path of progress. If Ireland only got the management of its own affairs they would cease coming to the British Parliament imploring English Members who knew nothing whatsoever about Ireland to give them proper facilities for transit.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he wished to join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Limerick for the ability with which he had introduced this subject. The question raised by the Motion was

  141
  undoubtedly most important. No one could deny that it was a great disadvantage to a country to have an inadequate transit system, or that, if the railway rates were excessive to the extent of being injurious, they should be reduced. But he could not enter upon a discussion of that aspect of the question at all. At the same time it was right to say that it was most fallacious to compare the railway and canal rates of Ireland with the railway and canal rates of Continental countries, when the conditions were so different. It was desirable, no doubt, that there should be cheap and easy transit, but gentlemen who propounded schemes of reform too often forgot that there was no country which required more the investment of capital than Ireland, and that there was no more dangerous operation than to rob capital of its fruits. If they wanted to do anything by private enterprise they must depend, not upon Irish capital, but upon English capital, and he knew that in almost every instance of the guaranteed lines which were made in Ireland the capital had to be placed in this country. Take the case of the Armagh Railway which had been referred to. The Bill for that railway was supported by a petition, in which it was said that it was desirable to have lower rates of carriage, and that the railway would be a vast advantage to the district. The Bill was carried, and the capital of the company was £110,000, but out of the whole of that amount £110 was all that was subscribed in Ireland.
  An attack had been made on the Agricultural Department, and it had been alleged that it had left undone the things it ought to have done, and had done the things it ought not to have done, and that there was no health in it. The Agricultural Department, he would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, had no right to intervene simply on the ground that rates were excessive. What they had a right to do, and what they had done successfully, was to intervene and appeal to the Commissioners if a railway company was giving a preference or any unfair advantage to any class or district. The Department had bestowed much attention on a most important task, that of obtaining and diffusing knowledge
  142
  on a number of important matters. One of these was the way in which produce should be forwarded. Denmark had made enormous strides in the English market by reason of the attractive form in which it made up butter for sale. The Reports for last year, however, showed a decline in the number of parcels of Irish goods which had been rejected, and in the complaints made by merchants in England. The Department had also taken up complaints made by persons whose goods were delayed in transit. They were, in addition, endeavouring to impress upon producers in Ireland the great folly of not sending forward their goods in large bulk. Communications had also been made to railway companies regarding the loading and unloading of cattle, and arrangements intended to meet the requirements of the case had been adopted at a number of places on different railways. The Department had a large number of inspectors whose business it was to see to the loading of cattle, and they endeavoured to secure that the animals should be properly treated. They had devoted time, attention, and expense to all the subjects that had been raised, but with regard to rates they had no Coercive powers whatever, though they could make suggestions as to the making of better arrangements, the carrying of traffic in larger bulk, and its better distribution. The Department had put in force all the powers it possessed, and had thereby, he contended, conferred great benefit on the country.
  With regard to the proposed motor scheme in districts through which no railways ran, it was obvious that only a large and general scheme could be undertaken. It was considered that any such scheme would be inoperative unless heavy wagons were used, and the roads and bridges would have to be made fit to carry such traffic. Four county councils had refused to go to the necessary expense, and others did not show any disposition to do so. The result was that up to the present no further advance had been made in putting the scheme in actual operation, but it had by no means been abandoned. He hoped that the county councils would try to make arrangements

  143
  to put the roads into a proper condition to carry motor-car traffic.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked if the scheme was not to be put into operation unless all the county councils were agreed?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid it was the decision of the Department that a general scheme should be adopted.
  With reference to the other portion of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, he did not understand him to say that there should be a State purchase of Irish railways. There were conflicting opinions as to whether the railway rates in Ireland were excessive. Some people declared that having regard to the position of the country they were not. He had never applied his mind to this most important question—[An HON. MEMBER on the Irish benches: Nor to any other Irish question.]—and it deserved the attention of the Government. He could not pledge the new Chief Secretary to any particular course of action, nor give a pledge that night which would bind the Government in regard to this matter, but he would promise on their behalf that the whole subject would receive the most earnest and anxious attention.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put:" but Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid he had given great consideration to this important question. Unfortunately he had not been able to hear the early part of the discussion, but he thought that the water transit both of England and Ireland had not been developed.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL MR. T. W. RUSSELL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, excessive Railway rates and defective transit facilities generally constitute a serious bar to the material advancement of Ireland, and should receive immediate attention from the Government with a view to providing a remedy therefor.

  SOUTH AFRICA (AUTHORITY OF HIGH COMMISSIONER).
  Address for "Return of all instruments showing the nature and extent of the authority for various purposes of the High Commissioner for South Africa over and in respect of the several Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates included in British South Africa."—(Mr. Bryce.)

  RAILWAY DIRECTORS AND PARLIA MENTARY COMMITTEES.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD (): I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid he was sorry to have to trouble the House on a matter which he had already raised at Question time. He had then not received a satisfactory Answer to the Question which he had put to the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth. In anything he had to say he had no intention of making a personal attack upon the hon. Member for Wandsworth, and he did not wish to make any insinuation against him. On public grounds, however, he objected to the hon. Gentleman acting as Chairman of a Committee appointed to consider a group of Railway Bills, the hon. Baronet being a director of two railway companies and the London agent for a third. He remembered three or four years ago he happened to be on a Committee which considered a Great Southern and Western Railway Bill. On that occasion the hon. Baronet came to the Committee to preside over it; but objection was taken to him as Chairman because he was

  145
  chairman of several railway companies and the hon. Member for Camberwell, was appointed Chairman of the Committee in his place. When he read in the Order Paper on Friday last that the hon. Baronet had been selected to preside over a Committee to consider a group of Railway Bills he communicated with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, but was informed that the hon. Baronet was determined to stick to the position to which he had been appointed by the Committee of Selection. He did not consider that the Committee of Selection had displayed care in their selection of a Chairman of the Committee which was to consider this important group of Bills; and he questioned whether any other hon. Member would have had the bad taste to persist in taking the Chair after the manifestations of opinion which had been made against that course being taken. Two Members chosen to sit on that Committee had resigned, and one of these hon. Members told him that, taking all the circumstances into account, he did not think the hon. Baronet was a proper person to preside over the Committee. The hon. Baronet was a director of two railway companies, and the agent in London of a third; and if he was an archangel he could not, under these circumstances, be absolutely disinterested. There were seventy-two railway directors in the House, and, in his opinion, the House was becoming railway ridden. He complained that the Committee of Selection were not more particular in selecting the Chairman of these Committees. He did not say that the hon. Baronet had any personal interest to serve, but, as a railway director, he would be animated by a spirit of trade unionism. He held that in all the circumstances the hon. Baronet should retire from the position, and he hoped that the Committee of Selection would not allow the chairman of a railway company to take that position again.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid that as the Chairman of the Committee of Selection was unable to be present in his place that night, he had asked him to explain the practice which had generally been followed in these matters by the Committee of Selection.
  146
  It was very often very difficult to get an hon. Member to undertake the very arduous and responsible duties involved in presiding over Railway Committees. When the hon. Baronet the Member for Wands worth was asked to take this post, it was his duty to see that the hon. Member had no personal interest in the Bills to be considered. It had always been thought that it was quite within the power of a railway director, or railway shareholder, to preside over a Committee to consider a railway in another part of the country from that with which he was connected. He knew that the hon. Member was interested in a railway in India, but it never occurred to him, or any other member of the Committee of Selection, that that was a disqualification to the hon. Baronet acting on this particular Committee. The Committee of Selection did not consider that the business connection of the hon. Baronet with railways in so distant a place as India was any disqualification for his acting on a Committee on a railway in which he had no interest. The position of the hon. Baronet had never been challenged before.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Yes, my hon. friend says it was challenged.
  *SIR HENRY KIMBER: I deny it.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid that he was a member of a Railway Committee of which the hon. Baronet was nominated Chairman; but the Committee elected another member Chairman—he thought it was the hon. Member for Cambridge—and the hon. Baronet retired from the Committee and would not serve at all.
  MR. FLAVIN: He was redistributed.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid that he had no knowledge of that to which the hon. Member referred. All he could say was that the appointment of the hon. Baronet by the Committee of Selection was made in the ordinary way, and he

  147
  had been very much surprised when he heard that the appointment was objected to.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid he wished to say that on account of the hon. Baronet's connection with various railway companies he could not sit on the same Committee with him. In his opinion the hon. Gentleman would be acting more in harmony with the traditions of the House if he refrained from acting as Chairman, or even sitting as a member of the Committee to consider Group 1 of Railway Bills. He most respectfully declined to sit on a Committee under the Chairmanship of the hon. Member for Wandsworth. With any other Chairman he would be pleased to act.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid it was sometimes very difficult to say where private interest ceased and public interest began. As a matter of principle, he thought that Gentlemen who where connected with railway interests, especially if they were chairmen of railway companies, should not be Chairmen of Railway Committees. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth was a director of no fewer than three railway companies, and everybody knew that railway directors had facilities for travel given them over other lines than their own. The railway interest was a very powerful and dangerous one in that House. They could not expect that the system would be altered under the present Government, because there were twelve railway directors in the Ministry, and two of them Whips of the Tory Party. No hon. Member should sit on a Committee of whom the slightest suspicion could be
  148
  felt that he was giving his votes as a guinea-pig. The hon. Gentleman should, in his own interest and in the interest of decency and good taste, retire from the position to which he had been appointed.
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid it had been ruled by former Speakers that no discussion could take place of the personal character now indulged in by the hon. Gentleman.
  *MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that that did not prevent him pointing out that the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth held several directorships; and the whole thing reeked of corruption.
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not in order in using such language.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: said he did not wish to cast any personal imputation; but he thought it was extremely objectionable having Gentlemen connected with railways on such Committees.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that he understood that this Railway Committee was to meet to-morrow, and he desired to ask the hon. Baronet what was to be done. One member of the Committee had actually resigned; another had declined to serve; so that to-morrow the Chairman would be alone, and he could not make a Committee of himself. If the hon. Baronet persisted against the opinions of his colleagues and the House, what would happen? He would have to appear in the House and report the Member for South Westmeath. Had not the Patronage Secretary lo the Treasury sufficient trouble on his hands without raising a debate on a question of this

  149
  kind? There could be no previous Question moved there. It would lead to a debate, and to the suspension of the Irish Member if he refused to act on the Committee. He wanted to know when that debate was likely to end. He thought the Committee of Selection should look into this question, and that the Chairman of that Committee should have been present, or somebody properly qualified to represent him. He must say that the House was getting into a very serious position. The hon. Baronet admited that he was a railway director of two companies and the agent in London of another. Railway directors ought not to preside over Committees on railways, the members of which should be above suspicion.
  CAPTAIN ELLICEsaid that as a member of the Committee he was ready to serve under any Chairman appointed by the Committee of Selection. Until recently he himself had been a railway director; but when he was appointed a member of the Committee he at once sent in his resignation to the chairman of his company. He did not take that course entirely because of his appointment to the Committee, for he had been previously in communication with his chairman on the subject, but the fact that he was appointed to the Committee hastened his I resignation. He had no feeling in the matter, and was perfectly ready to serve under any Chairman.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid there seemed to be no doubt that a previous Committee declined to serve under the hon. Member for Wandsworth, and he could not help thinking that if any other Member had been
  150
  appointed in the same way by the Committee of Selection to the Chairmanship of this Committee he would have mentioned that fact to the Committee of Selection.
  MR. MALCOLMconfessed that, in his opinion, the work done by the Committee of Selection was perhaps the most important done by any other Committee of the House. It was carried on with the unanimous confidence of the House of Commons, and if that confidence was at all shaken the work done by that Committee would be, tremendously impaired. He asked his hon. friend the Member for Wandsworth to reconsider his decision to preside over this Railway Committee. He did not think the Committee would lose, or that the hon. Baronet would lose by so doing. No one would object to his being Chairman of an equally important Committee. If the hon. Baronet declined to reconsider his decision, he must say that if a question of privilege arose to-morrow afternoon out of the matter he would be obliged to throw in his lot with hon. Gentlemen opposite. He hoped that his hon. friend would think it compatible with his dignity to reconsider his position and allow his valuable services to be transferred to another Committee.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was sorry that the Chairman of the Selection Committee was too unwell to be present, and he felt a little difficulty in saying a few words on this question. As a member of the Selection Committee he would explain to the House what the position was in making appointments to Chairmanships of Committees. That was a very onerous

  151
  task put upon their shoulders. He could assure the House, and he was certain that the House would accept what he said, that their one object was to put on these Committees, Members who, as far as they could judge, would be absolutely impartial. The Selection Committee did not of themselves appoint the Chairman of Committees on railway groups. They appointed a Chairman's Panel which reported to the Selection Committee that so and so had been appointed Chairman of the Committee on such and such railway group. In selecting the Chairman's Panel only men of experience and likely to be acceptable as Chairmen were appointed-He understood that no Member of the House made any reflection on the Chairman's Panel. He believed that the hon. Member for Wandsworth had been on the Panel for two or three years, but since then some things had happened-In the first place, on a previous occasion when he had been made Chairman of the railway group he was objected to for various reasons and another Chairman elected, whereupon the hon. Member withdrew.
  *MR. BONDsaid that he had been a member of the Committee referred to by the hon. Member for Kilkenny and the hon. Member for Poplar; but so far as he could recall there was no discussion on the question of the appointment of his hon. friend as a member of that Committee; and he was appointed to the Committee on the understanding that he was to be Chairman. The hon. Baronet was not, however, appointed Chairman, but he could not charge his memory to say that he was objected to because he was Chairman of a railway company. Indeed,
  152
  he thought that was not mentioned, and that it had nothing to do with his not being appointed to the Chairmanship. It was because it was felt by the Committee that, as Irish Bills were concerned, an Irishman should be appointed to the position.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the hon. Member for Wandsworth retired from the Committee?
  *MR. BONDsaid he did not know.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that, so far as the Committee of Selection was concerned, this matter had not been brought to their notice. The fact that the hon. Baronet had been refused as Chairman of a previous Committee did not come before the Committee of Selection, and therefore in putting the hon. Baronet on the Chairman's Panel that was not in their minds. He did not remember the actual circumstances in which the hon. Baronet had been put on the Chairman's Panel. What was done in ordinary circumstances was to consider whether an hon. Member or his constituents had persona interests, in any of the Bills in the railway group. They considered the knowledge of affairs possessed by hon. Members, and the fact that the hon. Baronet was a director of an Indian railway would not, in itself, in the opinion of the Selection Committee, have made it impossible or disadvantageous for the hon. Baronet to be put on the Panel. His hon. friend said that as the hon. Member for Wandsworth was a director of two or three railway companies and the agent of another, that marked a difference in regard to his qualifications as Chairman of this particular Committee. In all these very delicate

  153
  matters of Private Bill procedure they desired that no human being should allege that there was the slightest shred of suspicion in regard to any member of a Committee, and especially in regard to the Chairman. This was a very painful subject, and he would really like his hon. friend, against whom, of course, no personal accusation was made, to withdraw from this particular position to take another.
  *SIR HENRY KIMBERsaid it was due to the House that he should make a statement, although he was at a loss to know what was the particular matter that he had to answer. He was objected to as Chairman of a Railway Committee, on the ground, as he understood, of his being, and having been for many years, to the knowledge of the House, of the public at large, and especially of the commercial community, the chairman of an Indian railway company which had been a great success and paid large profits to the benefit of the Indian exchequer and taxpayer. That was the objection. The hon. Member for Poplar had pointed out that there might be a difference. That hon. Member admitted that the fact that he was chairman of that Indian railway company was in the knowledge of the Committee of Selection when he was appointed to the Chairman's Panel; but the hon. Member thought it made a difference when he heard from the benches opposite that he was a director in two or three other railway companies. What were the facts? He was not the chairman of any railway company in England, and never had been; and only of one in India, for the second one mentioned, the Pondichery, was only a small branch of the South Indian and in French territory, and therefore nominally
  154
  a separate company; nor was he a shareholder in any English railway company. He, it was true, held a power of attorney from the board of a New Zealand railway company, and he believed that people who held that position were called agents, but it was merely a ministerial office. How, by any possibility, his position as chairman of a great Indian railway company could Subject him righteously to what on the Irish benches they had called an imputation, and what even the Member for Poplar called a suspicion, he was at a loss to conceive: and he was not disposed to give way to it. The hon. Member for Donegal had indulged in very high invectives on suspicious cases; but at the same time the hon. Member said there was no reflection on his honour. If there was not the slightest connection between an Indian railway company, 10,000 mlies away, and one of the great railway companies in England, it seemed to him there was no case for him to answer. The House might have noticed that the true secret of this personal attack—for it was a personal attack—was to be found, not in his connection with an Indian railway company or with an English railway company, but in an incident which took place last year, and which was indicated by the ejaculation from the Irish Benches just now of the word "Redistribution." It was not a question of order, but a question of personal prejudice.
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid he would remind the hon. Baronet that this was not a question of privilege, and he did not think the hon. Baronet was entitled to go into any question other than that he was a director of a railway company.
  *Sir HENRY KIMBERsaid he ventured to submit whether he was not entitled to show that there was no basis for this personal attack and to show what the real facts were.
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid he had already ruled that the hon. Baronet was not entitled to go into these other questions.
  *SIR HENRY KIMBERsaid he had shown what was the real basis of this personal attack. He held that there was no reflection on his honour. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had not attempted to prove that there was anything that could affect his personal interest or judgment in any matter which would come before the Committee. He could conscientiously comply with the only rule of the House which regulated the propriety or right of any Member to sit on a Committee. That was a declaration required from every Member of such Committees that neither he, nor his constituents, had any interest in the Bills that would come before the Committee of which he had been appointed chairman. That being so, he declined very respectfully to bow to the criterion which came from the Irish Benches, and from some English Benches, as to what was good or bad taste; and he refused to bow to the demand of the Nationalist Members that he should retire from the position of Chairman of this Committee.
  *SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he wanted to explain what was the view of the Government in this matter. The Government had never interfered with the Committee of Selection. That Committee was chosen from among the very best and most respected Members of the House; it was not moved for by him,
  156
  and it was an independent Committee. He therefore did not think the Government could be charged with interfering with it in any way. It would be a great mistake if the Government of the day did interfere with it.
  *SIR HENRY KIMBERsaid in regard to what took place on the Irish Bill, that Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and he was nominated to that Committee by the Committee of Selection. It was a Hybrid Committee, the Chairman of which was always elected by the Committee itself at its first meeting, he was not even proposed, and therefore could not have been and was not objected to on any ground as Chairman, and the hon. Member for Cambridge was selected, in which he himself concurred.
  Mr. FLAVINasked why the hon. Baronet retired from the Committee.
  *SIR HENRY KIMBERsaid he surely had a right to retire from any Committee he chose. He considered that the hon. Member for Cambridge as an Irish gentleman better qualified to act as Chairman than himself.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that nobody accused the hon. Baronet of contemplating to influence anyone in regard to this particular group of Railway Bills.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid hon. Members opposite were seeking to set up an entirely new rule for the selection of members of Committees.
  And, it being One of the clock, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at One o'clock.